Philosophy and Physics agree about God?

[_RockSlider]

MFB, the Philosopher of MDDB fame and one arm of physics seen to have a plausable theory of God.

what say yea?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4N2dKYda0

very very interesting documentary.

[_DrW]

Agree that the documentary you linked to is a good one. In fact, I thought it was very good, indeed, since it framed the concepts presented in terms of philosophy and physics, and not in terms of religion or God.

As described in the documentary, the idea that consciousness gives rise to our 'reality', and is necessary for matter to exist, is certainly not new. Aside from the scientific papers cited in the documentary, there have been any number of books written by scientists for the lay individual interested in this idea.

Examples include: The Matter Myth (1992) and The Holographic Universe (2011).

A similarly titled book (that veers off into the pseudoscientific),The Conscious Universe (1997), exploits the idea of a universal consciousness in an attempt to explain and validate psychic phenomena such as ESP, etc.

Although unaware of any specific examples at this point, there probably are, or no doubt will be, popular books that link the idea presented in the documentary to religion and a yet-again re-invented magical deity or deities.

[_mikwut]

DrW,

Although unaware of any specific examples at this point, there probably are, or no doubt will be, popular books that link the idea presented in the documentary to religion and a yet-again re-invented magical deity or deities.

The documentary is presenting an argument for idealism (via information) as more likely than materialism. This is not "re-invented" this is what the vast majority of philosophers have argued for centuries. Quntum physics allows for an interpretation that is consistent with idealism and therefore mind as fundamental and not matter. How is that re-inventing anything? That is demonstrating evidence for a position that has always been argued for.

Clearly if a mind is the ground of reality God is not presumptively non-existent as the material presumption makes God.

mikwut

[_DrW]

DrW,

Although unaware of any specific examples at this point, there probably are, or no doubt will be, popular books that link the idea presented in the documentary to religion and a yet-again re-invented magical deity or deities.

The documentary is presenting an argument for idealism (via information) as more likely than materialism. This is not "re-invented" this is what the vast majority of philosophers have argued for centuries. Quntum physics allows for an interpretation that is consistent with idealism and therefore mind as fundamental and not matter. How is that re-inventing anything? That is demonstrating evidence for a position that has always been argued for.

Clearly if a mind is the ground of reality God is not presumptively non-existent as the material presumption makes God.

mikwut

mikwut,

Please don't misunderstand. I have no qualms with the philosophy and physics presented in the documentary. The concept has been familiar to me since my first quantum mechanics class in the early 1970s, and I have tried to read enough to keep abreast of advances since then. My only comment in this regard would be that many more of the observations in physics are now seen as supportive of the idealism described (the universe as information, or the holographic universe), than was the case some 40 years ago.

The point I was trying to make is that biblical religionists who envision their supreme deity as an anthropomorphic being with supernatural powers who impregnates a human by magic to bear the savior of the world, are going to need to re-invent their image of their God. Because God, as currently described and worshiped by Christians (and Muslims as well, for that matter) simply cannot exist.

[Guest]

DrW,

Please don't misunderstand. I have no qualms with the philosophy and physics presented in the documentary. This viewpoint has been familiar to me since my first quantum mechanics class in the early 1970s. Although many more of the observations in physics are now seen as supportive of idealism, or the universe as information, than was the case some 40 years ago.

This is interesting, every interaction I have had with you on this board and most every post I have read of yours comes from a seemingly staunchly materialist/physicalist perspective. The God question is not the same from a idealist lens as from a physicalist one. Are you aware of those implications?

The point I was trying to make is that biblical religionists who envision their supreme deity as an anthropomorphic being with supernatural powers who impregnates a human by magic to bear the savior of the world, are going to need to re-invent their image of their God. Because God, as currently described and worshiped by Christians (and Muslims as well, for that matter) simply cannot exist.

So a very small minority of "anthropomorphic" beliefs are falsified, so what? ETA: (I think it would be better stated as this helps clarify conceptions of what God, not falsify THAT God.) The vast majority of Christians, Muslims and others do not conceive God in that way. If you accept idealism, at least a mind or intelligence behind our reality is probable. Why do you jump to conceptions of that God are problematic? You have already abandoned your disbelief, that is an enormous move from disbelief?

mikwut

[_DrW]

DrW,

Please don't misunderstand. I have no qualms with the philosophy and physics presented in the documentary. This viewpoint has been familiar to me since my first quantum mechanics class in the early 1970s. Although many more of the observations in physics are now seen as supportive of idealism, or the universe as information, than was the case some 40 years ago.

This is interesting, every interaction I have had with you on this board and most every post I have read of yours comes from a seemingly staunchly materialist/physicalist perspective. The God question is not the same from a idealist lens as from a physicalist one. Are you aware of those implications?

