Yes! People can't understand that we are living in an illusion ! Time , space , cells are just a matrix created from a source , which may be the one-ness !
@xhoni123456 Yup, if you want to see the "virtualness" of modern physics in a really explicit and really unsettling way check this out: watch?v=0qiLLrmyqTM
cool video ( I did like the music ).Isn´t this still a naturalistic point of view of the Universe? would´t that make it unlikely to make conclusions about unnaturalistic posibilities based on it? maybe like explaining hot it is to live on earth by studying solely submarine environments with no reference to anything outside of it. Just a thought. thanks
@am101171 Yes, well it would really sort of do away with the concept of "unnatural" in the semantics really. Ie. Something is "natural" by definition -in that if anything exists it must exist according to it's own nature.
@AstralEtheric Well gravity is bent space-time, and due to quantum fluctuations space-time is never quite not bent -just asymptotically so. But the point is that the 'stuff' of the gravity field is space-time itself -just bent. So the problem is that before we can quantize the curvature of that stuff, we first have to explain that stuff -which means going beneath space-time.
@JohananRaatz how do you still believe in god if your all scientific? do you mean god as in ALL things or the biblical god...because i thought people would know better than to still believe a story from a magical book written before humans knew anything about space, different planets, aliens, parallel universes, etc
@x3MrsDaniFilthx3 Well I haven't argued any religious beliefs on youtube. However if you want my personal views on religion, they are somewhat complex. I take something of an esoteric approach to religion -as opposed to either a generic mysticism, or a fideistic fundamentalism.
There is nothing fundamentally incompatible about science and theism though.
@esoparagon "God fills both roles" I know man. There is the personal aspect of God and the impersonal. You see this in the religions, Buddhism focus' on the impersonal while catholicism on the personal.
When we study how the universe works in it's most fundamental level we are describing the unconscious (impersonal aspects) of God, God waking up. While God wtih consciousness of himself is akin to what christains would call God. All knowing all powerful.
@johananraatz The fact that reality is not synonymous with physical matter has been known by the east since at least the vedas. Now are scientific discoverires are pointing quite clearly that perception is fundamental in nature. Many are appauled at what this means and will not accept because it means a universal perceiver - God. God as reality, not a sky-daddy. See Meher Baba for a spiritual cosmology
@soldatheero "Many are appauled at what this means and will not accept because it means a universal perceiver - God"
I know. lol Tell me about it. I just got done talking to a whiny atheist who was disputing my Universal Orch-OR model in such a way that I don't think he even looked at it. Getting them to the obvious conclusion is like pulling teeth.
"God as reality, not a sky-daddy."
Well in Neoplatonism God oddly enough fills both roles, but that's a different topic.
Then the bible quote? Yeah. That makes sense because this is akin to religion. Everything is made of nothing. The material is made of the immaterial. That's the mystical position.
@Esoparagon "The material is made of the immaterial. That's the mystical position."
So? I don't know if you've been keeping track with quantum gravity and quantum information theory lately, but it's got literally mountain loads of science behind it.
@JohananRaatz No amount of evidence or observation will ever prove that statement to be true because it is an absolute impossibility - even if you think it is because of your interpretation. The theory can be rejected at face value from fundamental first principles.
No it's actually a very comprehensible possibility. All of the laws of weirdness in modern physics makes sense when you view the world as information processing and not this "atoms and the void" silliness from the time of the pre-socratics: watch?v=0qiLLrmyqTM
And it's already been proven anyway -even though you said it couldn't be: watch?v=6xKUass7G8w
And first principles tell us that only information exists as well: watch?v=-ciWYGvpGII
@Esoparagon Well that's contradictory then. You can't hold to heliocentrism or evolution without first holding to quantum mechanics or in this case quantum gravity.
Space-time would not exist without quantum gravity and you can't have solar systems without space-time. And biology including the phenomenon of biological evolution would not exist without chemistry, and chemistry would not exist without quantum mechanics.
@JohananRaatz No... It's not. You simply use a different explanation of solar systems, gravity, and so on. While there is 'quantum mechanics' in the sense that events are taking place for chemistry exist, one rejects the current methods and theories of how it happens - and what is going on exactly - and so on.
As for your assertion about my peers. The "it from bit" paradigm (informationalism) is actually fairly popular among physicists today, more so when we get into more fundamental theoretical physics. In fact it seems that a full theory of quantum gravity will not be possible without some kind of digital physics.I can show you lots of famous physicists like this if you want.
So yeah - the INFORMATION we use to describe these things is not the thing itself. The wave-particle duality is not because particles become waves that become particles. Rather, the system of information that we use to describe wave/particles cannot adequately describe the probabilistic nature of what particles/waves really are.
There are things which can never be fully described by information. Take Pi for example. We can convert it into info all we like - we'll never fully describe it.
The trouble is that the quantum eraser experiments seem to indicate that there is no thing in itself apart from the information of it. If there was, it would end up violating relativity in the experiment.
Also note Zeilinger's quote: "the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made"
I tend to agree with him. If there was a substrate behind the information it would mean dualism.
And macroscopic coherence makes a lot of sense in that frame of mind.
Decoherence occurs only when a 'wave/particle' has not produced a result upon anything else; hence, it is still a wave, still in superposition - superposition being the only way for our INFORMATION SYSTEM to describe what is actually a continuous wave of possible outcomes.
But the instant it has any effect on anything else - it collapses into that effect. Macro objects are collapsed.
@taicleis (Part 2) "being the only way for our INFORMATION SYSTEM to describe what is actually a continuous wave of possible outcomes."
Right, but something happens that prevents us from getting information about any of the other states in that continuous wave. Collapse is a real process. We can see this in the Zeno effect for example.
"Macro objects are..."
Yeah, but they also collapse wave-functions. (collapse happens at one point on a macroscopic photodetector for example)
@taicleis The idea that information must describe something to exist, presupposes materialism to begin with. Remember, this needn't be the case. We create language based on our intuitions, but we then can't use that language to logically prove that these intuitions are right. Oftentimes our intuitions are wrong, and according to modern quantum information theory they are: watch?v=6xKUass7G8w
Besides one can conceive of information existing intrinsically -Platonic forms for example.
But that's just it. Our language and intuitions are all information - they deal in information, work with it, are MADE of it - and that is why the world as we logically understand it is a world of information. Not because it actually IS information - but because information is the only way to receive it. As information to our minds.
The old 'finger pointing to the moon' analogy. You are arguing that the moon is really just the hand pointing at it.
@taicleis "moon is really just the hand pointing at it."
No, but the moon is there in the perception of it. If something isn't being observed it's wave-function remains uncollapsed. (though we are not the only ones observing it so it stays fixed in it's properties)
"Not because"
If you draw a distinction between these two you generate a substance dualism between information/percepts and a substrate for those percepts. This is why Humean Bundle Theory makes sense.
The moon is there, even when WE are not observing it, for multiple reasons. First of all, it's much too macroscopic to exhibit decoherence. But beyond that:
A common misconception: by 'observed', we do not mean 'looked at'; we mean 'measured'. The method by which we DO measure quantum information is through having something interact with the target, and measuring the interaction.
So it is not the act of observing, but the act of 'touching' that collapses it.
@taicleis (cont.) "First of all, it's much too macroscopic to exhibit decoherence."
Well it's made of particles that are not, and it still does "blur" a little, just to such an astronomically tiny degree that it is never noticeable.
"do not mean 'looked at'; we mean 'measured'." "but the act of 'touching'"
Right, but whether an unconscious detector or a conscious mind is observing it, it is still being 'touched' in an ontologically identical way -assuming dualism is false.
Commonality to both matter and mind is not necessary, though! A mind is merely the product of a certain configuration of matter, and the only way that mind can sense the world is through interacting physically with it.
The act of 'seeing' a photon is no different from when a photon strikes any other surface... the surface just happens to be aware this once. The wave function collapses because it has produced a result, not because it has been 'detected' or observed.
The mind itself not necessarily, protomental states are necessarily fundamental though as phenomenal attributes can't emerge from non-phenomenal attributes. (you can't have purely non-phenomenal particles make a purely phenomenal mind)
"not because"
But if we assume that consciousness isn't some magical non-scientific thing, then the collapse caused by the two (a mind and an unconscious photodetector) must be ontologically the same.
So the wave-function collapses not when we 'look', but when ANYTHING in the Universe - another electron, a cosmic ray, you name it - requires that a particle be one way or the other. The moment it gets touched, the particle becomes determined.
The moon is present even when no homo sapiens are looking at it, because it is constantly interacting with other bodies. Every atom in it is affected. Hence its wave-functions were collapsing long before we ever saw it.
@taicleis "Hence its wave-functions were collapsing long before we ever saw it."
