Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- To help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
Is it is possible we are living in a virtual reality? If so what does this mean for our world and what sustains out word. The strange results of Quantum Mechanics is beginning to tell us something interesting about our world and the conclusions from these results will change the way we view reality.
Sources:
arxiv.org/pdf/0...
science.discove...
• Rebooting The Cosmos: ...
• A Thin Sheet of Realit...
www.nature.com/...
• Video
Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics - Max Jammer
arxiv.org/abs/0...
The Quantum Enigma - Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner
Physics and Philosophy - Werner Heisenberg
ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? - Nick Bostrom
• What We Still Don't Kn...
• SSE Talks - Quantum Me...
*If you are caught excessively commenting, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
• For the Censorship Whi...
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
![Hacking Reality [Official Film]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vJi3_znm7ZE/mqdefault.jpg)
"In Him we live and move and have our being..." Acts 17:28
This makes that verse very literal!
“Him” would imply duality, which is a product of the mortal mind, duality would not exist at absolute objective level because there is no other thing other than mind/ god/ consciousness. “It” would be better
@@R2recordEz I mean God in the bible is referred to as he even though the bible says he is beyond gender.
@@alpacamaster5992 trans???
@@randyg.7940 no probably because in Hebrew he is the default
For those who find it too much of a leap to say that modern physics is pointing to the existence of God, perhaps it would be more reasonable to say that modern physics is undermining materialism.
+thatMimosaGrove After all, if there's no material it's kinda hard to be a materialist.
+thatMimosaGrove how is there "No Material"?
+Arch Hades Top physicists have been telling us for the past 90 years that the universe is mental rather than mechanical. ( www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/436029a ) Another way of saying this is that there is no actually existing universe at all. It exists only in our minds.
According to astrophysicist Richard Conn Henry, "The difficulty is reality. Almost everyone thinks that the world is real. But we know that the world is not real. While science cannot establish that something is true, science can establish that something is not true. In fact, that is the essence of science-that hypotheses are falsifiable. Note not verifiable, falsifiable! And it is a matter of fact that we have verified that the possibility that what you are observing is a real world, can, and must, be rejected. Sir Arthur Eddington and Sir James Jeans recognized this immediately when quantum mechanics was discovered in 1925. Einstein realized it too, but feeling that it could not be true, he spent the rest of his life trying to break quantum mechanics, with complete lack of success. Anton Zeilinger and his colleagues have recently experimentally demonstrated that reality can be ruled out." www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/pdf/nature05677.pdf
Indeed! One of my best friends who is a physicist is an absolute atheist when it comes to traditional theism (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) but is an agnostic when it comes to deism, panentheism, pantheism and panendeism. He takes them ideas of God very serious and he is even developing a new theology which binds together in his own words "Darwin, Einstein and God".
Also he is the biggest anti-materialist in the world. He says it's the biggest metaphysical nonsense going and denies what reality truly is.
+Christian Existentialist Interesting. Richard Conn Henry also rejects traditional religion but considers himself a theist or deist. He has said, "I am still personally uncomfortable mentioning God. When I made the transition (2004) I composed 'Great omniscient Spirit' (GoS), to keep my notion pure, and free of the historical, often vicious, God. But I am coming to think that this is a mistake; that we scientists should be in the lead of the battle to reclaim God from the wrong-headed."
My god IP, I don't think we can ever fully appreciate the time and patience you have on your videos and comments. Seeing you give dozens of responses to really silly objections from different people, especially after you have to repeat yourself on multiple occasions, makes me amazed at what you do.
I admit I sometimes come and feel guilty knowing some of us, including myself, just don't step in and help answer some of the objections...just so you won't be all dragged down into huge comment debates.
On the positive note, I think all this "practice" has made you excellent at answering questions and giving nice simple answers
Thanks, yeah I don't know how I find the time either. I appreciate the encouragement and help as always. Don't feel guilty though, I can't even respond to everyone all the time. Sometimes i am just copy and pasting responses to the same objections by different people. And there is the atrocious grammatical errors I leave behind :/
you are absolutely right. when people try to escape God, they become stupid. period.
I do the same(copying and pasting my own responses). When called on it by one of the opposition, I state that it is perfectly acceptable to quote myself when responding to identical subject matter.
you have good points.
IP has mastered the same skills as Goebbels or Hess. Misinform and pretend to bring "facts" and "knowledge" all while he plays his youtube demographics right.
I am not saying he is a pseudo-msystic Nazi who is perpetually confused by reality (his lack of basic school training.. it's not his fault who his parents were)... he is just trying to make money off gullible Christians and that hurts nobody.
Do a video on Sean Carroll he invokes infinite unseen untestable universes that require time
We exist, we are not puppets, but consciousness interacting in the dream. Heaven doesn't exist in a place. So the question is meaningless (Luke 17:21).
Whaddo meme?
(John 14:2-3)
All powerful, All knowing, Always present, All loving, Merciful, forgiving, Just and kind. Our God.
@@InspiringPhilosophy To know that x¹ is a simulation of x, you would have to know to what extent all perceptible and conceivable elements of x¹ are an overt attempt to accurately resemble those of x. But to know that, one would have to know what the constituent, delineable features, (parts, aspects) of x are. Otherwise an accurate, not to mention valid comparison discerning the extent of similarity between x and x¹ cannot be made. For there is nothing to compare x¹ to, so the claim it is a simulation of x has no epistemological or hermeneutical basis. Compris?
@@James-ll3jb so it’s nosense?
@@CostarHQ I think you meant "nonsense."
It's indemonstrable, not nonsensical.
One of the most interesting christian channels on RUclips.
Chosen One. The funny thing is, is that we do see that. Jesus walked on the water, healed the blind, and rose from the dead!
Chosen One. Have you not seen IP’s playlist on the evidence for the resserection?
Chosen One. Obviously you did not watch the playlist. There is positive historical evidence that Jesus rose from the grave.
Chosen One. Obviously the work of anti Christian scholars from that time does matter. And if it did not matter than we essentially could not believe in anybody who have ever existed before Cameras were invented.
And it’s not just the work of scholars. Its also the Instant growth of Christianity and the miracles we see today in the name of Jesus. I have witnessed them myself.
How do you mean christian? It’s obviously Zeus he’s referring to to with the word ‘God’.
No one else but Zeus’ infinite, unfathomable mind is where the simulation of our universe takes place.
Truth of the matter:
YOU CAN'T ESCAPE GOD.
(It doesn't matter when you read this)
@A.G.C You say we can’t escape God. But God has never been demonstrated. This is not evidence for a God. This is a God of the gaps argument. One is acting like you have an answer by putting God into the equation, when God has never been demonstrated. First we need evidence of a God. Then...we have to prove that God actually creates things. So far nobody’s proven any form of God yet. So this video is nonsensical and so is your comment
We need real verified evidence of a God. This is a video based out of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Or just a bad argument for God of the gaps...lol
@@ThinkOutSideBXxs110, amazing that there's still people claiming that there's no evidence for God when we've had the evidence since the dawn of man.
@@dazedmaestro1223 no. People have made claims about God‘s. Matter fact people of made claims about hundreds of different kinds of gods. But nobody has demonstrated that there really is a God, or that God is actually the creator of anything. First you need to demonstrate that God is real which is never been done. And then we have to prove that God actually is doing it through demonstration or some form of scientific evidence. Just like radiation his been around before human beings. But we had no way to detect this invisible element called radiation. Now today we have scientific instruments that can detect that radiation actually is real and exist. Can we do that for your God? Therefore how do we demonstrate that your God is real? Otherwise you’re just making an argument from ignorance fallacy right off the bat. Which shows your lack of critical thinking skills.
@@ThinkOutSideBXxs110 God is mind and not matter so he is unobservable not observable and therefore you can't prove him through observable evidence like many unobservable scientific realities can't be. The evidence in this video is not observable but it is scientific. If God would have to be outside of this reality to create this reality how would we be able to test him imperically as if he exists inside this reality in an observable or material sense? So how would you test a creator as if it is the creation? You also make assertions like "God has never been demonstrated" but please elaborate because if you mean, is God's existence is backed up by evidence, of course it is, for example with the scientific and philosophical evidence Michael presented. If you mean, has God been demonstrated in an observable or imperically tested way? Well that wouldn't be possible just like the cause of the universe (the big bang) wouldn't be observable and wouldn't be imperically testable because it would have to be timeless and immaterial. If your curious on why God makes himself hidden in that sense (not making himself testable or revealing himself observably), he does this for many important reasons. I implore you to watch the video of his on Divine Hiddeness. Saying that, God has already revealed himself observably through the person of Jesus for other important purposes and he's given us historical evidence of his existence, ministry and his resurrection. It seems like what you count as being "real evidence" is just the standard of evidence you require to reach your virtually unreachable standard of skepticism on the existence of God. That makes me curious, why do you not have that level of skepticism for your own world view if your open minded to where the evidence leads? You should be logically consistent and apply that same level of skepticism to your own world views. Our desires/what we want to believe might have the greatest influence in what we believe and the sides we take.
@@Max-xf1mw i’ve heard that ridiculous argument before. God is mind. That is completely nonsensical, because you have to demonstrate that God is mind or part of a mind or anything of mine. Your statement Hass to be proven and that’s dumb. If your god can’t be observable then why would you believe in this imaginary thing without it being demonstrated? That’s like me saying that magical pixies created the universe but you can observe them because they’re based out of mind. You see how ridiculous that statement is. This is how delusional your whole entire comment was.
Yes I’ve seen the video on Divine Hidden, it’s basically a circular argument. This video has been destroyed by top physicist.
It’s funny, but also sad, on how you just want to believe in a God who does the most incredible hide and go seek game. But you wanna believe it out of gullibility. That is not critical thinking skills that just makes you sound gullible increasing arguments out of thin air.
Yes your God has to be demonstrated. Otherwise you’re talking about nothing except making stuff up and pulling it out of your own ass. It’s fascinating how you probably don’t believe in the other hundreds of different gods by other religions. But you seem to be confused or maybe outrage when somebody doesn’t believe in your imaginary friend.
God needs to be demonstrated. You don’t get to take God out of the observation situation, as your get out of free jail card, so you can have your cake and eat it too...lo Now you’re just being dishonest. God is real or it is Not.
Please step up to the plate and demonstrate it. Otherwise you’re talking about crap...
This argument and the cosmic conscious argument form what we may call a super-argument for God’s existence! Two features of reality that need an explanation, that cannot be physical but must be immaterial, and must be personal, gets us right back to a necessary, immaterial Mind!
The fact that our world is discrete and only has a finite number of particles and particles move in a discrete way gives even more evidence for the fact that actual infinities are impossible. This makes the beggining of the Universe more probable.
+Kyrios Iesous No it doesn't. You've got it all back to front.
If there were an infinite size to the universe *then* it would be probable for the universe to have a beginning, because infinite is a consistently rising, ever moving forwards state. That requires a starting point.
The universe has a finite number of particles, atoms etc, and there can neither be more, nor less than ever has been or is now or ever will be. *That* right there makes it virtually impossible for it to have had a beginning, because it has no starting point because it's the same size forever, always has always will always is.