The point I was trying to make is that biblical religionists who envision their supreme deity as an anthropomorphic being with supernatural powers who impregnates a human by magic to bear the savior of the world, are going to need to re-invent their image of their God. Because God, as currently described and worshiped by Christians (and Muslims as well, for that matter) simply cannot exist.

So a very small minority of "anthropomorphic" beliefs are falsified, so what? The vast majority of Christians, Muslims and others do not conceive God in that way. If you accept idealism, at least a mind or intelligence behind our reality is probable. Why do you jump to conceptions of that God are problematic? You have already abandoned your disbelief, that is an enormous move from disbelief?

mikwut

mikwut,

More than the "anthropomorphic" aspect of contemporary Christian religionist beliefs are falsified. Idealism, even as first advocated by Plato (If I recall correctly), did not posit a jealous, personal God who interfered in, interacted with, or even cared about, the day to day lives of humans.

Any God that would be possible in, or consistent with, an idealistic reality (holographic universe or universe as information) would pretty much align with that believed in by the Deists. That is, such a supreme being would be an intelligence that set the universe (or the universe simulation) in motion, and then walked away and let the "program" run.

In this construct, there would be no "mucking around" with the universe or the laws of physics that control it. The values of the fundamental physical constants would not change. So far as we know, this is precisely the case.

In this construct, the claim of a personal God who hears and answers prayers, takes the side of America in war, is against equal rights for the LGBT community, and will personally judge us all after we die, would also be falsified.

Would you not agree?

[_mikwut]

Hi DrW,

In this construct [idealism], the claim of a personal God who hears and answers prayers, takes the side of America in war, is against equal rights for the LGBT community, and will personally judge us all after we die, would also be falsified.

Would you not agree?

I would agree it wouldn't be verified, but I am not seeing how idealism falsifies a personal God? Our moral intuitions are what falsify the ethics you listed. How do you articulate the falsification of a personal God from idealism?

Is your only or primary understanding of idealism Plato?

ETA: You realize rather than God being falsified our previous discussions of Daniel Dennett, the mind is just the brain; you have advocated your position, Dennett is a complete physicalist position. This is what idealism would falsify, not a personal God.

mikwut

[_DrW]

Hi DrW,

In this construct [idealism], the claim of a personal God who hears and answers prayers, takes the side of America in war, is against equal rights for the LGBT community, and will personally judge us all after we die, would also be falsified.

Would you not agree?

I would agree it wouldn't be verified, but I am not seeing how idealism falsifies a personal God? Our moral intuitions are what falsify the ethics you listed. How do you articulate the falsification of a personal God from idealism?

mikwut

mikwut,

The short answer is as follows. Regardless of whether this universe is a simulation or not, the laws of physics apply in every region of the universe that we can observe and on every scale accessible to observation - from sub-atomic dimensions (10^-35) meters to astronomical dimensions (10^ 25 to 10^10^10^120) meters.

These laws of physics put a strict limit on the speed at which useful information can propagate. While the consequences of quantum entanglement (non-locality) can emerge instantaneously upon observation, it has been demonstrated that entanglement cannot be used to transmit useful information (so called quantum no communication theorem - consistent with Bell's inequality).

Assuming that the laws of physics do, in fact, apply in this universe, and superluminal communication is forbidden, then rapid communication with the Mormon God (who dwells a few light years away near Kolob) is just not possible.

Likewise, rapid (near contemporaneous) communication with a God that is "outside of space and time", as is confessed by the traditional Christian Nicene Creed, is simply not possible, again according to the laws of physics, or if you will, the rules of the simulation.

This same kind of constraint by the laws of physics that apply to the universe (physical or ideal / simulated) applies to many of the miracles and magical powers believed in as part and parcel of Christianity.

Just because a conscious mind imagines or believes it, does not make it so, even in a simulation.

[_mikwut]

DrW,

We already established the Mormon conception is irrational, I don't know why you keep returning to it when it isn't at issue.

What you just stated is a return to the embrace of physicalism. Your bouncing back and forth to suit you. If it is established that mind/consciousness is fundamental and not matter we don't have an understanding of the laws of physics for our consciousness, its implications and that is the context of our awareness of God - consciousness, mind.

The good Bishop Berkeley is not usually attempted to be refuted in the manner you are attempting, he is usually refuted by the oft quoted while kicking a rock, "I refute it thusly!" And that is for a reason. Mind as basic does not allow for the Dawkinesque type of arguments. I am quite surprised you don't recognize the metaphysical differences. We are no longer in the same physical metaphysics you so comfortably swim in when physcialism is just presupposed.

mikwut

[_SteelHead]

Mikwut,
The evidence for things spiritual and $2.00 will get you a double decker taco at taco bell.....