Yes, well I didn't say we were the ultimate collapsers of the wave-function. Just that the conscious perception that we as minds perform, is ontologically equivalent to the unconscious detection that something like a detector performs. As a result this interaction needs to be explained in terms of a neutral stuff common to both matter and mind -which is information.
As a physics major, There is no such thing as a theory of quantum gravity. Quantum mechanics and general relativity contradict one another. Right now physics is at a race to discover a theory of quantum gravity that would combine the two theories. However, you cannot completely apply all of quantum mechanics to general relativity. So this whole pseudoscience argument fails.
@zeromodz There isn't a full theory of quantum gravity yet, but whatever it is it will have to explain space-time, and you can't categorically explain space-time from within itself. That would be circular.
"So this whole pseudoscience"
Is 3 Road to QG pseudoscience? The picture I'm presenting here is just what Smolin described in his book. It's nothing out of the ordinary in regards to serious ideas that are already out there.
the verry start what the guy says, that is his verry own statement, placed down to the simplist terms, what are the atoms doing... what is a void apart from what we see it as, through our own perspectives we wont know or ever may know, until we die of course, evan then i still cant say what will happen, we see space as a 3Dimenstional thing, going in all areas... now think about that for a second and you may have an apifiney ... just a void hahahahaha
@BloodHarvest21 Basically quantum gravity has us in this weird position of needing to reduce space-time to something more fundamental than space-time. However since all physical units are defined in terms of space and time this means that whatever this something else is it can't really be categorized as physical.
@BloodHarvest21 em i think now, ... what this video means is that evan when you take a physical element out of a place its been in for evan just a few moments coded information of it traces do be left behind... em ehhhh leading to information being the key, and us as human beings we build as we go our own reality and that the pysical plane is just a minipulation of our concious selfs :S ,thats what it tells me anyways and i MAY be wrong lol fuck yo couch nigga xD
@OpenAirAtheist Except I know exactly where this quantum information comes from. It ultimately comes from the wave-function of the universe, which necessarily undergoes self-collapse and is therefore engaged in mental activity according to Penrose's Orchestrated Objective Reduction model of the mind: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
So how is this a "God of the Gaps" argument if I straight up explain God?
BTW this video wasn't an argument for God, but an argument against physicalism.
@OpenAirAtheist All right, I will try to find you on skype. However, why is it a "god of the gaps" argument? What unexplained detail have I ascribed as proof for a deity?
To the best of my knowledge, and I haven't pointed anywhere in any of my videos to an unexplained detail as being evidence of something. All of my arguments are positive ones, using things that are already explicable. My argument for God is even controversial with some theists for precisely that reason.
@JohananRaatz you said that information is conceptual not physical which is false. The words you use only have meaning when they refer to physical objects or persons which are material . your lit words are physical and your spoken words are physical sound energy waves. Your thoughts are physical as well they are electrical chemical reactions and if your going to say they are more than that then the burden is on you to communicate what you mean by ''more''. Again your welcome to add me on Skype.
@OpenAirAtheist "only have meaning when they refer to... ,which are material"
Oh I see. Ok:
1.) Words are not information, just the medium we use to express it. I mean information in itself.
2.) The information I'm speaking of here are the observations of reality themselves. (like the qualia -Redness, loudness etc. etc.) Modern physics shows us that this is all that exists of what we think of as "material stuff." Your flaw is to assume there is any matter behind what you sense.
@JohananRaatz if you say are perception of reality is information then I might be willing to agree depending on your meaning which we will need to define via skype. As for your qualia- redness loudness assertion i must disagree.With the info i have thus far all thoughts, conceptualizations, feelings , emotions are electrical chemical reactions. Yes it is possible as far as i no that our perceptions of existence/reality are to some degree inaccurate but I can go off the info I have thus far .
@JohananRaatz you also stated in another comment that some objects according to some experts only exist when observed, but we don't know that for sure and they may only ''appear'' to be that way. There is so much we don't know at this time and what appears to only exist when observed now might prove to be not the case or a different in the future.
@JohananRaatz You don't seriously think your gonna educate me on the NT do you? You don't read the NT you read a translation. Do you even know how perform a consistent biblical exigesis ? I doubt it . You have also failed to contact me on skype... Hiding behind your key board are ya : ) Well until ya do I consider ya a troll.
@OpenAirAtheist First of all, you're translation looks rather weird. Where did you get "eons" and "having been adjusted and framed" from?
Besides that, the NT or that verse is not what the video is about. You're jumping on the verse at the end, and missing the basic point of the video in the process.
And yes, I will contact you on Skype. I'm having some problems with it though. Did you find me on facebook though?
@JohananRaatz Also I must ask what you mean by conceptual ? If you can't tell me what conceptual is then your use of the word ''conceptual'' is meaningless! You say ''is'' conceptual. What do you mean by is ? If i say i have a ''cup'' and you ask what is it made of ? and i say immaterial. Then i have failed to answer your question because you asked ''what ''is'' it made of ? immaterial only states what it is not.
@OpenAirAtheist Also an ex Christian apologist who reads biblical GK i must say the translation you used of Heb 11:3 is rank. ''universe'' is a bad translation it should be translated ''ages'' also the word translated ''word'' is where we get our word grammar so not bad translation however you did say in a prior comment that words weren't info. Also you have plucked this verse from its context. My lit trans is more accurate so i translate this verse for you in the next comment-
Respond to this video... My lit trans of Hebrews 11:3 '' Via(dat sg fem) faith we( pres act) constantly perceive the (eons) ages (perf pas ) having been adjusted or framed through the grammar (theou) of GOD not (ek) out of (pres mid pas/gen pl ''phainomenon'') phenomenon (perf act ''gegonenai'') have come into existence. Here you go. ''Via faith we increasingly perceive the ages having been adjusted and framed through the grammar of god , not out of phenomenon have come into existence.:)
@OpenAirAtheist It looks like you are contorting it, and being far too literal -something shared by both fundies and new atheists. In any case I tacked it on at the end to show an interesting parallel. Aside from that, the idea of the world being made of information shows up elsewhere in the Bible as well as in other traditions and in some branches of esotericism.
The larger point of the video however was to show that modern physics has demonstrated materialism or naive realism to be wrong.
I just rewatched "Introduction and Illustration on the Holographic Principle", this video about Leonard Susskind bascally says that energy and matter are real just in a black hole the information carried by these photons is saved using a holography. Now even if you make the leap that we live in a giant black hole, this doesn't disprove that energy exists outside the blackhole. You clearly special relativity to make a black hole.
@AlainG80 Well I'm not saying they aren't real, just that they are emergent. It obviously exists, which is how we get black holes with general relativity (special is for high velocity not gravity), it's just that it's not fundamental.
I'll rephrase, if you don't get the mass and time from the energy-momentum tensor to make the blackhole you wouldn't have one. We also know that the universe is flat within <1% accuracy.
As for the chicken and egg paradox (curvature(spacegeometry) or energy-momentum) that's why cosmologists got inspired by evolutionary processes (mediated by cosmic natural selection). The answer is that neither came first, they both existed in more discrete versions, unified at the early stages.
@AlainG80 "The answer is that neither came first, they both existed in more discrete versions, unified at the early stages"
Well that was the issue really. That unified state was likely all processes of info "correlations without correlata" as David Mermin would put it. Space-time and matter-energy both emerge from that at once.
"We also know that the universe is flat within <1% accuracy."
Because of exactly zero energy! There's a cool way to show this from purely classical physics actually.
Can't we induce from the flatness, that we don't live in a universal blackhole? And that the Susskind solution to the information paradox can't be applied to the universe. I still don't see how you can have information or a hologram without a energy-momentum carrier. For me information is a epiphenomenon on a higher conceptual level. I don't like the appeal to higher dimensions either. I probably prefer a supersymmetric Dirac sea full of gravitons or an unknown option to unify it.
Space-time is temporal sequence of spaces, or a history of spaces.
LQG space-time is a history of spin networks (spinfoam).
If I define spin networks in discrete energy, than information is a higher level concept.
So basically, you equivocate the concept of information. And you equivocate the versions of LQG (Wheeler–DeWitt equations). You omit full disclosure, which is unethical in scientific circles in order to advance your pre-modernistic intuitions.
@AlainG80 "If I define spin networks in discrete energy"
Ok: Spin networks are groupings of processes and events. But what comes first, space-time or correlations? If you answer space-time then you're defining space-time in a circular fashion, but if you answer correlations, then you have to admit that we can only model spin networks in terms of discrete energy as an approximation -since energy needs space-time to exist in the first place.
Well just read 3 Roads to QG. It wasn't like I was quote mining Smolin or anything. In fact the entire fourth chapter of the book was on how quantum gravity necessarily replaces the world of things with a world of processes of information, and how space-time as an infinite empty void was an illusion.