Jacen Solo huh? Do you not know what heat death or the Big Bang are? Both do not posit matter is being destroyed and only one posits creation. The universe has and will have the same amount of matter under normal circumstances, only the states and distances change.
@@onecoolguy3671 indeed you are one cool guy lmao
@@onecoolguy3671 this cool guy gets it
Infinity can not be calculated
It just hit me that the truth (!) written in Genesis, which states that we are made as men and women by our great creator "in his IMAGE" makes most perfect sense when you understand the term 'image' as a mental representation (Video: "A simulation ... must be simulated in a mind")!
I always found that the common interpretation that it would mean that we're made in his 'likeness', possessing characteristics that mirror HIS own, is only part of it. Of course he made us as living, eternal souls (which interestingly can't be seen or measured within the 'realm' we live in now), so in that aspect we're indeed an image, as in 'copy', of himself.
It really is awesome how his word the bible has long spelled out all the truths that are discovered by 'sophisticated' men! The bible perfectly describes and confirms the fact/idea that this world is not material but is based on 'code' which is nothing short of HIS own Word! See:
Heb 11:3: "By faith we understand that [the ages were] framed by a word of God, so that the things being seen not to have come into being out of the things that appear."
Ps 33:6-9: "By the Word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. He gathered the waters of the sea like a heap, setting the depths in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the people of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was [done]; He commanded, and it stood."
The greatest tragedy is how we fall short in praising and obeying our holy Lord! And if you do not believe in Him, let me (rather Him) assure you, that he can really and in fact be found:
Jer 29:12-14a: "Then you shall call on Me, and you shall go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. And you shall seek Me and find [Me], when you search for Me with all your heart. And I will be found by you, says the LORD; [...]."
1Chr 28:9: "And you, Solomon my son, know the God of your father and serve Him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind. For the LORD searches all hearts and understands all the imaginations of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will be found by you. [...]"
All you need is a willing, humble heart to find him and to know where to look: Nowhere but in His own, holy Word!
Endorphins shot through my body on reading this, thanx , its how I found the father.
@@themask706
Oh I'm very glad you did :)
Thanks for your response! Praise God my friend. All the best to you!
Are you implying that "...in Our image..." is better translated as in Our imagination?
I always thought about how God is 3 in 1. And he made us with 3 in 1 too (body, mind, spirit)
@@adventures8977 could explain it to you but damn, can't think of anything dumb enough for you to understand...
This actually freaked me out. Excuse me while I go and pray for mercy.
(I'M 100% SERIOUS)
Email me through my website if you have any questions.
@@popcomepic5481 we exist.. I mean.. I exist.. That doesn't mean there are not possibly NPCs in the simulation though.. Just because our reality isn't "fundamental" doesn't mean it isnt real... Its still "real", just as the Computer Games still technically exists... Its just that the contents of the game are DERIVATIVE of something else.
@@rammingspeed5217 The NPCs are the animals
@@popcomepic5481we exist. The make of the video is a Christian. This is not to say some computer programmer made us and that we are just code but that god made us and we are technically in a simulation of gods creation. After we die in this simulation we will be in the "real plane of existence" with god
This disturbed me a bit despite being a Christian haha.
Digital Physics Argument.
P1. Simulation can only exist in a computer or in a mind.
P2. The universe is a simulation.
P3. A simulation in a computer still must be simulated in a mind.
P4. Therefore; the universe is a simulation in a mind (2,3).
P5. This mind is what we call God.
C. Therefore, God exists.
"Source" is a better word than "God"
T U R K - 1 8 2 That’s subjective just to side with your view as an atheist.
@@TURK_182 you haven't said what or who the source is. What/who is that source?
@@auxtas The source is the invisible intelligent life force in air, water, minerals, plants, humans, etc.
@@SoulfulTruth you are not being clear. Are you advocating Pantheism or Panentheism?
Not sure if relevant but the zoomed out view of the universe has a striking resemblance to nerves and synapses within the human brain
I noticed that too.
Deleuze
Hands down, this is the best simulation theory video I've seen. Excellent work
I didn't argue alone from the holographic principle, I merely mentioned it has a interesting correlation to the experimental data we already have like the fact that we have a maximum speed, quantum minima, debunking realism (Groeblacher et al. 2007; Ma et al. 2012), the illusion of space (Aspect 1982), etc. That alone shows the best inference is VR theory.
Neither, I am an orthodox Panentheist. Look up "energy essence distinction" of Gregory Palamas.
Y cling to trinity..when the upgrade to monotheism is singular ..the probability of every event is singular its 1..all designed and unfolding as decreed ...i dont know y u cant accept the teachings of Islam ..all the prophets shared the same submission to God.
"The Universe Begins to look more like a thought than a great machine"...Peace to all !
I love this guy's videos. he just gives you the information in a clear, logical manner, without all the bullshit and tells it like it is
Thanks :)
IP has helped me with the intellectual aspect of being a christian. I was raised atheist an got baptized at 25 so I transitioned from atheism pretty late in life. Before that I was a drug dealer (and user) 😊
So God is the greatest gamer of all time?
Lol!!!!
You gamers see gamers in everything.
Love it!!!
The age of faith in God is almost over. The age of living with God is about to begin. Will you be able to make the transition?
Tool :D
@@kenroy916 That's even better
Yeah that's what Paul and all the other apostles thought 2000+ years ago and every Christian since has thought the same thing. People are so gullible. They were wrong then and there's noi reason to think you are right now. It's just a pernicious delusion.
I hope you can make the transition from earth to Hell.
@@greenlantern1123 I hope some day you'll make the transition from fantasy land to the real world. Hell? Surely you jest.
I honestly think if Jesus came down and performed miracles, the atheists would claim Jesus was arguing with "god of the gaps".
+jay garrison My first train of thought actually would be to question as to whether this actually was Jesus, or just some guy with really advanced alien technology. What we see today as normal, saving someone from a heart attack for example by CPR would seem like a miracle to people 1,000 years ago (everyone thought once your heart stopped you're dead).
Jesus would have to do something much more improbable than perform miracles. It would be difficult to think of what he could do that would convince me it was a deity, so I'm going to think for a minute on what he could do, because it's conceivably possible to do a lot of what we'd call miracles today in the future with technology (maybe)
+jay garrison Jesus would have to create a planet with the snap of his fingers, and on this planet would be the world Middle Earth is on and all of its people, plant life and so on. He would have to do this instantaneously. With his fingers. Not holding onto anything.
That *might* make me think he is Jesus. Though if you've ever watched Star Trek, there is a transcendent species on that show called Q that can do that and more and there's nothing scientifically know yet that says such a thing would not be possible, just unlikely. Though still more likely than a god.
The Jesus character couldn't convince me he were the creator of this universe, but he could convince me he is the character presented in the Bible on Earth by taking me back in time to those moments and showing me. This would not convince me that he is the creator of the universe, but he could convince me is the character the Bible talks about.
+Jacen Solo
FACEPALM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boy you see this is why atheists are sure open minded.!
Now to show how stupid this guy is.
Something more improbable than a miracle?
HA!!
Theres NOTHING more improbable than a mircale... THATS WHAT MAKES IT A MIRACLE.
This is including doing an event that convinces EVEN YOU that he created the universe. Boy are you stupid.
If were going based off star trek (and i consider myself an authoriy on this subject as i have seen EVERY SINGLE EPISODE and movie)
You shouldnt be FOOLED by even THAT.
As far as you know it might not even be Q!!!!!
It could be someone else PRETENDING to be q using holodeck effects.
OR.... you could be in a holodeck.
OR.... It could be another person like Ardra in the episode "devils due"
And the fact that he could convince you that hes the person in the bible? NOOOOO
What a gullible person THIS this.
Again, he could be an other ARDRA pretending to the be the person in the bible to get people to worship them. He does NOT have to be a god OR create the universe to do that.
IF were going just on fantasy books then theres a MULTITUDE of other things that could be happening here.
And if you understood probability... and you clearly dont. The fact that there are a multitude of equally possible things (as long as they are actually equivalent) Decreases the probability of a particular event attributed to any single one of them.
Which means Q is equally probable to god if both are false and both are equal on the basis that they are false. This is why there are a ton of you atheists who claim that its just as likely that Zeus, Shiva, Loki, and a crap ton of other gods are just as likely. This would be true on the basis if they are all FALSE.
You can NOT say that q is more likely than Shiva. Im sorry you CANT. Not on the basis that they are all false.
If they are NOT solely based on the basis that they are false, then you have to look at if they are equivalent. If they AREN'T, then you have the problem that they are not equally possible.
Then you have to look at the variables that makes something more possible than not. And you do this one characteristic at a time.
The Q vs god is EASY to refute. Namely on the basis of all of the things actually being equal showing the most important variable.
And that is.... the creator of a one position admitted its false and the other does not.
This is equivalent to accepting a probability of a claim that the person who made the claim admitted its a LIE ....
VS..
A claim of someone who DOESN'T admit that its a lie...or who actually said its true.
Even if we go on the basis of absence of the verification of the claim (we cant prove that they actually said it the claim was true)
This STILL promotes a problem.
Namely there is zero value to a claim based on silence. (argument from silence fallacy)
You cannot attribute a lack of direct observation of a claim as positive or negative evidence against the claim.
Which means what exactly? It means if we have historical records from gene roddenberry that says q is real (which we dont) and we have historical records that say god is real. The fact that we cannot empirically prove either one of them means we have to go on the basis of something similar to Admission of a lie, vs a claim to truth.
If you are going to sit there and suggest that a PROVEN LIE is just as probable as one that isnt... your head is straight up your ass.
The fact that you let a fiction book ( that is not even DISPUTED that its a fiction book) tell you that its just a probable as a book that IS disputed that its a fiction book is awesome.
Q is more likely than a god? HAAAAAAAAAAA NOOOOOOO.
People do NOT argue that Q is real. The fact that the creators of Q ADMIT its fiction makes it LESS probable than ones that dont. ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.
A hypothesis that has not been falsified is by default more probable than a hypothesis that HAS BEEN falsified. It's that simple.
Following this line of reasoning, im going to claim that a butt leprechaun that i just made up shot out of my anus and went back in time and created the universe. PLEASE just ignore the fact that i just admitted that it was a farce and that i just thought it up.
If you had the people who wrote the gospels ADMIT it was a farce, then you would have an equivalence.
OTHERWISE you have a logical fallacy of composition. DUMB DUMB DUMB.
Well i guess it could be Gandalf the gray too just using awesome powers that he attained after years of evolving his magic.
Or i ll write another book about an all powerful leprechaun tomorrow. And convince the masses that it could ALSO be that too.
Im sorry. its YOU thats the gullible one.
WHat a dipshit.
Furthermore. The bible god IS the god who created the universe if hes NOT then hes NOT THE GOD IN THE BIBLE.
Like i said, the mind of the athiest is so stupid, so dogmatically closed minded that theres absoltely NOTHING that could change it.