"your pre-modernistic intuitions."
Well I wasn't the one to admit I was stuck in the 20th century:
If you look up modernism you understand how that statement makes no sense.
I seriously doubt you understand 20th century physics on a level presented beyond pop-science.
If you did you would know that a dirac sea, quantum field theories, Feynman diagrams are just re-organizations of space time. LQG predicts that space-time is made up of elementary grains of volume at the planck scale. We are talking about quantized geometry values, which on a higher level you can define as info.
@AlainG80 Well I'm no grad student, but my undergrad was physics.
"elementary grains of volume at the planck scale."
Yes, I get that, and yes, we can interpret it like that if we'd like. But then what are they grains "in?" To really conceptualize it, you'd have to think about it from an "outside looking in" context. Only the "outside" here to make any real sense of it would be outside space-time. Yes you could model it the other way around, but it seems counter-productive.
I know better understand your position, you are a subscriber to metaphysical solopsism, personally I think that's a vice. I think it is autistic, repectless. And using that belief system you can't even differentiate between unwarranted faith and knowledge. It's only useful as a concept to understand your pre-suppositions.
By accepting this interpretation of quantum physics you lead the evidence of quantum physics rather than following it. Which is unscientific.
No, I'm not. I do believe you're really there. I do subscribe to what might be called "methodological solipsism" though.
"differentiate between unwarranted..."
How so? Remember the entire point of methodological solipsism is precisely to remove things we don't know for certain. Say for example materialism. We never actually see matter. All we can empirically verify is empirical INFORMATION. So here it helps remove the unwarranted claim matter is primary.
My mistake, I have no problem with methodological solipsism.
I'm probably correct that you reject realism and localism, if that's true than how do you differentiate local/subjective concepts from reality (objective) matter, if you accept the mathematics that underpin Wheelers theory than how do you distinguish mathematical fantasy from reality? See: David Deutsch: A new way to explain explanation.
Well the reasons for Penrose's view are pretty straightforward. Now yes I do personally think Orch-OR could be cleaned up and made simpler, by recasting it in terms of entropic gravity.
My personal like for it came from its identifying self-collapse with self-observation. Collapse is the only real lead we have to understanding the mind -via the Wigner's friend thought experiment. And so if collapse = observation, then self-collapse = self-observation.
@AlainG80 (cont. -last of 4) Perhaps it's another instantiation of Godel: A complete physical model -nothing outside of physically defined units (stopping with QM and GR) is inconsistent. And a consistent physical model (unifying QM and GR) demonstrates incompleteness in the physical system. (as space-time can only be explained in terms of something that is necessarily more fundamental than space-time)
@AlainG80 (cont.) Except I'm not a solipsist. Yes, I buy Whitehead's metaphysics of panexperientialism, but that's not the same as solipsism.
"And using that belief system you can't even differentiate between unwarranted faith and knowledge."
That's easy to differentiate actually. Knowledge is stuff we know -either a priori or a posteriori, and unwarranted faith is believing stuff we can't prove based on a priori or a posteriori knowledge.
@AlainG80 No, not -unless you want to refer to Smolin, Wheeler, Lloyd and a lot of others as "crackpots" too. It's pretty well established. In fact the concepts of "digital physics" and "pancomputationalism" come from it.
@1:19: Yes, but string theory isn't complete because it isn't background independent.D-branes are not fundamental.
Read 3 Roads to QG. Smolin was very clear that the world is made of processes of information not things. He even had the entire fourth chapter devoted to this.
Simple, you see it. How do you demonstrate matter or energy? I can't empirically verifying anything past my sensory experience.
"think of information as conceptual."
Well sensory experience is already in a sense conceptual -a perception of the mind. Whether there is any matter behind it is a matter of metaphysical speculation at best.
BTW QIT already demonstrates that everything is just info: watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc @53:22 (ignore silly title)
I'll accept a descriptive model as true if it explains the epistemological question. But not without demonstrable evidence. I mean if the conclusion is that we exist of quantum information, than I won't accept it as true as long as I'm not able to exploit / demonstrate / isolate / measured, scrutinized, taxonimized, and customized it.
The only conclusion I made, from the video was to confirm that we have a model dependent description of reality or mathematical fantasy.
When you have people like Wheeler, a colleague of Einstein himself, saying the world is fundamentally informational, and then you have a whole host of modern physicists agreeing, including everyone from Henry Stapp, to Lee Smolin then it's simply reactionary nonsense to refer to as a "crackpot theory."
Drop the silly 19th century atoms and the void view of the world and accept progress!
John, thnx once more for giving me something I can take to the sun porch with me...which I will eventually be invited to spend my afternoons in if I keep collecting these new and fascinating things you put out here for us that blows my mind.
@Dhorpatan This video explains what is wrong with your approach the best. You start with the assumption of physicalism, when in fact quantum gravity has since proven that what we call physical isn't really there at all. Or rather it's there, but as an illusion of something more fundamental, ideas or concepts.
This makes sense anyway as ideas or concepts are all that can exist by themselves anyway. If the world is made out of them it explains why there is something rather than nothing as well.
Quantum Gravity has not proven that the physical isn't really there at all. You are grossly abusing and misrepresenting Quantum Gravity in order to substantiate your Quantum Quackery beliefs.
Your beliefs are also self refuting. If the physical isn't there at all, or is just an illusion, then you, since you are physical, are an illusion. An illusion cannot know truth. Something that is not real(AN ILLUSION), cannot come to true beliefs.
@Dhorpatan An illusion is still a something that can be observed or deduced. If it wasn't we could never deduce it was an illusion in the first place -but we obviously did.
We know that GR and QM only fit together if we go outside the physical domain. Either we stop at GR and QM and we have an inconsistent theory, or we go beyond them and thus the physical world is incomplete. Godel applies here too.
And no it's not "quantum quackery." Lee Smolin calls people like YOU, MYSTICS. (see 2:26-2:35)
@Dhorpatan Ok, let me explain exactly what is and what is not an illusion here.
Yes, matter, energy and space-time are illusory, fake and false manifestations emanating from something that is real -empirically observable quantum information.
What is not illusory however is the empirically observable information that we see. That's all that science tells us exists though. We never actually see matter, or energy or space-time, we just see empirical data that we INTERPRET that way.
@Dhorpatan (cont.) No one has actually seen matter, energy or space-time itself. All we see is empirical data. Who knows. Maybe this is all my dream, you're not even there, and none of this is any more real than my observation of it. (not that it is but as a hypothetical) Barring I wake up, I could never know. All I know FOR CERTAIN based on these observations is that I have these phenomenal observations that give me this experience.
Science doesn't tell us about anything outside observations.
@Dhorpatan BTW it doesn't say the physical isn't real. It just says it's not primary. Also if you can't use this argument that if we were holograms we'd never no, because there are ways to determine if you are in a hologram. For example, if one discovered non-local connections (ie. entanglement) in one's world, it would be good evidence that one was living in a hologram.
BTW this is why people are suggesting using the holographic principle to solve the horizon problem.
@Dhorpatan I didn't say it wasn't really there at all. It is there, but not as what we think of it as. It's an emergent phenomenon, not something fundamental. It's like how a computer game exists, but is an illusion of information in the hard drive.
"(AN ILLUSION), cannot come to true beliefs."
Here's where you're wrong. I never said my I is an illusion, just that my material body is. My I is quite real, but it's just as immaterial as the quantum information that makes up the material world.
3) I agree there is something more fundamental than space-time continuum which itself is derived but under no condition is it called god. God exist only in the brain of people who imagine it. Begining of the universe was due to the natural law of QM. Calling it god is just plain ignorant. I dont think holographic principle says anything about zero entropy. Can u provide some link to that?
@janko1212 ) (1of2) "more fundamental than space-time"
It's not God by itself no -just information. But this does demonstrate what I'm getting at -that something exists that is not defined by physical units.
"God exist only"
"the natural law of QM."
Hey I'm not referring to anything not explicable with science here! Some regular theists have had a problem with me for doing this actually.
Well don't call it "God" if you don't want to then. Just call it Universal Orch-OR. ;)
Well that's just a natural extension of what the HP implies when you add in the 2nd law. Remember entropy is always increasing with time. And there is a finite amount of entropy in the universe. Thus if we "dial back time" we see the entropy constantly decreasing. When we run out of entropy we get the Big Bang; if S=A/4 and S=0 then A=0.
It gives a kind of cool reason for expansion like this. The universe expands because entropy increases.
Well that's just a natural extension of what the HP implies when you add in the 2nd law. Remember entropy is always increasing with time. And there is a finite amount of entropy in the universe. Thus if we "dial back time" we see the entropy constantly decreasing. When we run out of entropy we get the Big Bang; if S=A/4 and S=0 then A=0.