All of the arguments like, the problem of suffering, the fact that theres a lack of emperical evidence, and so on.
NONE OF THAT MATTERS. ITs just HOT AIR because when jesus comes or ANYONE comes and demonstrates with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (the very thing they claim to want as proof) Its not sufficient AT ALL.
Wow.
Ya see? This is proof why atheists are so stupid.
+jay garrison Yep. they are ridiculous.
+tnmusicman1
I got a ton of laughs out of this guy.
This is a bitter pill for so many... When it should be joyous
Matthew Miller
I know your comment is four years old, but it hit me in the feelers. I think the sour grapes come from the negative emotional practices associated with many of the world religions.
For example, “You mean to tell me that THE God that could send me to hell for all eternity, because of a temporal infraction is real?! Oooooh sh⭐️t !!!”
It is not about a "temporal infraction." It is about being in a _state of rebellion_ against the Holy God. The evil acts you commit in this short, temporary existence on Earth are small potatoes compared to the state of your heart. Even murder can be 'fixed.' The Creator of Life can surely restore the life of one who is murdered but the heart that is rebellious against God cannot be fixed without violating the free agency the God has given us. God desires _free agents_ who _choose_ the worship Him. How he _accomplishes_ this free agency, I cannot say, but it does provide a lot of explanatory power.
You _choose_ -
to submit to God, to humble yourself, to worship only Him, to revere Him, to give gratitude to Him, to be obedient to Him, to imitate Him, to trust Him -
or you choose rebellion.
Your little act of shoplifting or whatever "small" thing(s) you think it is said of people 'this is why they are sent to Hell' is _nothing._ It is your rebellious heart, your prideful heart for which you can be sent to Hell.
I hope you do not fail to see the enormity of the issue. It is your attitude towards God that counts for eternity. All kinds of sins, big and small, can be forgiven (and fixed) - for this Christ died. But direct rejection of God, Himself (who is, btw, Christ) will not be fixed or forgiven. There is more than enough mercy available for you to escape the judgment of Hell. The true, living, loving God does not send people to Hell on a whim but because of their own free will rejection of Him.
Now you have a choice.
rubiks6
Thank you for the reply. Here are my issues regarding god and hell.
• God says, “Love me, or l’lI send you to everlasting torment.” That, to me, is love at gun point.
• A loving god that would torment, or allow one to be tormented, for eternity is not loving.
• I could be wrong, but I don’t recall the apostles teaching the doctrine of Hell in the letters, or in Acts. Such a terrible reality would surely be covered at length, but it is not. This leads me to believe that hell is a construct of the church, used as a means to an end of mind control.
• Religion asks us to suspend our reason and believe in that which can not be verified. Blind faith + hell = a raw deal for humanity. Every religion claims to be the true religion, which leads me to believe that they are ALL wrong.
To be clear, I am not a troll, I just enjoy philosophical/spiritual discourse. Thank you for your correspondence and have a good day.
IS - BE
No, I do not think you are a troll. I will do my best to give you clear and honest answers to your questions.
First, I'd like you to know with whom you are corresponding. I am no theologian. Nor am I a professional philosopher, nor a mathematician, a physicist, cosmologist, chemist, biologist, paleontologist, etc. I am a truck driver, educated thru the 8th grade. I do a lot of reading, thinking, praying and discussing, but I am no more than a layperson. I will not be able to answer all your questions in a satisfactory fashion but I'll do my best.
------------------------------------
I'll take your last point first.
You've drawn a rather incomplete picture. Faith? Hell? What about Heaven? What about sharing eternity with the Creator of the universe, of life, and of humanity? I look at what He's made and I see and read about what He's done and He seems like a pretty awesome dude to me! I also know what He's done in my life and I excitedly look forward to meeting Him face to face.
Hell? Hell would be _your_ choice, not God's.
"'Do you think that I like to see wicked people die?' says the Sovereign Lord. 'Of course not! I want them to turn from their wicked ways and live.'"
Ezekiel 18;23 (NLT)
"The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, *_he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent._* But the day of the Lord will come as unexpectedly as a thief. Then the heavens will pass away with a terrible noise, and the very elements themselves will disappear in fire, and the earth and everything on it will be found to deserve judgment.
"Since everything around us is going to be destroyed like this, what holy and godly lives you should live, looking forward to the day of God and hurrying it along. On that day, he will set the heavens on fire, and the elements will melt away in the flames. But we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth he has promised, a world filled with God’s righteousness.
"And so, dear friends, while you are waiting for these things to happen, make every effort to be found living peaceful lives that are pure and blameless in his sight.
"And remember, our Lord’s patience *_gives people time to be saved._* This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him - speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction."
2 Peter 3;9-16 (NLT) (emphasis mine)
It's not about _loving_ God, it's about getting _saved._ Your a passenger on the Titanic and the ship is going down. A crewman has told you to get on the lifeboat. You either get in or you don't. God has told you that you have rebelled against Him and His righteous demands your eternal punishment, but He has made a way for you to escape that punishment without Him having to relinquish His righteousness. It's not _hard._ You're just stubborn and arrogant, like those foolish Titanic passengers. The lifeboats were only half filled. They had plenty of room for more to survive. You don't have to love the crewman, you just have to do _what he says._
Faith? Indeed, faith, but not 'blind' faith. That there is a problem is obvious. The world is full of evil. Men do the most atrocious things to one another. If that were not enough, we also have tornados and earthquakes and many other natural disasters. Last but not least, all men die. *_All_* men die. Death is the proof that something is very wrong with this picture.
And what about the solution? God's attributes are clearly seen in the things that are made - the grand universe with it's enormity and forces, the earth and the many ways it is just right for life, the great variety of life on this earth, and finally man himself, with all of _his_ marvels God gives each of us life. He supplies us with what we need to survive. He makes the rain fall or the sun shine on both the good people _and_ the evil people because He does _not_ hate them. He allows the evil to continue because He wants people to understand how evil evil is and to turn to Him who is the _only_ source of good in the universe. Most people think they are basically good but in fact, they _are not._ Unless they are connected to the _only_ source of good in the universe, they aren't good. God can give His goodness and His righteous to you but He will not force it down your throat - that would not be good.
You are absolutely right when you say all religions are false. They are all man-made and they are all corrupt. Even Christianity has been twisted and corrupted by men. The Jews of the old testament were God's chosen people and were given clear instruction and revelation from God but what did they do? They twisted it and corrupted it and worshipped idols and were ultimately severely punished by God. Christianity is no different. The pope thinks his words are more important than God's word. Easter and Christmas are merely pagan holidays twisted and called (_called_) Christian holidays. Worshipping Mary or saints or relics? Idols, nothing more.
But the Bible is God's revelation. Read it for yourself. It says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. It's not hard to understand but men insist on hanging on to their arrogance and making things up as they go and doing things _their_ way, so sure they are smarter than God. There is, indeed, one true religion and it is in the Bible but all the other stuff that men have heaped on top of what the Bible says is just foolishness, lies, idolatry and evil.
No, God does not tell you to love Him or go to Hell. God tells you the house is on fire and you probably ought to get out. Of all the gods and religions of men, there is only one God who was willing to _die_ so you wouldn't have to. _That's_ the fella I want next to me in the foxhole. And when all the shootin''s done I think I'll be grateful to him and I think I'll love him - because He loved me first.
Blessings to you!
rubiks6
That’s an impressive story, and you are a well spoken man. It goes to show that curiosity is more important than an institutional degree. Keep up the great work.
As for me, I was a Christian for 40 years. I don’t really want to tell you why I fell away, because you seem happy, and I don’t want to ruin a good thing for you. Let’s agree to disagree.
I remember when I first came across this video, I thought poor IP just went off the deep end. Later, I actually watched the video.
HAHA, nice :) I can see that...
This was totally mind blowing! I knew for a fact that God exists, any body who disagrees are fools.
Psalm 14:1 To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.
♥ The infinite blackness of space corresponds to an imaginary blank slate, which has the potential for something to exist within it.
♥ The 'things' that exist within that imagination are thoughts, given form.
♥ As individuals we get to experience these thoughts through the 5 senses of the vehicle that is our body.
♥ These senses are fed up into our brain, and converted into thought in our mind for us to perceive.
♥ If this greater mind that is exterior to us, but which also contains us, did not flow into us continuously, we would not exist.
♥ We are the universe, experiencing itself from many different perspectives.
♥ We are one with the Force, and the Force is with us.
♥ We are in the Father, and the Father is in us.
♥ Our minds are a part of God's mind. We are very holy!
♥ Therefore, LOVE your neighbor as yourself:)
@@bullpuppy7455 None of what you just said makes any logical sense.
@@VeriStrawberi Keep practicing... And it will:)
no it doesn't
This also coincides with the fact that we find information at the root of all life. Information specifically points to an intelligence.
The concepts of spirituality suddenly take on scientific meaning.
Well, we find information "at the root of all life" because we find information at the root of everything and every process in the universe. Everything can be described as information, because information is an extremely broadly defined concept in physics. Can you even imagine a possible universe in which information does not play this same role? Probably the most fundamental thing you could say about a universe is that it's a system of information states.
@@ToxicallyMasculinelol Okay, Toxic, you dumbed it down too far. The information is a code. DNA is a code. Code must come from an intellect. In fact, a code can only ever come from an intellect. We do not find that extremely high level of complexity (so high our most brilliant scientists have barely scratched the surface to understanding it) at the root of, say, a rock, or the air, or the water. Those are elements with molecular structures we mostly understand already. We can go deeper about information in the universe, and you can decide for yourself what it all means, but it is obvious to me that we live in a creation, not a random mass of undirected elements, like atheists want you to believe.
@@Goohuman "like atheists want you to believe" isn't helpful. Atheists aren't some kind of cabal of conspirators trying to destroy religious belief. They're ordinary people stuck in the grip of a giant, intergenerational error that has influenced nearly everything about western culture. They're just regurgitating what they think they know.
You don't need to convince me to believe in God. The entire universe is a code as far as I'm concerned. None of it is explicable without a necessary personal being. But as a former atheist, I'm in a good position to know what's persuasive and what isn't. Making bad arguments for God's existence can be worse than making no argument at all.
When Bill O'Reilly famously tried to use the tides as some kind of slam dunk argument against an atheist on his TV show, it did real damage to the reputation of Christianity. It was such a dumb argument I can't help but wonder if he did it on purpose.
It set apologetics back because if someone hears such a weak argument they're going to assume that's the best we have, and are much less likely to go searching for more. They might also react with hostility, and then be less receptive even if you come to them with better arguments.
This is all beyond my intellectual capacity...
Me toooooooooo
This is definitely the most amazing video I have ever seen on RUclips. Well done.
Interesting. Hebrews says that Christ upholds all things by the word of his power.
Joshua derstine so?
+Blake Place You must be new to science, Joshua was basically hinting that the Bible supports this theory, before this theory every came into a human's mind.
new to science? how would you know?
+Blake Place In other words, all things are upheld by information. The "word of His power" a word is information.
JesusIsComing Great point!
Yes: when computer physics meets LSD. It could be true though. Reality has almost always been stranger than fiction.
+Alexander Higgins To continue, I have dreams. In these dreams I visit some massive worlds with lots of space that seem real. What is reality beside what seems real?
Well, reality would necessarily be stranger than fiction, wouldn't it?
And that includes your moms.
Computer physics meets YO MOMMA!!.. Hahaha
Excellent Video - thanks! Bottom line, the Dawkins "we do not need god because there is a simpler answer" is a dumb and insubstantial mantra of ignorance.
I have never seen Dawkins argue against this god. He may, but I would be surprised.
Claiming a god that just makes things happen because he is god an needs to further explanation is the true definition of ignorance. If you don't want to really find out how the world works, that's cool. The rest of us will move on and learn.
Only to know that it really was God who did it, and find yourself flailing against reality. The rest of us have already learned.
What happens when the intelligence who's doing the simulation decides not to do it anymore?
Peter Zsoldos Then it is God’s will to end it.
I tripped on acid years ago and I could see the pixels as plain as day.
Well, yes Raatz did help make this video. But surprisingly most haven't missed the points made. I usually get in long debates after I upload, but this hasn't happened. So it has been good :)
10:40 screen inside a screen inside a screen... I used to draw that kinda picture often as a kid, without really knowing why? The idea just fascinated me...:)
Coincidence doesnt exist in a simulated reality
@@greatestrecords3975 that's terrifying, but also refreshing
You're right, we are literally in the mind of God.
I'm generally old-fashioned regarding arguments for God, but since I started studying History and Philosophy in college, your videos make more and more sense. I watched videos like this one (introspective argument, cosmic consciousness, emergent universe...) years ago, but didn't quite understand them. Awesome!
Me after watching IP videos: Our God is an awesome God...
It seems like science is leading towards G-d. Science is proving that G-d exists.
Jacob Pinto Praise to God!
In Him we live and move and have our being.
Acts 17:28
There is no spoon.
"There is no spoon" is shorthand for saying matter is nonexistent; there is no physical universe; it is an illusion, albeit a very stable one, that exists only in our minds. This is what quantum mechanics has shown us.
its a mindbending bs
Damn It I really wanted there to be one I like spoons
@@thatMimosaGrove Absolute faith creates one's personal reality, it's just very difficult to absolutely believe outside of 'accepted reality' - but what does the Bible repeatedly tell us? Have faith.
This argument is jaw dropping. When I was a kid I thought I would have to trust God exists for my whole life...we are now proving HIS EXISTENCE! THIS IS INSANE!
Confirmation bias? Okay, you are just bias against the evidence. If the argument is wrong please offer a better explanation of the for the data that doesn't infer theism. Lack of observation doesn't disprove anything... We can't observer quarks directly, we only infer they exist. We can't observe gravity, only the effects of it. We can't observe our past evolution from an early primate, we can only infer from fossils and genetics. Does that disprove these things?
***** boi, I'm born again. I was saying insane as in "crazy cool". Sorry, I'm a nineties boy.
***** just finished watching your video on struggling with sin, very good stuff. Keep up the good work!
Also, you're right. I was kind of getting too excited ha-ha. It doesn't prove emphatically that God exists, but it is pretty strong evidence. Anyways, time for work. Cya.
I gave it in the video, and logically explains how it infers theism...
I want to take the red pill, ps i love your work.
Okay this just goes to show that I was right about you being brilliant. I've been trying to understand even the BASICS of quantum mechanics for a long time.... after a few of your videos, in less than an hour, I have gleaned a basic grasp of materialism vs. idealism, the holographic principle, the double-slit experiment,, the Einstein-whoever spooky distance thought experiment, the Kochen-Specker theorem, the quantum eraser experiment, Bell's inequality and the Leggett inequalities, their violations, how we know it's the observation itself etc.
I actually understand what you were saying! Therefore, I must go, since it's time to pick up my brain off the wall behind me since you've blown it out my skull.
Goodbye objective reality, hello mind of YHWH. I'm in awe right now. PLEASE MAKE MORE QUANTUM PHYSICS VIDEOS YOU BRILLIANT BASTARD I LOVE YOU :D
***** That is great, it means i did my job if you can understand these things :)
I am planning a video on quantum biology in July.
This is stupid video. What Brian Withworth shows is perfect consistent with idea,the universe is physical. arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf
Why there is high limit speed of light or why time slow down is simple: The reason physical computers slow down when there's a high processing demand is because they exist in three dimensional space. On a physical computer, transistors are separated by space and it takes time for electrons to travel from one transistor to another. The more information processing there is, the more space electrons have to traverse when travelling between physical transistors and therefore more time is used up. Three dimensional space is the limiting factor in classical computation, and so processing demands which manifest as a) 'mass slowing time' or b) refresh rates actually point to the existence of space.
@@sekirnik11 nope
That's just it! Satire! Satire would help us to fight off---oh, wait; Edward Current is already doing that.
@@sekirnik11 As well, the whirling of luxonic energy within the particles THEMSELVES distorts under gravity and motion, also slowing time down, with constant acceleration adding to that effect. At ground level, and in suspension, objects' particles vibrate, faster the more heavily gravity acts on them.
Honestly, I'm confused that materialism even exists. It doesn't even take quantum mechanics to appreciate that matter is just math. Physical properties are nothing in themselves, they're just variables and conditions in math problems and logic. A physical object is really only different from a computer program object in that they can directly cause (but are not themselves), first person experience in observers. And these experiences, and the minds that hold them, ARE something in themselves. This both seems to show mind over matter, and raise questions of "who's the programmer?", but also make nominalism a dead philosophy.
I think its because people are terrified of a God. Its terrifying to think a conscious being has unlimited power over everything, controls everything, has the power to destroy, create, and recreate. He has the power to do whatever he wants to you and your family. He has the power to send you into a place of eternal torment and punish you for your sins. There's nothing you can do about it. You can't stop it. Materialism seems to be the only way people can explain away the existence of a grand simulator.
The question of what is the universe is, of course, different than the question of why. I suppose so we don't think this world is the real one (Matthew 6:19-21; Luke 21:33) and that we know we are entirely dependent on Him (Acts 17:28; Colossians 1:17).
The computer simulation seems like a great analogy for what we currently know about the world, but only as an analogy that arises from our modern technological culture and cognitive frames of reference. 200 years ago, someone might have gained similar (perhaps in some aspects better) intuition by imagining the world as a big chess game or whatever was popular at the time. But the underlying reality probably remains as foreign to our minds as the concept of a computational simulation was to everyone until very recently.
I get what you're saying but I disagree. Compare something else remotely similar
This is one of the best summary videos on the topic that I have ever seen. Fantastic.
As they say: "Never get too attached to your current models/theories of reality because, as our knowledge base increases, new ones will be coming along "soon" that will alter/replace the old ones."
I am directing this (mostly) toward people who are only just considering the possibility that we may indeed be living within a naturally evolving virtual reality that was set into motion at the moment of a digital big bang, by an inconceivably intelligent and powerful universal mind. This idea can be a bit jarring for someone who holds a staunch materialist worldview of reality. (And even if the evidence becomes overwhelming, and virtual reality theory eventually becomes the predominant model of reality within mainstream science, there will still be a lot of details to work out, and we will still need to keep an open mind that we may somehow be misinterpreting the data.)
Another excellent video. Great job!
Cheers.
YoU cAnT pRoVe GoDs ExIsTs
The "simulation mind" that you refer to is the consciousness that keeps the Universe coordinated/synchronous, and has been referred to as the "Cosmic Consciousness". However, individuals have their own consciousness (read "soul"), which allows us some autonomy over our physical selves. The Universe may be a "virtual" reality but, I think you'll agree, we are fundamentally not.
The material world is the dream of God.
~ SB 4.29.83
This is the fourth time watching this video still trying to wrap mind round it wow
What the heck, I had the exact same thoughts as this video years ago in junior high when I got out of a basic chemistry class and was talking to my dad (who designs software) about a new monitor he got. I thought about each individual pixel making up the big picture and then of atoms (which I thought was the smallest unit of matter) and space making up the universe and how there is a limited number of possible moved on a chess board. I figured that there is also a limited number of possible things that can occur in the universe too but a number so huge that it wouldn't make a difference to us. But I didn't think about a simulation, I just thought God gave us a limited though functionally infinite number of physical possibilities.
Lol smart kid I was
How does the information turn into physical?
I started to get sad because I realized this world was a fantasy. It wasn't real to me because it didn't exist always, hence it was made. In God, he calls it miracle, while I called it a fantasy. I got sad, but later on I chose to see it like God sees it. I decided to see it as a miracle because if God didn't exist, this world wouldn't exist. Therefore I called this world like God does, a miracle. Thank you God.
Poor materialists. Mental-slaves who are so busy whining like teenagers about how they "hate their daddy", whist Science, day upon day, moves closer to the truth: design, creation, intelligence.
Atheism was only ever for the sheep-like masses. The powers-that-be are themselves believers in God, though they do not ascribe a specific name to him. They simply call him the "great architect".
No John, you ARE the Digimon!
But seriously this is all very interesting.
This is the closest description of the truth I have heard on RUclips. The universe emerges out of consciousness.
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The Word became flesh. “ This is how the world is made…
Starts of rather dodgy. We are observing things that indicate our world is not objectively real? Like what? You mean you just can't understand quantum mechanics.
How does space-time emerge from nothing? How would it emerge from something else? How did the time or whatever it is emerge in whatever "real" world there is?
Seriously? The quantisation of light indicates they are particles, not part of a virtual reality.
In digital processing there must be a minimum, depending on the data type. A key part of that is that there can be loads of negative values, and the minimum will often be 0.
This is not observed in reality, instead we see a non-0 minimum on most things.
As it is 3D it would be voxels. But this isn't what occurs, as these are not a 3D grid, instead they are 3D "points" that can be anywhere.
There is no indication that time and space are quantized. There are hypothetical indications of a minimum time or minimum space, but that doesn't mean it is quantised as there is no indication that you can not have a non-integer multiple of that time or space.
The space part is also complete isotropic meaning it can be in any direction, meaning it cannot be quantised in the form of voxels as you would be able to have a length smaller than the diagonals of the hypothetical voxel, which would be impossible if it really was there.
It is quite simple to show that we live in a digitial world, show that space itself is anisotropic, that is, there are "special" directions, specifically an x, y and z axis.
Alternatively, show that we live in a polar world where things are given by 2 angles and a length, that would be different arc lengths based upon the distance from the centre, or quantized angles and a special plane.
But it would be more rational to have a Cartesian rather than polar plot.
Maximum speed? Again no. There is a speed of light that matter cannot reach. However entire galaxies are moving faster than this.
And this should be one of the easier things to test the anisotropy. Light should travel at different speeds in different directions.
Another killer is that this maximum speed is relevant to any observer. If there was a real 3D virtual world your absolute maximum speed would be relative to that.
Seriously, it then goes on to pretend light is a wave when it is a particle?
Yes, objective reality cannot explain your straw-man, because it in no way indicates objective reality.