It gives a kind of cool reason for expansion like this. The universe expands because entropy increases.
I could agree but i dont think entropy was ever zero. Big bang according to most scientist was only an intermediate phase or a transformation point. Not the beggining of everything.
"It's not God by itself no -just information."
Yes u can call it information but its not the concept of information. Its information in some form of energy. Concept is a human thing. It can never be substrate of reality. There u got it wrong
@janko1212 (3of3) "according to most scientists" "Not the beggining"
That doesn't sound right. Remember space-time only appeared in the Planck epoch. Something existed "before" but it was the universal wave-function. Hawking even agrees here -but doesn't add Orch-OR to it.
"a human thing" "never be substrate"
Well those are your two assumptions. Remember Platonic stuff (1+1=2) is conceptual yet always exists. And whether or not it can be a substrate is what we're debating in the first place.
Since u believe in Holographic principle u should know it is derived from String theory and this theory says our universe is just a 3-d brane which is embeded in hyperspace. According to that big bang was a collision of 2 such branes and the kynetic energy of collision resulted creation of particles. Spacetime in this case is composed of branes and strings which are probably the most fundamental entities since they go down to the Planck scale.N
@janko1212 (1of3)Well that's it's primary source yes, but it's actually also derived from two other sources as well: Black Hole Thermodynamics and Loop Quantum Gravity. That's why everyone is so excited about it because it's rare to get that kind of convergence between such divergent approaches.
"the most fundamental entities"
With in space-time they are, but remember once the final theory is discovered they will be just be the way of perceiving extra-local structures from within space-time.
@janko1212 (2of3) "According to that big bang was a collision of 2 such branes"
You're referring to the Ekpyrotic model, which is interesting and all but it's not held by most scientists. Remember String theory as of yet is not complete. Once the complete formulation is put together it will be extra-local and space-time, and geometric objects like branes or strings will not be fundamental.
Well I do though. This is because the final theory must be background independent. The current formulation of string theory which has strings and branes as fundamental is not background independent. Background independence in the context of QG means space and time derive from non-space and non-time.
"Id rather call it laws of nature"
Well that would be also valid. It's just that with Orch-OR mind would be an intrinsic part of those laws.
@JohananRaatz Are there any recommended reads you have (papers preferably) that go into detail on this conclusion you have brought here, and of course on information theory in general?
@CosmicThinking Lee Smolin's and Seth Lloyd's books as well as others are good. (though info monism comes up tangentially in regards to quantum gravity and the holographic principle -except with Seth Lloyd's book) Also from a philosophy angle look up "panexperientialism" -that was Alfred Whitehead and Bertrand Russell's view. In general a lot of stuff with relation to philosophy of mind relates to this though. Also google search "quantum gravity" and "information monism."See what you find.
@janko1212 It's not fallacious. I don't know how much you've read about quantum gravity or theoretical physics in general but the idea of information monism is all over the place there these days -and among the lead scientists as well. And it's for the same reasons I'm using here -I got the idea of the world as made of qubits by reading Lee Smolin in the first place. (and his view is echoed everywhere else)
This video is so terribly wrong i dont even know where to begin.
1) Gravity is NOT space time. Gravity is the CURVATURE of space-time. The gravitational potential energy is stored in the curvature. So everything u said is simply wrong.
2) I already told u but i should reapeat. Ur belief in god is just deluding you and u are trying to justify ur belief by making up this mistical explanations. There is no imaginary sky dictator or some mistical entity called god.
@janko1212 1.) First of all, space-time is never not curved -the uncertainty principle forbids it. Secondly, the surface area of any region of space, is expressible in terms of it's information content. So the idea that this doesn't also apply to empty space is simply wrong.
2.) You did tell me but you were wrong. We've been over this remember? I came across the Universal Orch-OR argument by complete accident. And saying the negative of it for certain is just as unfounded as fundieism.
1) Wrong. Space-time is only curved in pressence of mass. Otherwise its flat. Random quantum fluctations average-out over time and they DONT produce gravity. Gravity is only the potential energy of the curvature. So your video is simply wrong becouse gravity is not space-time. Revise ur knowlledge about physics.
Making a fundamentally false assumption and than leading other assumptions from that one does no good.
@janko1212 1.) No -not it alone. It's the stress-energy-momentum tensor that does it. That can INCLUDE mass but it also includes energy, energy pressure, momentum etc. etc. And quantum flux does cause tiny curvatures on the micro-scale. It's a well known fact that QG will have to quantize space-time as well as gravity. Read more physics.
"not space-time."
Yes, bent space-time is gravity, but that makes the rest of space-time part of it's field. And you can't have an empty space-time.
1)Well mass=energy so thats ok what i said. But gravity is NOT space-time. That was my point.
2)"And you can't have an empty space-time."
Actually the total energy of the universe is excatly 0.Negative gravitational energy is completly balanced by positive energy of matter. So the universe is flat, just on local scale there are bumps. And only such universe could arrise from nothing. Therefore there is no need for an imaginary creator
@janko1212 (1of2) 1.) Well yes, I equivocated a bit there perhaps. The point however remains that to quantize gravity, we will have to quantize space-time as well. To understand how space-time bends, we have to find out what makes it tick -and for that we have to quantize it.
2.) Actually, I have a video on that (The Net Energy Content of the Universe is Zero). But it's never locally flat. In fact it can't be if it is universally flat, it has to be bumped everywhere so as to cancel out.
@janko1212 (2of2) 3.) "And only such universe could arrise from nothing. Therefore there is no need for an imaginary creator"
Aren't you forgetting why space-time exists at all? The holographic principle tells us that at one time when there was zero entropy, there was also zero space-time in existence. Space-time was created when it fluctuated out of Phi at the Big Bang. That implies something more fundamental than space-time exists. And it's not imaginary. God = Hawking's Phi + Orch-OR.
Icame to this realization about 3 years ago, and more deeply aout 8 months ago when I started studying in this area of physics.
Suddenly the world around us looks so awesome - it is truly divine when seen from this perspective. The physical universe is not separate from the spiritual realm, it is spiritual itself, if appreciated in that way.
@KTK401 "Suddenly the world around us looks so awesome - it is truly divine when seen from this perspective. The physical universe is not separate from the spiritual realm, it is spiritual itself, if appreciated in that way."
I know isn't it though? It's the transcendent made immanent in a "overpoweringly sublime" sort of way. You never look at things the same way again.
Yes absolutely. I recently came to this realization and I am glad others have also.
I hope others are doing the same all over the world. We are living in the dawn of a new era.
Thanks for this awesome video. And you explained Gravity (QG) as it fits in with what we have been discussing in the last few months, along with what Dr John Hagelin & Dr Amit Goswami are saying about the subject of consciousness & the universe.
@BlowDevilUp True, well I was telling my brother about it and he mentioned it and I was like "oh neat that fits in real well." I was debating putting it up or not though. Though granted I hardly ever do that anyway.
I just thought the idea of the universe being created from "words" (ie. information) was a little poetic in the end so I put it up.
@JohananRaatz I have wondered about such things but in the end it may sound far better than theabrahamic traditions, it still seem to much like just another faith claim. If you agree or believe in a panentheist universe, would would you think about reincarnation? Given that framework I would think that is only 1 "soul" and it would be everything and everything in it as well. That kind of thinking bugs me cause I don't want to have come back here :P
Yes! People can't understand that we are living in an illusion ! Time , space , cells are just a matrix created from a source , which may be the one-ness !
xhoni123456 3 days ago
@xhoni123456 Yup, if you want to see the "virtualness" of modern physics in a really explicit and really unsettling way check this out: watch?v=0qiLLrmyqTM
JohananRaatz 2 days ago
cool video ( I did like the music ).Isn´t this still a naturalistic point of view of the Universe? would´t that make it unlikely to make conclusions about unnaturalistic posibilities based on it? maybe like explaining hot it is to live on earth by studying solely submarine environments with no reference to anything outside of it. Just a thought. thanks
am101171 2 weeks ago
@am101171 Yes, well it would really sort of do away with the concept of "unnatural" in the semantics really. Ie. Something is "natural" by definition -in that if anything exists it must exist according to it's own nature.
JohananRaatz 2 weeks ago
stupid ass music!!!!!!!!!!
TheLovesoul1 1 month ago
Gravity is a curvature in space-time, not space-time itself, isn't it? Please fill me in. :p
AstralEtheric 1 month ago
@AstralEtheric Well gravity is bent space-time, and due to quantum fluctuations space-time is never quite not bent -just asymptotically so. But the point is that the 'stuff' of the gravity field is space-time itself -just bent. So the problem is that before we can quantize the curvature of that stuff, we first have to explain that stuff -which means going beneath space-time.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz how do you still believe in god if your all scientific? do you mean god as in ALL things or the biblical god...because i thought people would know better than to still believe a story from a magical book written before humans knew anything about space, different planets, aliens, parallel universes, etc
x3MrsDaniFilthx3 1 month ago
@x3MrsDaniFilthx3 Well I haven't argued any religious beliefs on youtube. However if you want my personal views on religion, they are somewhat complex. I take something of an esoteric approach to religion -as opposed to either a generic mysticism, or a fideistic fundamentalism.
There is nothing fundamentally incompatible about science and theism though.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@esoparagon "God fills both roles" I know man. There is the personal aspect of God and the impersonal. You see this in the religions, Buddhism focus' on the impersonal while catholicism on the personal.
When we study how the universe works in it's most fundamental level we are describing the unconscious (impersonal aspects) of God, God waking up. While God wtih consciousness of himself is akin to what christains would call God. All knowing all powerful.
soldatheero 1 month ago
@johananraatz The fact that reality is not synonymous with physical matter has been known by the east since at least the vedas. Now are scientific discoverires are pointing quite clearly that perception is fundamental in nature. Many are appauled at what this means and will not accept because it means a universal perceiver - God. God as reality, not a sky-daddy. See Meher Baba for a spiritual cosmology
soldatheero 1 month ago
@soldatheero "Many are appauled at what this means and will not accept because it means a universal perceiver - God"
I know. lol Tell me about it. I just got done talking to a whiny atheist who was disputing my Universal Orch-OR model in such a way that I don't think he even looked at it. Getting them to the obvious conclusion is like pulling teeth.
"God as reality, not a sky-daddy."
Well in Neoplatonism God oddly enough fills both roles, but that's a different topic.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
Then the bible quote? Yeah. That makes sense because this is akin to religion. Everything is made of nothing. The material is made of the immaterial. That's the mystical position.
Esoparagon 2 months ago
@Esoparagon "The material is made of the immaterial. That's the mystical position."
So? I don't know if you've been keeping track with quantum gravity and quantum information theory lately, but it's got literally mountain loads of science behind it.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@JohananRaatz No amount of evidence or observation will ever prove that statement to be true because it is an absolute impossibility - even if you think it is because of your interpretation. The theory can be rejected at face value from fundamental first principles.
Esoparagon 2 months ago
@Esoparagon "absolute impossibility"
No it's actually a very comprehensible possibility. All of the laws of weirdness in modern physics makes sense when you view the world as information processing and not this "atoms and the void" silliness from the time of the pre-socratics: watch?v=0qiLLrmyqTM
And it's already been proven anyway -even though you said it couldn't be: watch?v=6xKUass7G8w
And first principles tell us that only information exists as well: watch?v=-ciWYGvpGII
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
Quantum physics is a farce.
Esoparagon 2 months ago
@Esoparagon Do you think evolution and heliocentrism are farces as well?
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@JohananRaatz No.
Esoparagon 2 months ago
@Esoparagon Well that's contradictory then. You can't hold to heliocentrism or evolution without first holding to quantum mechanics or in this case quantum gravity.
Space-time would not exist without quantum gravity and you can't have solar systems without space-time. And biology including the phenomenon of biological evolution would not exist without chemistry, and chemistry would not exist without quantum mechanics.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@JohananRaatz No... It's not. You simply use a different explanation of solar systems, gravity, and so on. While there is 'quantum mechanics' in the sense that events are taking place for chemistry exist, one rejects the current methods and theories of how it happens - and what is going on exactly - and so on.
Esoparagon 2 months ago
@Incephaly Actually I have. I majored in physics.
As for your assertion about my peers. The "it from bit" paradigm (informationalism) is actually fairly popular among physicists today, more so when we get into more fundamental theoretical physics. In fact it seems that a full theory of quantum gravity will not be possible without some kind of digital physics.I can show you lots of famous physicists like this if you want.
"don't mislead"
I don't know where you got that idea.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
So yeah - the INFORMATION we use to describe these things is not the thing itself. The wave-particle duality is not because particles become waves that become particles. Rather, the system of information that we use to describe wave/particles cannot adequately describe the probabilistic nature of what particles/waves really are.
There are things which can never be fully described by information. Take Pi for example. We can convert it into info all we like - we'll never fully describe it.
taicleis 2 months ago
@taicleis (Part 3) "not the thing itself."
The trouble is that the quantum eraser experiments seem to indicate that there is no thing in itself apart from the information of it. If there was, it would end up violating relativity in the experiment.
Also note Zeilinger's quote: "the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made"
I tend to agree with him. If there was a substrate behind the information it would mean dualism.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohananRaatz
"The trouble is that the quantum eraser experiments seem to indicate that there is no thing in itself apart from the information of it."
See, here's the big distinction I'm trying to make. There is no thing in itself that we can SEE/DESCRIBE apart from the information of it.
But that's only true because seeing it would necessarily mean an energy transaction with it, which would end in a specific result.
See: Afshar Experiment and Transactional Interpretation.
taicleis 2 months ago
And macroscopic coherence makes a lot of sense in that frame of mind.
Decoherence occurs only when a 'wave/particle' has not produced a result upon anything else; hence, it is still a wave, still in superposition - superposition being the only way for our INFORMATION SYSTEM to describe what is actually a continuous wave of possible outcomes.
But the instant it has any effect on anything else - it collapses into that effect. Macro objects are collapsed.
taicleis 2 months ago
@taicleis (Part 2) "being the only way for our INFORMATION SYSTEM to describe what is actually a continuous wave of possible outcomes."
Right, but something happens that prevents us from getting information about any of the other states in that continuous wave. Collapse is a real process. We can see this in the Zeno effect for example.
"Macro objects are..."
Yeah, but they also collapse wave-functions. (collapse happens at one point on a macroscopic photodetector for example)
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
You're missing an important distinction.
Information DESCRIBES the Universe. Information itself does not exist without something to describe.
Information may be immaterial, but the Universe is not made of it any more than five rocks are 'made of' the number five.
taicleis 2 months ago
@taicleis The idea that information must describe something to exist, presupposes materialism to begin with. Remember, this needn't be the case. We create language based on our intuitions, but we then can't use that language to logically prove that these intuitions are right. Oftentimes our intuitions are wrong, and according to modern quantum information theory they are: watch?v=6xKUass7G8w
Besides one can conceive of information existing intrinsically -Platonic forms for example.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@JohananRaatz
But that's just it. Our language and intuitions are all information - they deal in information, work with it, are MADE of it - and that is why the world as we logically understand it is a world of information. Not because it actually IS information - but because information is the only way to receive it. As information to our minds.
The old 'finger pointing to the moon' analogy. You are arguing that the moon is really just the hand pointing at it.
taicleis 2 months ago
@taicleis "moon is really just the hand pointing at it."
No, but the moon is there in the perception of it. If something isn't being observed it's wave-function remains uncollapsed. (though we are not the only ones observing it so it stays fixed in it's properties)
"Not because"
If you draw a distinction between these two you generate a substance dualism between information/percepts and a substrate for those percepts. This is why Humean Bundle Theory makes sense.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@JohananRaatz
The moon is there, even when WE are not observing it, for multiple reasons. First of all, it's much too macroscopic to exhibit decoherence. But beyond that:
A common misconception: by 'observed', we do not mean 'looked at'; we mean 'measured'. The method by which we DO measure quantum information is through having something interact with the target, and measuring the interaction.
So it is not the act of observing, but the act of 'touching' that collapses it.
taicleis 2 months ago
@taicleis (cont.) "First of all, it's much too macroscopic to exhibit decoherence."
Well it's made of particles that are not, and it still does "blur" a little, just to such an astronomically tiny degree that it is never noticeable.
"do not mean 'looked at'; we mean 'measured'." "but the act of 'touching'"
Right, but whether an unconscious detector or a conscious mind is observing it, it is still being 'touched' in an ontologically identical way -assuming dualism is false.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@JohananRaatz
Commonality to both matter and mind is not necessary, though! A mind is merely the product of a certain configuration of matter, and the only way that mind can sense the world is through interacting physically with it.
The act of 'seeing' a photon is no different from when a photon strikes any other surface... the surface just happens to be aware this once. The wave function collapses because it has produced a result, not because it has been 'detected' or observed.
taicleis 2 months ago
@taicleis (Part 1) "merely the product""
The mind itself not necessarily, protomental states are necessarily fundamental though as phenomenal attributes can't emerge from non-phenomenal attributes. (you can't have purely non-phenomenal particles make a purely phenomenal mind)
"not because"
But if we assume that consciousness isn't some magical non-scientific thing, then the collapse caused by the two (a mind and an unconscious photodetector) must be ontologically the same.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@JohananRaatz
So the wave-function collapses not when we 'look', but when ANYTHING in the Universe - another electron, a cosmic ray, you name it - requires that a particle be one way or the other. The moment it gets touched, the particle becomes determined.