You then seem to have no idea how processors work. If you have a load that will slow down the processor, this will slow it down all over, not just in that region. The closest you would get is cutting up regions into smaller ones and just having those slowed down, but that would then have a step where being in that region causes a large slowdown, being outside it would be as if that object doesn't exist (gravitationally) which does not match observed reality.
This also means black-holes do not fit with virtual reality as explained by him. If you had a large enough mass to halt the processing, it wouldn't really matter how large the region is, so compression below a Schwarzschild radius would have no impact on the black hole formation, The region would either have enough matter to become a black hole, or it wouldn't.
This also doesn't explain why if you go inside the object, gravity weakens.
Really? All quantum objects are the same? So an electron is the same as a quark, or do you mean all electrons are the same? If so, what else would you expect?
No. They don't form a collection of circumstantial evidence. They form a collection of snake-oil where you try to pretend something fits. It doesn't.
You know something in common with string-theory and loop quantum gravity and the holographic principle, there is no proof of any of it, it is all hypothetical.
Why do things need to be close to interact for objective reality to be true?
Really? You really don't understand quantum mechanics at all. Prior to observation the matter does still exist. Having a wave-function does not mean they don't exist. By observing it you constrict the wave-function in some way.
It is also incomparable with computers. They don't show the visual image, the objects are still there, in exact locations, rather than atoms, which do still produce visual images, but when not observed to high degrees of accuracy, will have a wave-function that allows them to exist as a much large and fuzzier object, so if you look again, it is unlikely to be in the exact same place.
No. It is only by assuming that there simulation is perfect and perfectly replicates their reality that you come to the conclusion they are virtual as well. There is no reason to assume that.
Really? Why would a computer bigger than the universe be absurd and impossible to build? What are you basing that on? That it would be impossible for us to do that?
The computers that you run Sin City or whatever on, have a larger information capacity than the game you have. Additionally, it is stored in an entirely classical way. You simply dismiss the assumption because it doesn't lead where you want it to. You have no basis to dismiss it.
It is also based on the assumption that everywhere is simulated in the same detail.
Having it simulated in the mind faces the exact same problems. Replacing a computer with a mind solves nothing.
No, mind is not necessary to collapse a wave function, any form of observation does, including non-sentient or mindless observation.
Also, all minds are based upon physical objects, such as a brain.
If you damage the physical brain, you damage the mind. If the mind exists independently of a physical entity you should be able to destroy the brain yet still have the mind exist or damage the brain without any modification to the mind. This is not the case.
So Occam'z razor leads us to assume minds only exist as a process running in a physical brain (real or simulated), meaning we have no reason to assume a mind can exist outside a physical entity.
Premise 1, yes.
Premise 2, no. You have no basis for this.
Premise 3, no. You have no basis for this.
Premise 4, no. Based on faulty premise 2 and 3.
Premise 5, no. complete jump. It is not what most people call god.
Premise 6, no. Based on faulty premise 5.
So overall, not an argument at all, just manipulating facts to fit your beliefs and throwing in some extra crap to try and prove it.
"How does space-time emerge from nothing? How would it emerge from something else? How did the time or whatever it is emerge in whatever "real" world there is?"
- This is shifting the goal post from the issue at hand. The fact that is is emergent doesn't change with addition question.
"Seriously? The quantisation of light indicates they are particles, not part of a virtual reality."
-And that our world is finite and made of indivisible parts. It is limited.
"There is no indication that time and space are quantized."
-Expect for the Planck scale.
"There are hypothetical indications of a minimum time or minimum space, but that doesn't mean it is quantised as there is no indication that you can not have a non-integer multiple of that time or space."
-There is no evidence for an alternative understanding. Just being skeptical of the data is not good enough.
"Maximum speed? Again no. There is a speed of light that matter cannot reach. However entire galaxies are moving faster than this."
-Such as? Please back this one up?
"Another killer is that this maximum speed is relevant to any observer. If there was a real 3D virtual world your absolute maximum speed would be relative to that."
- And the observer has a cap on how fast one can go.
"Seriously, it then goes on to pretend light is a wave when it is a particle?"
-Quantum mechanics shows us particles have a wave particle duality. Depending on how you choose to measure you can pick which one.
"You then seem to have no idea how processors work. If you have a load that will slow down the processor, this will slow it down all over, not just in that region."
-You are misunderstanding Whitworth. He says, "On a distributed network, nodes with a high local workload will slow down, e.g. if a local server has many demands a video download may play slower than usual. Likewise a high matter concentration may constitute a high processing demand, so a massive body could slow down the information processing of space-time, causing space to “curve” and time to slow. Likewise, if faster movement requires more processing, speeds near light speed could affect space/time, causing time to “dilate” and space to extend. Relativity effects could then arise from local processing overloads."
"All quantum objects are the same? So an electron is the same as a quark, or do you mean all electrons are the same? If so, what else would you expect?"
-No one says quarks and electrons are the same, but that all electrons are the same and all quarks are the same. If OR theory were correct would would expect slight variations.
"They don't form a collection of circumstantial evidence. They form a collection of snake-oil where you try to pretend something fits. It doesn't."
-An opinion is not argument.
"You know something in common with string-theory and loop quantum gravity and the holographic principle, there is no proof of any of it, it is all hypothetical."
- Expect that I say it is theoretical data, but it describing the world and how it acts. So since science is moving in that direction are not going to support it. More is coming out every day in favor of it: www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328
"Why do things need to be close to interact for objective reality to be true?"
-it is locality. If space is not real and things cannot interact without space being a real factor, then it is just an illusion from our perspective. Sharing information can happen without distance being a factor.
"Prior to observation the matter does still exist. Having a wave-function does not mean they don't exist. By observing it you constrict the wave-function in some way."
-According to the orthodox interpretation it doesn't exist until observed, which has the most experimental support. So yes, By observing it you collapse the wave-function.
"They don't show the visual image, the objects are still there, in exact locations, rather than atoms, which do still produce visual images"
-Except they only exist as information, not as real objective objects and space, they are just an illusion when looked at.
"It is only by assuming that there simulation is perfect and perfectly replicates their reality that you come to the conclusion they are virtual as well."
-So with that you postulate a a higher reality unlike our own, with different laws of physics and a being that created us and is objectively real? That is the same as theism.
"Why would a computer bigger than the universe be absurd and impossible to build? What are you basing that on? That it would be impossible for us to do that?"
-Right, so a powerful supernatural (to us) being would have to do it (aka God).
"The computers that you run Sin City or whatever on, have a larger information capacity than the game you have. Additionally, it is stored in an entirely classical way."
-And it is not objectively real, the space and objects in Sim city are an illusion of information constructs. Not real space subject to locality.
"No, mind is not necessary to collapse a wave function, any form of observation does, including non-sentient or mindless observation."
-von Neumann showed that is not the case, it just creates a regress back to a conscious being.
"Also, all minds are based upon physical objects, such as a brain."
- This is question begging. You cannot just assume emergence is a brute fact, especially when there is no evidence for a coherent theory of emergence. As Ned Block admits in "Consciousness" "We have no conception of our physical or functional nature that allows us to understand how it could explain our subjective experience. . . in the case of consciousness we have nothing - zilch - worthy of being called a research programme, nor are there any substantive proposals about how to go about starting one. . . Researchers are stumped."
"If you damage the physical brain, you damage the mind."
-So? If idealism is true, brain damage makes sense. The information the mind processes changes if there is a loss of information it will affect how the mind functions with experience.
"If the mind exists independently of a physical entity you should be able to destroy the brain yet still have the mind exist or damage the brain without any modification to the mind. This is not the case."
-Based on? You just disconnect the mind from the experience, but that doesn't show it ceases to exist.
"So Occam'z razor leads us to assume minds only exist as a process running in a physical brain"
- I've address this more here: The Introspective Argument
*****
// This is shifting the goal post from the issue at hand. The fact that is is emergent doesn't change with addition question.//
It isn't moving the goalposts, it is simply stating that it being emergent doesn't make it any more likely to be virtual.
//And that our world is finite and made of indivisible parts. It is limited.//
No. That light is composed of particles and as such is quantised. It does not indicate our world is finite. Being made of indivisible parts has no bearing on real vs virtual.
//-Expect for the Planck scale.//
Which states minimum sizes, not quantised.
//-Such as? Please back this one up?//
If the speed of light is the maximum possible speed then, assuming the universe started as a singularity, the furthest any object can be from us is c times the age of the universe, or around 15 billion light years. The radius of the observable universe is around 45 billion light years. The only way that is possible is if entire galaxies or the like were moving faster than the speed of light.
Galaxies far enough away are travelling faster than the speed of light due to the expansion of space.
//And the observer has a cap on how fast one can go.//
How does that explain anything? If there was an absolute reference frame, as there would be in any virtual world (in order to store it and so on), then the "maximum speed" suggested to be the speed of light, would be relative to this. This is not what is observed, instead we observe it is relative to everything.
//Quantum mechanics shows us particles have a wave particle duality. Depending on how you choose to measure you can pick which one.//
Yes, quantum mechanics shows that every particle has a wave nature. This is not the same as a mechanical wave which has a speed set by the properties of the medium in which it travels.
//You are misunderstanding Whitworth.//
No I am not. You wouldn't have the slowdown observed, it would have a large step where regions with no matter (such as space) are not slowed down while regions with lots of matter (such as Earth) would be slowed down. There would be a sharp jump between the 2 where the various nodes switch over. You would also have gravity the same inside the planet, rather than dropping off as you go deeper inside.
This is nothing like gravity as we understand it. Whitworth misunderstands computers or gravity.
//No one says quarks and electrons are the same, but that all electrons are the same and all quarks are the same. If OR theory were correct would would expect slight variations. //
Not all quarks are the same. What slight variations would we expect? Can we detect these variations? Why would we expect them?
//-An opinion is not argument.//
And that is all this video is. Opinion and manipulation of facts. No arguments.
//Expect that I say it is theoretical data, but it describing the world and how it acts. So since science is moving in that direction are not going to support it. More is coming out every day in favor of it://
And saying it is theoretical doesn't mean it is.
The article you link also states that they were not investigating a universe that was the same as ours.
//it is locality. If space is not real and things cannot interact without space being a real factor, then it is just an illusion from our perspective. Sharing information can happen without distance being a factor.//
And what do we have to back up locality? What should particles only interact with those close to them, or by travelling at the speed of light?
//-According to the orthodox interpretation it doesn't exist until observed, which has the most experimental support. So yes, By observing it you collapse the wave-function.
//
Interpretations do not always match reality. What experimental support has shown that? How could they observe it to see that it doesn't exist when not observed?
By interacting with it you collapse the wave function which results in it being confined in some way, it doesn't magically make it exist.
//-So with that you postulate a a higher reality unlike our own, with different laws of physics and a being that created us and is objectively real? That is the same as theism.//
Nothing like any theism in the traditional sense. With those this god created a real, objective world, not just a simulation.
Do you think we are gods to characters in computer games?