The moon is present even when no homo sapiens are looking at it, because it is constantly interacting with other bodies. Every atom in it is affected. Hence its wave-functions were collapsing long before we ever saw it.
taicleis 2 months ago
@taicleis "Hence its wave-functions were collapsing long before we ever saw it."
Yes, well I didn't say we were the ultimate collapsers of the wave-function. Just that the conscious perception that we as minds perform, is ontologically equivalent to the unconscious detection that something like a detector performs. As a result this interaction needs to be explained in terms of a neutral stuff common to both matter and mind -which is information.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
As a physics major, There is no such thing as a theory of quantum gravity. Quantum mechanics and general relativity contradict one another. Right now physics is at a race to discover a theory of quantum gravity that would combine the two theories. However, you cannot completely apply all of quantum mechanics to general relativity. So this whole pseudoscience argument fails.
zeromodz 3 months ago
@zeromodz There isn't a full theory of quantum gravity yet, but whatever it is it will have to explain space-time, and you can't categorically explain space-time from within itself. That would be circular.
"So this whole pseudoscience"
Is 3 Road to QG pseudoscience? The picture I'm presenting here is just what Smolin described in his book. It's nothing out of the ordinary in regards to serious ideas that are already out there.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
because we dont know the universe ends we cant asume that time space and energy is not everywhere
Helden6621 3 months ago
the verry start what the guy says, that is his verry own statement, placed down to the simplist terms, what are the atoms doing... what is a void apart from what we see it as, through our own perspectives we wont know or ever may know, until we die of course, evan then i still cant say what will happen, we see space as a 3Dimenstional thing, going in all areas... now think about that for a second and you may have an apifiney ... just a void hahahahaha
Helden6621 3 months ago
I don't get it
BloodHarvest21 3 months ago
@BloodHarvest21 Basically quantum gravity has us in this weird position of needing to reduce space-time to something more fundamental than space-time. However since all physical units are defined in terms of space and time this means that whatever this something else is it can't really be categorized as physical.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@BloodHarvest21 em i think now, ... what this video means is that evan when you take a physical element out of a place its been in for evan just a few moments coded information of it traces do be left behind... em ehhhh leading to information being the key, and us as human beings we build as we go our own reality and that the pysical plane is just a minipulation of our concious selfs :S ,thats what it tells me anyways and i MAY be wrong lol fuck yo couch nigga xD
Helden6621 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz what a classic god of the gaps argument. You try to fill the gap with another gap which you call god. The word is utterly meaningless!
OpenAirAtheist 5 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist Except I know exactly where this quantum information comes from. It ultimately comes from the wave-function of the universe, which necessarily undergoes self-collapse and is therefore engaged in mental activity according to Penrose's Orchestrated Objective Reduction model of the mind: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
So how is this a "God of the Gaps" argument if I straight up explain God?
BTW this video wasn't an argument for God, but an argument against physicalism.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz You don't even know why I called it gap of the gaps. Your welcome to reach me on skype.
OpenAirAtheist 5 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist All right, I will try to find you on skype. However, why is it a "god of the gaps" argument? What unexplained detail have I ascribed as proof for a deity?
To the best of my knowledge, and I haven't pointed anywhere in any of my videos to an unexplained detail as being evidence of something. All of my arguments are positive ones, using things that are already explicable. My argument for God is even controversial with some theists for precisely that reason.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz you said that information is conceptual not physical which is false. The words you use only have meaning when they refer to physical objects or persons which are material . your lit words are physical and your spoken words are physical sound energy waves. Your thoughts are physical as well they are electrical chemical reactions and if your going to say they are more than that then the burden is on you to communicate what you mean by ''more''. Again your welcome to add me on Skype.
OpenAirAtheist 4 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist "only have meaning when they refer to... ,which are material"
Oh I see. Ok:
1.) Words are not information, just the medium we use to express it. I mean information in itself.
2.) The information I'm speaking of here are the observations of reality themselves. (like the qualia -Redness, loudness etc. etc.) Modern physics shows us that this is all that exists of what we think of as "material stuff." Your flaw is to assume there is any matter behind what you sense.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz if you say are perception of reality is information then I might be willing to agree depending on your meaning which we will need to define via skype. As for your qualia- redness loudness assertion i must disagree.With the info i have thus far all thoughts, conceptualizations, feelings , emotions are electrical chemical reactions. Yes it is possible as far as i no that our perceptions of existence/reality are to some degree inaccurate but I can go off the info I have thus far .
OpenAirAtheist 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz you also stated in another comment that some objects according to some experts only exist when observed, but we don't know that for sure and they may only ''appear'' to be that way. There is so much we don't know at this time and what appears to only exist when observed now might prove to be not the case or a different in the future.
OpenAirAtheist 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz You don't seriously think your gonna educate me on the NT do you? You don't read the NT you read a translation. Do you even know how perform a consistent biblical exigesis ? I doubt it . You have also failed to contact me on skype... Hiding behind your key board are ya : ) Well until ya do I consider ya a troll.
OpenAirAtheist 4 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist First of all, you're translation looks rather weird. Where did you get "eons" and "having been adjusted and framed" from?
Besides that, the NT or that verse is not what the video is about. You're jumping on the verse at the end, and missing the basic point of the video in the process.
And yes, I will contact you on Skype. I'm having some problems with it though. Did you find me on facebook though?
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohananRaatz Also it my translation may seam strange to you but accurate to those who read and comprehend koine GK.
OpenAirAtheist 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz Also I must ask what you mean by conceptual ? If you can't tell me what conceptual is then your use of the word ''conceptual'' is meaningless! You say ''is'' conceptual. What do you mean by is ? If i say i have a ''cup'' and you ask what is it made of ? and i say immaterial. Then i have failed to answer your question because you asked ''what ''is'' it made of ? immaterial only states what it is not.
OpenAirAtheist 4 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist Also an ex Christian apologist who reads biblical GK i must say the translation you used of Heb 11:3 is rank. ''universe'' is a bad translation it should be translated ''ages'' also the word translated ''word'' is where we get our word grammar so not bad translation however you did say in a prior comment that words weren't info. Also you have plucked this verse from its context. My lit trans is more accurate so i translate this verse for you in the next comment-
OpenAirAtheist 4 months ago
Respond to this video... My lit trans of Hebrews 11:3 '' Via(dat sg fem) faith we( pres act) constantly perceive the (eons) ages (perf pas ) having been adjusted or framed through the grammar (theou) of GOD not (ek) out of (pres mid pas/gen pl ''phainomenon'') phenomenon (perf act ''gegonenai'') have come into existence. Here you go. ''Via faith we increasingly perceive the ages having been adjusted and framed through the grammar of god , not out of phenomenon have come into existence.:)
OpenAirAtheist 4 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist It looks like you are contorting it, and being far too literal -something shared by both fundies and new atheists. In any case I tacked it on at the end to show an interesting parallel. Aside from that, the idea of the world being made of information shows up elsewhere in the Bible as well as in other traditions and in some branches of esotericism.
The larger point of the video however was to show that modern physics has demonstrated materialism or naive realism to be wrong.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
very interesting!
swingersadult1 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz
I just rewatched "Introduction and Illustration on the Holographic Principle", this video about Leonard Susskind bascally says that energy and matter are real just in a black hole the information carried by these photons is saved using a holography. Now even if you make the leap that we live in a giant black hole, this doesn't disprove that energy exists outside the blackhole. You clearly special relativity to make a black hole.
AlainG80 6 months ago
@AlainG80 Well I'm not saying they aren't real, just that they are emergent. It obviously exists, which is how we get black holes with general relativity (special is for high velocity not gravity), it's just that it's not fundamental.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@JohananRaatz
I'll rephrase, if you don't get the mass and time from the energy-momentum tensor to make the blackhole you wouldn't have one. We also know that the universe is flat within <1% accuracy.
As for the chicken and egg paradox (curvature(spacegeometry) or energy-momentum) that's why cosmologists got inspired by evolutionary processes (mediated by cosmic natural selection). The answer is that neither came first, they both existed in more discrete versions, unified at the early stages.
AlainG80 6 months ago
@AlainG80 "The answer is that neither came first, they both existed in more discrete versions, unified at the early stages"
Well that was the issue really. That unified state was likely all processes of info "correlations without correlata" as David Mermin would put it. Space-time and matter-energy both emerge from that at once.
"We also know that the universe is flat within <1% accuracy."