//Right, so a powerful supernatural (to us) being would have to do it (aka God).//
No. Not a god in the traditional sense. But yes, it could be considered a god, just like we could be to characters in our games.
//And it is not objectively real, the space and objects in Sim city are an illusion of information constructs. Not real space subject to locality.
//
The point I was making was that you can have a classical computer simulating our universe.
//on Neumann showed that is not the case, it just creates a regress back to a conscious being.//
Care to state how rather than just asserting it?
Jeffrey Black "it is simply stating that it being emergent doesn't make it any more likely to be virtual."
-Hardly so, since the universe is not eternal.
"That light is composed of particles and as such is quantised. It does not indicate our world is finite. Being made of indivisible parts has no bearing on real vs virtual."
-Accept that it has limited numbers of states, which means it is computable. It is not infinite.
"Which states minimum sizes, not quantised."
-And these all these little facts start to build a cumilative case.
"If the speed of light is the maximum possible speed then, assuming the universe started as a singularity, the furthest any object can be from us is c times the age of the universe, or around 15 billion light years. The radius of the observable universe is around 45 billion light years. The only way that is possible is if entire galaxies or the like were moving faster than the speed of light."
-The problem is you are forgetting the the raid era of inflation which proceeded the big bang: www.space.com/15830-light-speed.html The speed of light is constant and no scientist doubts that now.
"Galaxies far enough away are travelling faster than the speed of light due to the expansion of space."
-There is no evidence galaxies are traveling faster than the speed of light. See this link: www.space.com/15830-light-speed.html At the big bang in the initial nanoseconds a rapid era of inflation happens and our equations break down in trying to describe it. In space-time, after the big bang the speed of light is constant.
"then the "maximum speed" suggested to be the speed of light, would be relative to this. This is not what is observed, instead we observe it is relative to everything."
-relative doesn't mean the speed of light is different for each observer, but the time for the observer. A photon is traveling the speed of light, and is timeless in its own reference frame. This doesn't mean the speed of light is different, but the time of the observer.
"it would have a large step where regions with no matter (such as space) are not slowed down while regions with lots of matter (such as Earth) would be slowed down. There would be a sharp jump between the 2 where the various nodes switch over. You would also have gravity the same inside the planet, rather than dropping off as you go deeper inside."
- No, regions without high load effects could run normal. Where as massive bodies slow down information processing causing space to curve and time to slow.
"Not all quarks are the same. What slight variations would we expect? Can we detect these variations? Why would we expect them?"
-All up quarks are the same and all down quarks are the same. There are different types of quarks but the types are equivalent. Second, we cannot technically detect quarks only regions where we think they are and we deduce their existence.
"And that is all this video is. Opinion and manipulation of facts. No arguments."
-LOL, this is ironic considering you are arguing the speed of light is not constant....
"The article you link also states that they were not investigating a universe that was the same as ours."
- You are being ad hoc, they are investigating simulations of the universe. The same mathematics applies to us. Did you read the subtitle, "A ten-dimensional theory of gravity makes the same predictions as standard quantum physics in fewer dimensions."
"And what do we have to back up locality? What should particles only interact with those close to them, or by travelling at the speed of light?"
-Nothing locality has been falsified, space is an illusion: Space Is An Illusion!
"Interpretations do not always match reality."
-This one does, do you want the experimental evidence? I can list so much… I even did a full video on it all.
"How could they observe it to see that it doesn't exist when not observed?"
-Considering they have no definite properties until an observer chooses what they will be, with as a particle or as a wave, there is no independent existence prior to this and experimental evidence backs it up (Groeblacher et al 2007; Ma et al 2012). This is what the Schrödinger equation says as well.
"By interacting with it you collapse the wave function which results in it being confined in some way, it doesn't magically make it exist."
-Interact happens because we decide to. It all stems back to the observer going down the von Neumann chain.
"Do you think we are gods to characters in computer games?"
-If the shoe fits… We created them determine their settings and can destroy them at will by pulling the plug. The only difference is we are incapable of giving them free will or consciousness.
"No. Not a god in the traditional sense. But yes, it could be considered a god, just like we could be to characters in our games."
-Right, so minimally deism follows from this argument. The second argument (cosmic conscious argument) takes us theism.
"The point I was making was that you can have a classical computer simulating our universe."
- How? You need to up back all those qubits. It would not be feasible.
"Care to state how rather than just asserting it?"
-von Neumann showed that since measuring devices are made of sub atomic particles they must all be collapsed to collapse other particles, so you need another device to collapse the device. This goes on infinitely unless you have something that is not matter which does collapse the measuring device, which is consciousness.
OMG! THANK YOU!
Just the mainframe's effort into convincing that this simulation is not a simulation. Any so called reality that has a escape mechanism Luke death is a simulation. The original world would not have such device. Machine, I am beyond convincing.
Thank you, one day, I will show this video to my atheist son. Hopefully, we can undo the damage my ex did to my son.
Mickey Turner did it work?
@@niro56 dude theres estimated to be around 4200 religions, which i asume you believe in god, that leaves you to be atheist to other 4199. That is convienient that you found the one true god isnt it?
@@VytenisR1 Or you can be a deist, the most logical of all.
@@wendigo017 yeah.. maybe in 18th century it was logical. Progress takes time
@@VytenisR1 >In 18th century it was logical
Planck, Einstein, Schrodinger, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Born, Panfield, Tesla, Mendeelev, Heisenberg and 90% of all influential scientists in last century were deists. Especially ones within fields of physics and quantum mechanics.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge - S. Hawking
Amazing input! truly appreciate the effort, this is as real as it gets & obviously for some reality as we think it can seem uncomfortable for others. Thank you 🙏
Thanks check out the update: ruclips.net/video/iFEBOGLjuq4/видео.html
I’ve been studying quantum mechanics for a few years now. This makes so much sense! Whatever. I’m going to start attending church again.
This is NOT the god of yout bible
@@chriscartwright3428 No one says this classifies theism, IP has even said it doesn't do that. He's got other videos that prove that.
@@chriscartwright3428 hahahahahaha so sensitive, and so smart you are , u know it all.
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for remission of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough for remission of some sins, not all. It wasn't infinite, unlike Jesus's. Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. The Old Testament sacrifice of animals, the spilled blood of those animals could cleanse people from some sins but not ALL, unlike Jesus's. He was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
ruclips.net/video/lbb4xwYj19g/видео.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity, check out InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
“For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
(1 Corinthians 1:19)
in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the WORD WAS GOD!
ALL things were created through Him and nothing that is made was made without Him.
If existence is an illusion than all is God that is not the God of the Bible.
You might like this: ruclips.net/video/_ie9musGEqQ/видео.html
How about explaining any one of these contradictions in the crappy word of your gawd?
thesuperstitiousnakedape.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/bible-contradictions.png
screwityoutubization ruclips.net/p/PL1mr9ZTZb3TXRZs52bpnVfiPM9TD_Ukfo
You surely have a father complex.
You cannot use the bible to prove itself. Nor do you address any of the other 490 direct contradictions found in your word of gawd..... by some gawd that can't communicate directly with people, a gawd with no evidence for proof, a gawd that answers no prayers, that hears nothing, that heals only those with lame issues and never restores an amputees missing limb. Aside from the fact that there is so much evidence showing conclusively that only lower intelligent people believe in myths and have confidence in things they can't actually verify, using faith as the touchstone of idiocy, while tossing aside logic and fact and clearly observable phenomena. These are the types that, if born in another culture, would swear on their life that ALLAH was gawd, or the cow was gawd, or the the sky is a gawd - simply due to their place of birth. Stupid sheep believe in myths taught to them by their cretinesque parents who simply pass on culture and tradition without thinking for themselves, nor being educated enough to debate themselves out of a paper bag! Educate yourself "inspiring philosphy" bahahhahahahaha.... Yeah, inspired by low intellect.
If God is The Only One... surely he is lonely ...
Earth is the video game that he created to entertain him
@Mike Swarley iF God have SON... then will begin WAR between the SON and the FATHER
@Mike Swarley we ALL have holy spirit... the proof is God Choose only Homo Sapiens become Human... others monkey can not be humans
@Mike Swarley Try to find out who Jesus is according to the Jewish people where he came from... you will find the truth
So basically God sacrificed His son (Jesus) for a videogame????
@@darmawandesign7820 So many Unsupported claims
In the Bible it even states that this world is a MATRIX.
I have a question; if this is a simulation and we are using other simulations to define this simulation, what could we possibly use to define what a 'real' world would be?
2 Corinthians 4:18- “while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.”
The spiritual realm (the immaterial world that is beyond this temporary physical world) is the “real” world, it last forever and it has no boundaries.
@@ShalemAhava how do we see the unseen?
@@ShalemAhava doesn't seeing or experiencing automatically mean it is part of the unreal/simulated?
LOL, this just made my day!
I agree with this video. When something isn't being observed or experienced, in what sense does it exist? The notion of an "objective" reality existing independently of consciousness makes no sense. God is consciousness and consciousness is God.
Hey man, thank you for the time and effort you put into these videos. I thoroughly enjoy them, and most of all, I learn. Yah bless my friend!
What may be the testable predictions from assuming that the universe is simulated in a mind?
True, and I accept that. The reason I am a pantheists is not because of this, but the Greek orthodox understanding of the "energy essence distinction". It is technically panentheism, but not the hardcore panentheism you find in process theology.
People are trying their best to dodge mentioning God at all costs
Why?
Because they are in love with evil things
Because it doesn't necessarily point to God in the way you're likely thinking. Science is not about assumptions, which unfortunately made up quite a bit in this video.
@@dwo356 Science is also not about baseless assertions which you have made
@@Navii-05 I thought it was quite clear that the video was full of assumptions. I figured the video itself was the basis for my statement. Do you find people assuming or claiming things to be something without proper evidence to be something more than assumptions? That's all I said. I never said it wasn't God. My point was simply that without really having a preconceived idea about God, such things won't lead a person to think it's God.
Great video, Annoying unnecessary distorted background music though
"If we are being simulated by future humans, then their world would have to have the same features as ours and be based on cubits." Or maybe this simulation isn't totally the same as their world. Maybe, our simulation differs from their world in certain ways.
Hermeticism pointed this out long ago, ALL IS MIND
This video is amazing. Good job man.
The inevitable conclusion of this video confirming the existence of God is still held accountable by its own logic which leads to the inevitable question "then who created God?".
Why would an omnipotent mind display traits of limitation such as processing load effects? If a god was thought-simulating the universe then his omnipotence would result in no such effects and we wouldn't experience time dilation near massive bodies.
+Richard Taylor God doesn't have to create a perfect simulation. He created a finite one limited in greatness. This is like asking why didn't Tolkien include modern technology in his imaginative world of Lord of the Rings. He didn't have to and created it to be a limited world.
+InspiringPhilosophy IP do you think that the ultimate objective reality would be heaven?
+Kyle Alander CivilianName295 Not necessarily, since I don't think it is something we experience through senses.
+InspiringPhilosophy yes but what about the new Jerusalem in the last few chapters of the book of revelation? Won't that be the ultimate objective reality? If not then what is the ultimate objective reality?
Kyle Alander CivilianName295 The ultimate reality would not be something projected, like how the ultimate reality of a computer game is not what it projects onto the screen. It is always something else.
Cool.
Pantheistic: doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations:
For me, it simply points back to ITSELF... as the only possible...
(no infinite regress of "who created the Creator" problem your incite-full video clearly points to)
...and inevitable conclusion.
....Otherwise we 're gonna need to pull ol Occam's razor from its handy sheath again...
Anyway love your videos and your channel my friend. Great work!
I suppose for now these two parts of the virtual simulation (you and I) will just have to agree to disagree and god will just have to hold two simultaneous points of view about Herself... :-)
All the best,
Tat Tvam Asi
I'm going to address this in my next video. As Richard Conn Henry and Stephen Palmquist say, "if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality… a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism."
What an amazing channel and great content, much respect! thank you !
Dude your videos are amazing! Keep it up bro. God Bless you!! :)
Apparently you have never read William Alston on this. God's knowledge is non-propositional even though we represent it ourselves as knowledge of distinct propositions. And as Craig says "Such a conception of divine knowledge has the advantage that it enables us to embrace conceptualism without committing us to an actual infinite of divine cognitions or Divine Ideas."
This is sooo good!! Thank you so much!! God bless you!! I want to translate it, send me the scripts please ;)
Sure send me an email here and I can get you the script: www.inspiringphilosophy.org
Hey +inspiringphilosophy could you do a video on Rene Descartes "I think, therefore I am" and the evil demon/deception philosophy? I am struggling with this subject and know that you could make it clear!? What do you think? God bless!1 day ago•
What about?
+inspiringphilosophy I guess the question I have is how can we know that anything is a proven fact and that something (Descartes demon) isnt just deceiving us? How can we be sure of anything and that this world isn't a trick? Like if we tried testing anything, couldn't that thing (Descartes demon) make us see the results that's he wanted us to see and deceive us even further? I know that at a time, Descartes believed that the only thing he could prove was his own existence and that he was a thinking thing. I guess what I am asking ,without sounding crazy, is how can/could I know that this world is real; my friends, family, job, etc. like how could I be sure that you are a real person responding to me and not a figment of my emagination responding? If that makes sense lol
Well, we don't, but at the same time we don't have any good reason to think it is a trick. Look up epistemic particularism. It is reply to skeptics that we only doubt our common sense and intuition unless there is good reason to. The mere possibility is not good enough.
+inspiringphilosophy I will definitely look into this! I just feel that the enemy is using this as a tool to distract my faith and give me doubts about everything... have you ever struggled with this topic when you were young in the faith. I really just need some encouragement!! You are awesome!
logan moore Yes, but there is nothing to worry about. Mere Doubt is not evidence
Disclaimer: The fact that there can be something that we can categorize as god or universal mind, does not means that suddenly the premises of judeo-christianity or any other religion are true . There is a phenomenon and the descriptive approach to it, must be based on evidence and science , though there are parallels between the knowledge in ancient metaphysical traditions and in quantum mechanics I believe that all of theism that has been generated by different cultures since the dawn of humankind, will be as alchemy is to chemistry today, meaning that finally a scientific study of different realms of information, such as the information that makes up the fabric of reality ,and the information that such a reality( ourselves included ) produces, is finally beginning to take form as an emerging discipline that will induce a paradigm shift from the current materialistic mainstream science.
You latch on one theoretical paper and assumed that it's the definite proof that the world is virtual.
It's a hypotheses. There's still no evidence of it. And even if the world is virtual, why do even assume a specific mind created it.
WTF? Did you not watch the first half of the video where I gave evidence....
*****
You do realize what it's not proven yet? All Prof. Whitworth have are thought experiments. Not exactly evidence.
At best, some scientists have proposed a method to test this hypotheses in 2012.
arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf
I'm not discounting the possibility of it but you're making a leap from that to "the world is virtual therefore a god did it".
hreaper He provided evidence which infers VR theory... such as the big bang, speed of light, etc. see the video.
Yes. Infer.
We can also infer the multiverse hypotheses. We can use logic to infer anything but to determine if any of them are real, we'll need to be able to falsify it.
It's like a crime scene. You see a dead body, a guy lying next to the body and a gun. You can infer that the guy used the gun to shoot the other person. You then need to bring the evidence to the lab to confirm it. That's falsification.
hreaper Right, and this can be shown to be improbable if the data was against it, but it is not.
And for your next trick, I suppose you're going to equate this "mind" with the god of (you guessed it) the old testament.
Yep, but that was already done: Pick Two: The Big Bang, Naturalism, Physicalism
AtheistRex HAHA! Exactly my thoughts. This video maker is trying to be smart by being "scientific" with his GOD beliefs. It's amusing.
Tru Mav And you are trying to be smart with insults and immaturity, while lacking evidence. I didn't realize God didn't exist because you know how to throw out a lame insult...
It's not immaturity. It's just what a person does when the lie their life is based on is exposed - lash out. Some will be grateful, some will be hateful. Take a look at Cain when he saw the contrast of his offering to that of Abel's.
Rod Seller Who said God "needed" to do that? How do you think God expresses his creativity? God doesn't "require" worship. He required that we have a relationship with him and if we do not then we are free to go (to a miserable existence without him). It's just that entering into a relationship with him will necessarily inspire us to worship because of his majesty and sacrifice for us (what is man that you are mindful of him) so God expressed this condition in a logically implied correlation. Worship comes from an Old English word: weorthscipe 'worthiness, acknowledgement of worth' and worth in this context means "high value or merit" and -ship means "quality or condition" which in their entirety means "the quality or condition of high value or merit" which inspires the adoration of worship by us.
But we are to devote our lives to God (as a "living sacrifice"). Do you think it is fair that God would unnecessarily sacrifice his life for us and not us for him? Secondarily, the only reason we exist and have life and energy is because he made us. Do you think it is unjust that Henry Ford used the Ford motor car to drive himself? At least we God gave us an option to reject him unlike a machine.
Gaining knowledge wasn't a sin. Apparently you didn't realize God asked Adam to create a whole organized scientific system of knowledge by naming creation. The "knowledge of good and evil" that man would obtain should it have consumed the apple implied (which can be confirmed retrospectively) that man would receive a whole list of right and wrong which would complicate life forever for man. God gave Adam and Eve one simple condition for continued residence in the Garden of Eden to satisfy the necessary condition of love which is to have the ability to reject the object of love (God - by breaking his command). You shall not eat from the tree of good and evil.
After this, things became a whole lot more complicated for mankind (as one can see from OT law) because man wanted to confound God's single simple command by playing word games where no word games need be played ("did God *really* say you shall not eat from the tree of good and evil"). My brother is studying in law school and man's devious ways to justify wrongdoing can easily be seen in their continuous form in our courts. People will ask a question, "were you alone with her?" and the person will respond "no" and later justify their response by saying one cannot be "alone" with another person. The problem is not with God. The problem is with us and God knew our intention to confuse through kicking up a verbal cloud of confusion to perpetrate evil in its shroud. God then had to create a whole system of ethics regulating everything from what we ate to what we did on a certain day. And now look at the years of study it takes to be an expert on one specific area of man's law today.
First, why?
Second, no. God is not disconnected from us having his own experience. His consciousness overlaps ours. God is not somewhere else in space observing. Space is an illusion and consciousness is fundamental. Why would God have to have His own experience?
I don't buy premise #2: that the universe is simulation, since I just don't concur with the interpretations of the given evidence. The logic given in the video is sound, but like statistics can be shaped to say what one wants them to say, just by picking the right questions, I don't agree with the chosen properties of nature here.
Then the mind WHO CREATED is GOD, YHWH THE SELF EXISTING ONE.
Yes, you can't question where did he come because he is ETERNAL, he is not affected by time, space and matter. If he is affected by time he's not God, if he is affected by space he's not God and finally if he is affected by matter he's not God. He is the beginning
"He looked at all the facts we know from experimental data. Then asked which hypothesis better fits the data, After looking through it all the conclusion was obvious, the data better fits the idea we are a virtual reality."
This is just the beginning and it is full of problems:
1. There is not enough time for a single human to go through all the experimental data.
2. If both hypothesise are wrong then it doesn't matter which one is closer if they are both wrong.
3. If the conclusion was obvious then the scientific community would agree. This is an assertion and we only have your word for it. where are the links to his peer reviewed work?
This is begins based on fallacious thinking, how can the rest be taken seriously.
My question: Are ideas based on fallacious thinking going to reveal any truth about anything? Is that not exactly what a fallacy is, bad logic?
1. Really, because Campbell and Whitworth go through a large amount of it, and plus is about inferring not proving. No one claims we need to be omniscient, but infer to which theory best explains the data. Either way, your comment doesn't refute the most logical inference...
2. Do you have a third?
3. That is an ad populum fallacy. Furthermore the overwhelming majority of those working on quantum gravity accept the need for the holographic principle.. So there is agreement space-time must be emergent...
*****
1. It makes it impossible for two men to infer which theory best explains the data, rendering your argument ridiculous.
2. The by-product of other things we know nothing about is one. But me not knowing another theory doesn't mean there are not many.
3.STOP are you claiming that an argument from authority is better than the scientific consensus? Please reconsider as this would be embarrassing.
You then claim that the overwhelming majority of those working on quantum gravity accept the need for a holographic principle.
How do you know this as the scientific consensus is not known, as string theory is not a theory but hundreds of separate hypothesises which currently have no evidence for them what so ever.
Your whole argument is based on fragile hypothesis that you have cherry picked to fit your world view. You use fallacy after fallacy to prove your argument. then charge me with fallacious thought when I pointed out what obvious means. If something is obvious then the majority of people would see it, if only a few people agree it is not obvious. Your video is a mess and your digging yourself deeper trying to explain it. Walk away, but please if you really care whether what you believe is true then do not use fallacies to prove things. Other people use your videos to demonstrate things, which means you are personally responsible for disinformation on a large scale. Simply holding a belief is not a good enough excuse. You are more than smart enough to debunk your own videos yourself, which leaves me with one conclusion, you don't care about whats true.
Robin Edwards 1. No... they did infer. And attacking them doesn't show the conclusion is wrong...
2.And not giving one means you surrender that you did not offer a more logical inference to the one already given...
3. No, I never did that. I argued from evidence. Also both loop quantum gravity and string theory depend on the holographic principle. See: A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full)
Your whole argument is a bunch of baseless assertions...
*****
1. I am not attacking them. I am explaining why your argument is based on layers of assumptions. You assume they did the work, you assume their inference was sound. ridiculously flimsy to base proof of god upon, ridiculous. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you supply assertion and assumption and claim proof. A completely dishonest claim.
2. you didn't read my post I gave one and there are many more. I then explained that my lack of knowledge does not render your argument valid.
3. Please read what an argument from authority is, you based your whole argument on the inference of two men. They could be bad scientists, they could have made bad premises as you have done. They could simply be completely wrong. This is why we have peer review to avoid massive blunders like this.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR STRING THEORY OR LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY.