Because of exactly zero energy! There's a cool way to show this from purely classical physics actually.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@JohananRaatz
Can't we induce from the flatness, that we don't live in a universal blackhole? And that the Susskind solution to the information paradox can't be applied to the universe. I still don't see how you can have information or a hologram without a energy-momentum carrier. For me information is a epiphenomenon on a higher conceptual level. I don't like the appeal to higher dimensions either. I probably prefer a supersymmetric Dirac sea full of gravitons or an unknown option to unify it.
AlainG80 6 months ago
Comment removed
AlainG80 6 months ago
Space-time is temporal sequence of spaces, or a history of spaces.
LQG space-time is a history of spin networks (spinfoam).
If I define spin networks in discrete energy, than information is a higher level concept.
So basically, you equivocate the concept of information. And you equivocate the versions of LQG (Wheeler–DeWitt equations). You omit full disclosure, which is unethical in scientific circles in order to advance your pre-modernistic intuitions.
AlainG80 6 months ago
@AlainG80 "If I define spin networks in discrete energy"
Ok: Spin networks are groupings of processes and events. But what comes first, space-time or correlations? If you answer space-time then you're defining space-time in a circular fashion, but if you answer correlations, then you have to admit that we can only model spin networks in terms of discrete energy as an approximation -since energy needs space-time to exist in the first place.
Smolin himself presented it as information first.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
Comment removed
AlainG80 6 months ago
@AlainG80 @AlainG80 (cont.) "omit full disclosure"
Well just read 3 Roads to QG. It wasn't like I was quote mining Smolin or anything. In fact the entire fourth chapter of the book was on how quantum gravity necessarily replaces the world of things with a world of processes of information, and how space-time as an infinite empty void was an illusion.
"your pre-modernistic intuitions."
Well I wasn't the one to admit I was stuck in the 20th century:
"believe in 20th century physics"
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@JohananRaatz
If you look up modernism you understand how that statement makes no sense.
I seriously doubt you understand 20th century physics on a level presented beyond pop-science.
If you did you would know that a dirac sea, quantum field theories, Feynman diagrams are just re-organizations of space time. LQG predicts that space-time is made up of elementary grains of volume at the planck scale. We are talking about quantized geometry values, which on a higher level you can define as info.
AlainG80 6 months ago
@AlainG80 Well I'm no grad student, but my undergrad was physics.
"elementary grains of volume at the planck scale."
Yes, I get that, and yes, we can interpret it like that if we'd like. But then what are they grains "in?" To really conceptualize it, you'd have to think about it from an "outside looking in" context. Only the "outside" here to make any real sense of it would be outside space-time. Yes you could model it the other way around, but it seems counter-productive.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
Skimmed to Roger Penrose's book.
I know better understand your position, you are a subscriber to metaphysical solopsism, personally I think that's a vice. I think it is autistic, repectless. And using that belief system you can't even differentiate between unwarranted faith and knowledge. It's only useful as a concept to understand your pre-suppositions.
By accepting this interpretation of quantum physics you lead the evidence of quantum physics rather than following it. Which is unscientific.
AlainG80 6 months ago
@AlainG80 "metaphysical solopsism"
No, I'm not. I do believe you're really there. I do subscribe to what might be called "methodological solipsism" though.
"differentiate between unwarranted..."
How so? Remember the entire point of methodological solipsism is precisely to remove things we don't know for certain. Say for example materialism. We never actually see matter. All we can empirically verify is empirical INFORMATION. So here it helps remove the unwarranted claim matter is primary.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@JohananRaatz
My mistake, I have no problem with methodological solipsism.
I'm probably correct that you reject realism and localism, if that's true than how do you differentiate local/subjective concepts from reality (objective) matter, if you accept the mathematics that underpin Wheelers theory than how do you distinguish mathematical fantasy from reality? See: David Deutsch: A new way to explain explanation.
AlainG80 6 months ago
@AlainG80 "lead the evidence"
Well the reasons for Penrose's view are pretty straightforward. Now yes I do personally think Orch-OR could be cleaned up and made simpler, by recasting it in terms of entropic gravity.
My personal like for it came from its identifying self-collapse with self-observation. Collapse is the only real lead we have to understanding the mind -via the Wigner's friend thought experiment. And so if collapse = observation, then self-collapse = self-observation.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@AlainG80 (cont. -last of 4) Perhaps it's another instantiation of Godel: A complete physical model -nothing outside of physically defined units (stopping with QM and GR) is inconsistent. And a consistent physical model (unifying QM and GR) demonstrates incompleteness in the physical system. (as space-time can only be explained in terms of something that is necessarily more fundamental than space-time)
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@AlainG80 (cont.) Except I'm not a solipsist. Yes, I buy Whitehead's metaphysics of panexperientialism, but that's not the same as solipsism.
"And using that belief system you can't even differentiate between unwarranted faith and knowledge."
That's easy to differentiate actually. Knowledge is stuff we know -either a priori or a posteriori, and unwarranted faith is believing stuff we can't prove based on a priori or a posteriori knowledge.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
Comment removed
AlainG80 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@JohananRaatz
This is a crackpot theory!
@1:19
D-branes have mass, since they emit and absorb closed strings which describe gravitons, and in superstring theories they also have charge.
@1:24
Time is an illusion created by moving E^2=M^2.C^4.
In LQG spacetime is considered as a superposition of spin foams.
@1:38
Field theories/Spin Networks/Information are a geometrical/graphical conception/model and not a problem for a physicalist.
AlainG80 6 months ago
@AlainG80 No, not -unless you want to refer to Smolin, Wheeler, Lloyd and a lot of others as "crackpots" too. It's pretty well established. In fact the concepts of "digital physics" and "pancomputationalism" come from it.
@1:19: Yes, but string theory isn't complete because it isn't background independent.D-branes are not fundamental.
Read 3 Roads to QG. Smolin was very clear that the world is made of processes of information not things. He even had the entire fourth chapter devoted to this.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@JohananRaatz
You haven't addressed all my comments, and it is not a theory but a mathematical model.
I'm aware of the problems in string theory, which also isn't a theory it is either a hypotheses or a conjecture.
@Jasonator1000
I believe in 20th century physics i.e. energy, how do you demonstrate information? I can only think of information as conceptual.
You at least have to agree it is metaphysics (philosophy/math) and not physics (science/demonstrable).
AlainG80 6 months ago
@AlainG80 "how do you demonstrate information?"
Simple, you see it. How do you demonstrate matter or energy? I can't empirically verifying anything past my sensory experience.
"think of information as conceptual."
Well sensory experience is already in a sense conceptual -a perception of the mind. Whether there is any matter behind it is a matter of metaphysical speculation at best.
BTW QIT already demonstrates that everything is just info: watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc @53:22 (ignore silly title)
Jasonator1000 6 months ago
Comment removed
AlainG80 6 months ago
@Jasonator1000
I'll accept a descriptive model as true if it explains the epistemological question. But not without demonstrable evidence. I mean if the conclusion is that we exist of quantum information, than I won't accept it as true as long as I'm not able to exploit / demonstrate / isolate / measured, scrutinized, taxonimized, and customized it.
The only conclusion I made, from the video was to confirm that we have a model dependent description of reality or mathematical fantasy.
AlainG80 6 months ago
@Jasonator1000
I don't see information, I use scientific realism to derive it.
More info: David Deutsch: A new way to explain explanation
AlainG80 6 months ago
@AlainG80 "This is a crackpot theory!"
LOL You wish!
When you have people like Wheeler, a colleague of Einstein himself, saying the world is fundamentally informational, and then you have a whole host of modern physicists agreeing, including everyone from Henry Stapp, to Lee Smolin then it's simply reactionary nonsense to refer to as a "crackpot theory."
Drop the silly 19th century atoms and the void view of the world and accept progress!
Jasonator1000 6 months ago 13
@Jasonator1000 Well spoken!!!
KTK401 4 months ago
Hail JohananRaatz! His words are accurate, trustful and most important.. reliable.
FatGnomeTribute 7 months ago 13
Sounds like we are back to sort of Plato where concepts does indeed exist independantly of us
killerbee2k 7 months ago
@killerbee2k Yup, cool eh?
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
John, thnx once more for giving me something I can take to the sun porch with me...which I will eventually be invited to spend my afternoons in if I keep collecting these new and fascinating things you put out here for us that blows my mind.
But I'm still glad you do.
foxisms 7 months ago
@foxisms No problem! I have many more similar things planned like this in the future! :)
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@Dhorpatan This video explains what is wrong with your approach the best. You start with the assumption of physicalism, when in fact quantum gravity has since proven that what we call physical isn't really there at all. Or rather it's there, but as an illusion of something more fundamental, ideas or concepts.
This makes sense anyway as ideas or concepts are all that can exist by themselves anyway. If the world is made out of them it explains why there is something rather than nothing as well.
IoPizzaPlanet 7 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet
Quantum Gravity has not proven that the physical isn't really there at all. You are grossly abusing and misrepresenting Quantum Gravity in order to substantiate your Quantum Quackery beliefs.