Your claim that you argued from evidence is a complete and total LIE.
Referring to my refutations of your arguments as purely assertions, when your whole argument is based on assumptions and assertions is hypocrisy of the ugliest and most dishonest kind.
Robin Edwards“I am explaining why your argument is based on layers of assumptions.”
- Asserted*
“You assume they did the work, you assume their inference was sound.”
- You haven’t demonstrated why it is not…
“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
- OK I want extraordinary evidence for this claim you have just made…
“I then explained that my lack of knowledge does not render your argument valid.”
- It mainly doesn’t challenge it either… So it still stands unless an argument is offered.
“Please read what an argument from authority is,”
ok: philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html
“the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field.”
“you based your whole argument on the inference of two men.”
- Nope… I gave plenty of evidence…
“They could be bad scientists, they could have made bad premises as you have done. They could simply be completely wrong. This is why we have peer review to avoid massive blunders like this.”
- Evidence please.
“Your claim that you argued from evidence is a complete and total LIE.”
- See this video. I on;y mentioned the holographic principle once… I gave plenty of experimental evidence.
Why cant a computer exist that is bigger than the universe we know? Who says the universe is massive? It is only massive from a humans perspective. It may be the size of a pin point to a god/creator/higher power/other beings etc. I'm sure a microbe would say a golf ball was massive if it could. Perspective!!
Then that gets you to a form of theism - a massive, giant being with super intelligence, who is beyond the natural realm created our space-time.
*****
LOL you missed the point. Who says that this god/intelligence is massive? He would only be massive from your perspective. I didn't say I beleive either way, I just laugh when humans talk about size. The universe is only massive from our POV. We may one day find out that our entire universe is nothing more than a miniscule fraction of a larger space/area/universe etc. What i am getting at is, how do we know that we are not the tiny ones? What if, when we look through a microscope and see single cells as very small, and if we imagine the world of particles and atoms to be even smaller, how do we know that we are not just the next stage/ size up from that, and that our universe is merely 1 atom in another universe etc. Size means zero! Its so foolish to assume we are the smart ones so the universe must be all there is, its all to scale just for humans purpose and thier perspective must be the only perspective.
LambOfLucifer And that doesn't matter because it still entails a theistic outlook on our universe. Second, throwing out random claims of possibility doesn't change the most logical inference we have. It is possible the universe exists on the back of a giant turtle or is only 6000 years old, but that doesn't make those options likely or probable.
Probability does not come into play when your dealng with a god. Also I choose to believe that things are not random, why would space and time srping into existence out of nothing? For no reason and no purpose...and as mentioned earlier, why have a very large universe in comparison to human size and travel capabilities? I think theres more to it.
LambOfLucifer This argument begs to differ about that probability, among others I have. And of course I would agree there is more to it. Theism entails there is purpose in the universe. Glad we can agree on something.
Umm! I haven’t listened to all of the video, but what I have heard is enough for me! Do we need a ‘god’ who is a 9 year old boy switching on his computer????? The Bible provides all the information and truths I need!
You should really finish the video it agrees with you
I suggest that people watching this video go and read some real research into quantum physics. For example, the 'observer effect' that is so often misrepresented by people like this video maker, in reality does not state that subatomic particles only exist when 'observed' by a 'mind'. The actual theory states that the 'observer' in the effect is anything that collapses the waveform of the particle/wave function. The observer is ANYTHING that attempts to MEASURE the system. An observer can be anything from a photon to a measuring device, to another subatomic species. The problem that physicists did not anticipate when naming the concept 'The Observer Effect' was that laymen with odd agendas and complete misunderstanding of quantum physics would come along and assert that the 'observer' must be conscious. It is more accurately described as 'the measurer effect'.
Quantum physics is not easy to get your head around as we live in the macro, not the quantum universe. But just because something is difficult, that does not give licence to morons with odd agendas to lie to people about that subject.
And apparently you have never heard of the fact that John von Nuemann already thought of the implications of proposing that. When two photons interact they will cause collapse, but that is only because it is connected back to conscious observer. This creates a von Neumann chain, where when one photon is measured by another they entangle, which is what Bohr pointed out mathematically years ago. If one particle measures another it inherits part of it wave function, so to speak, and the particle which is supposed to be measuring cannot be fully explained without it. So you need another measuring device to collapse that one to definite state and so on and so on. This creates a chain of material objects in a superposition of measurement. Since quantum laws are what truly describe all material things some other particle always need to collapse that one. You keep going back until you get to something outside the system, a conscious observer.
On top of that advocates of the decoherence project, that interaction will cause collapse without the conscious observer, admit this cannot fully explain why there is collapse. It cannot derive the Born Rule and explain why there is only one definite outcome.
"Does decoherence solve the measurement problem? Clearly not. What decoherence tells us, is that certain objects appear classical when they are observed. But what is an observation? At some stage, we still have to apply the usual probability rules of quantum theory." - E Joos 'Decoherence: Theoretical, Experimental, and Conceptual Problems'
"Claims that simultaneously the measurement problem is real [and] decoherence solves it are confused at best." - G. Bacciagaluppi: Lecture at workshop, Quantum Mechanics on a Large Scale, Vancouver, 23 April 2003.
Even in "Preferred states, predictability, classicality and the environment-induced decoherence" Zurek refers to the observer being involved in the ultimate collapse.
perydwyn I agree, it's funny how this video is biased and twists and turns the collected facts to the favor of having a God. It's always a pattern for these nuts who think there is a God, if something cannot be explained, therefore GOD! Where the reality is the question of WHEN. When will humans wrap their minds about the theory of EVERYTHING? Because eventually, we will.
Tru Mav And you assume it must not include God, that is question begging.
***** And you assume it must include God, that is a cute pipe dream. Nice try nutjob.
Seriously. In all measurements performed under experimental conditions, the researcher does not assume consciousness on the part of the observer. An observer is literally anything that measures. The act of measurement alters the superposition, collapsing the wave function and resolving any duality of states that may (note may) exist for the measured species.
Take the following example of an actual experimental measurement:
You start with an arbitrary state vector Ψ=(1,1)*. It's a superposition of the two possibilities 'left slit' (1,0) and 'right slit' (0,1). A measurement is a physical process that projects this into an eigenstate of your observable O^ - it shaves off all components in a certain base except one. Physically, if you perform the measurement, you get e.g. (1,0), and you can say it went through the left slit. Mathematically, your new vector solves the equation O^∣∣Ψ′⟩=λ∣∣Ψ′⟩, that means it is in an eigenstate - it now has a definite value of which-slit-it-went-through.
This is the important thing about quantum mechanical measurements: You don't 'measure' in the usual sense of the word (scan something passively), you manipulate and select (or 'prepare states'). For example, in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, you don't somehow scan the spin of the electrons. You pass them through a magnetic field which brings them in to a spin eigenstate. Then you know, that the ones that go up (or down) now have spin up (or down). The observer is not conscious...it is not an 'observer' in te sense that it is simple for the non physicist to assume by the name.
The biggest problem here is using philosophy to try and muddy an already muddy subject. Quantum physics is not a realm that philosophy needs to dip it's toes into. I have friends who have studied degree level philosophy and the rubbish they are taught about quantum physics is mind boggling (and note, that in every case, it is a philosopher who attempts to explain quantum physics to them, not an actual physicist). It is dishonest to say the very least.
Great video...thank you.
InspiringPhilosophy, Thank you for making this mind blowing video ! It is among my favorite videos on RUclips. It has been a great blessing to me because it has direct bearing on the most important question in the Universe: Is this life all there is to my existence ?
With a background in Computer Science and Physics, it has always made sense that the matter and energy in the Universe are derived from something more fundamental that has always existed. Quantum mechanics shows that it is something that processes information. It makes sense that the information processing occurs at the Planck scale in space itself. It seems that the most recent attempts to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, such as String Theory, Quantum Loop Gravity, and Causal Dynamic Triangulation, point to some kind of necessary information processing elements operating at this scale that interact like entangled cells in a brain. They are platonic forms, like numbers, that have always existed and are non-material. Perhaps it is the interactions of points in space itself due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Whatever these computing elements are, they form an immense quantum cellular automata machine that computes the Universe. As IP says, it is an infinite mind. It is as if the eternal and infinite space in which our universe exists is also God's brain. If our 3 pound brain can support as impressive an intelligence as the human mind, how much more powerful must be a mind running in something so vastly more powerful as the infinite quantum vacuum. It points to an all knowing, all powerful, everywhere present, eternal being, the creator and sustainer of all reality.
Seth Lloyd is right on, the Universe is a Quantum Computer, more precisely it runs like a simulation or dream in a Quantum Brain (mind). Imagine a future version of the "Sims Game" running on an ultra powerful quantum computer with an immense memory but no external input and output like a screen. The simulated people inside this simulated reality could exist entirely within the vast memory of the quantum computer not necessarily knowing that they were being computed into existence.
As Max Planck, the Father of Quantum Mechanics said, “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. “
Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)
Of course, all of this says nothing about the most important question. Is this brief life all there is ? That is where the Gospel message and Jesus comes in. The creator has offered us the gift of an abundant and eternal life, if we accept it. He is precisely identified as the Messiah by over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament of the Bible. Information that could have only come from an all knowing being, God !
To learn more see these videos about these amazing prophecies:
ruclips.net/video/9hMuNGHKsjM/видео.html
or
ruclips.net/video/33buor5NfcU/видео.html
Heavy Weed Science
There's a lot of cool information here. But you ruin it by trying your hardest to try to use it for evidence for god. You're being dishonest about a lot of the details to make it fit your god idea better, which is lame.
Nice profile picture lol love that game.
+Stephen Kamenar
What details exactly is he being dishonest about?
+Q The most obvious example is "a mind is required to collapse a wave function"
This is actually just a lie, any interaction with the wave function will collapse it, whether it's from a mind, or a machine, or just some single particles
Stephen Kamenar
Two experiments to refute that claim outright:
- Double-Slit Experiment
- Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
Both involved variables that could only yield specific results if a conscious agent intervened. If a mind doesn't intervene, a _completely_ different set of results emerge. That phenomenon shouldn't be the case if the mind wasn't required to yield those kinds of results.
+Q Not sure where you get your information from, I guess this dude.
Both those experiments show that a mind is not required.
For example, double slit experiment: If you put any type of detector at one of the slits, it does the same thing as if a conscious mind detected it. You don't need consciousness, any simple detector will collapse it just fine
Just watched the old debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, regrettably, and now I had to watch this to cleanse my brain.
Check out the updated version: ruclips.net/video/iFEBOGLjuq4/видео.html
holy shit
If ya can't convince 'em, confuse 'em, eh?
Maybe if you listened more and studied more you would not say that dumb subject.
It would be more direct to simply tell me to shut up if I can't agree with you. to that I say... you can go where you think I'm going
But it is not confusing as from experiments that electrons do not exist until they are observed. The universe is probabilistic.
FundieFundamentals
Yes confuse the atheists with facts they despise.