Your beliefs are also self refuting. If the physical isn't there at all, or is just an illusion, then you, since you are physical, are an illusion. An illusion cannot know truth. Something that is not real(AN ILLUSION), cannot come to true beliefs.
Dhorpatan 6 months ago
@Dhorpatan An illusion is still a something that can be observed or deduced. If it wasn't we could never deduce it was an illusion in the first place -but we obviously did.
We know that GR and QM only fit together if we go outside the physical domain. Either we stop at GR and QM and we have an inconsistent theory, or we go beyond them and thus the physical world is incomplete. Godel applies here too.
And no it's not "quantum quackery." Lee Smolin calls people like YOU, MYSTICS. (see 2:26-2:35)
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@JohananRaatz
Yeah, illusions are things that aren't real. They are rather, fake and false manifestations emanating from something else that is real.
Dhorpatan 6 months ago
@Dhorpatan Ok, let me explain exactly what is and what is not an illusion here.
Yes, matter, energy and space-time are illusory, fake and false manifestations emanating from something that is real -empirically observable quantum information.
What is not illusory however is the empirically observable information that we see. That's all that science tells us exists though. We never actually see matter, or energy or space-time, we just see empirical data that we INTERPRET that way.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@Dhorpatan (cont.) No one has actually seen matter, energy or space-time itself. All we see is empirical data. Who knows. Maybe this is all my dream, you're not even there, and none of this is any more real than my observation of it. (not that it is but as a hypothetical) Barring I wake up, I could never know. All I know FOR CERTAIN based on these observations is that I have these phenomenal observations that give me this experience.
Science doesn't tell us about anything outside observations.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@Dhorpatan BTW it doesn't say the physical isn't real. It just says it's not primary. Also if you can't use this argument that if we were holograms we'd never no, because there are ways to determine if you are in a hologram. For example, if one discovered non-local connections (ie. entanglement) in one's world, it would be good evidence that one was living in a hologram.
BTW this is why people are suggesting using the holographic principle to solve the horizon problem.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
Comment removed
IoPizzaPlanet 6 months ago
@Dhorpatan I didn't say it wasn't really there at all. It is there, but not as what we think of it as. It's an emergent phenomenon, not something fundamental. It's like how a computer game exists, but is an illusion of information in the hard drive.
"(AN ILLUSION), cannot come to true beliefs."
Here's where you're wrong. I never said my I is an illusion, just that my material body is. My I is quite real, but it's just as immaterial as the quantum information that makes up the material world.
IoPizzaPlanet 6 months ago
1) OK
2)OK
3) I agree there is something more fundamental than space-time continuum which itself is derived but under no condition is it called god. God exist only in the brain of people who imagine it. Begining of the universe was due to the natural law of QM. Calling it god is just plain ignorant. I dont think holographic principle says anything about zero entropy. Can u provide some link to that?
janko1212 7 months ago
@janko1212 ) (1of2) "more fundamental than space-time"
It's not God by itself no -just information. But this does demonstrate what I'm getting at -that something exists that is not defined by physical units.
"God exist only"
"the natural law of QM."
Hey I'm not referring to anything not explicable with science here! Some regular theists have had a problem with me for doing this actually.
Well don't call it "God" if you don't want to then. Just call it Universal Orch-OR. ;)
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@janko1212 "anything about zero entropy."
Well that's just a natural extension of what the HP implies when you add in the 2nd law. Remember entropy is always increasing with time. And there is a finite amount of entropy in the universe. Thus if we "dial back time" we see the entropy constantly decreasing. When we run out of entropy we get the Big Bang; if S=A/4 and S=0 then A=0.
It gives a kind of cool reason for expansion like this. The universe expands because entropy increases.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@janko1212 (2of2) "anything about zero entropy."
Well that's just a natural extension of what the HP implies when you add in the 2nd law. Remember entropy is always increasing with time. And there is a finite amount of entropy in the universe. Thus if we "dial back time" we see the entropy constantly decreasing. When we run out of entropy we get the Big Bang; if S=A/4 and S=0 then A=0.
It gives a kind of cool reason for expansion like this. The universe expands because entropy increases.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@JohananRaatz
"The universe expands because entropy increases."
I could agree but i dont think entropy was ever zero. Big bang according to most scientist was only an intermediate phase or a transformation point. Not the beggining of everything.
"It's not God by itself no -just information."
Yes u can call it information but its not the concept of information. Its information in some form of energy. Concept is a human thing. It can never be substrate of reality. There u got it wrong
janko1212 7 months ago
@janko1212 (3of3) "according to most scientists" "Not the beggining"
That doesn't sound right. Remember space-time only appeared in the Planck epoch. Something existed "before" but it was the universal wave-function. Hawking even agrees here -but doesn't add Orch-OR to it.
"a human thing" "never be substrate"
Well those are your two assumptions. Remember Platonic stuff (1+1=2) is conceptual yet always exists. And whether or not it can be a substrate is what we're debating in the first place.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@JohananRaatz
Since u believe in Holographic principle u should know it is derived from String theory and this theory says our universe is just a 3-d brane which is embeded in hyperspace. According to that big bang was a collision of 2 such branes and the kynetic energy of collision resulted creation of particles. Spacetime in this case is composed of branes and strings which are probably the most fundamental entities since they go down to the Planck scale.N
janko1212 7 months ago
@janko1212 (1of3)Well that's it's primary source yes, but it's actually also derived from two other sources as well: Black Hole Thermodynamics and Loop Quantum Gravity. That's why everyone is so excited about it because it's rare to get that kind of convergence between such divergent approaches.
"the most fundamental entities"
With in space-time they are, but remember once the final theory is discovered they will be just be the way of perceiving extra-local structures from within space-time.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@janko1212 (2of3) "According to that big bang was a collision of 2 such branes"
You're referring to the Ekpyrotic model, which is interesting and all but it's not held by most scientists. Remember String theory as of yet is not complete. Once the complete formulation is put together it will be extra-local and space-time, and geometric objects like branes or strings will not be fundamental.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@JohananRaatz "branes or strings will not be fundamental."
U dont know that upfront. I can turn out strings are most fundamental entities which is very likely. Od D-0 branes for that matter.
" Just call it Universal Orch-OR"
Id rather call it laws of nature
janko1212 7 months ago
@janko1212 "U dont know that upfront."
Well I do though. This is because the final theory must be background independent. The current formulation of string theory which has strings and branes as fundamental is not background independent. Background independence in the context of QG means space and time derive from non-space and non-time.
"Id rather call it laws of nature"
Well that would be also valid. It's just that with Orch-OR mind would be an intrinsic part of those laws.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
U know what Einstein said: ..... spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve
janko1212 7 months ago
So you're an informational monist?
CosmicThinking 7 months ago
@CosmicThinking Yup.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@JohananRaatz Are there any recommended reads you have (papers preferably) that go into detail on this conclusion you have brought here, and of course on information theory in general?
CosmicThinking 7 months ago
@CosmicThinking Lee Smolin's and Seth Lloyd's books as well as others are good. (though info monism comes up tangentially in regards to quantum gravity and the holographic principle -except with Seth Lloyd's book) Also from a philosophy angle look up "panexperientialism" -that was Alfred Whitehead and Bertrand Russell's view. In general a lot of stuff with relation to philosophy of mind relates to this though. Also google search "quantum gravity" and "information monism."See what you find.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@JohananRaatz Thank you. Also panentheist Christianity...very..interesting.
CosmicThinking 7 months ago
@CosmicThinking Yes, add in Neoplatonism and it all comes together.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
Altho the pictures are nice in the video and the music. Its impressive how much effort you put into this but ur reasoning here is fallacious.
janko1212 7 months ago
@janko1212 It's not fallacious. I don't know how much you've read about quantum gravity or theoretical physics in general but the idea of information monism is all over the place there these days -and among the lead scientists as well. And it's for the same reasons I'm using here -I got the idea of the world as made of qubits by reading Lee Smolin in the first place. (and his view is echoed everywhere else)
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
This video is so terribly wrong i dont even know where to begin.
1) Gravity is NOT space time. Gravity is the CURVATURE of space-time. The gravitational potential energy is stored in the curvature. So everything u said is simply wrong.
2) I already told u but i should reapeat. Ur belief in god is just deluding you and u are trying to justify ur belief by making up this mistical explanations. There is no imaginary sky dictator or some mistical entity called god.
janko1212 7 months ago
@janko1212 1.) First of all, space-time is never not curved -the uncertainty principle forbids it. Secondly, the surface area of any region of space, is expressible in terms of it's information content. So the idea that this doesn't also apply to empty space is simply wrong.
2.) You did tell me but you were wrong. We've been over this remember? I came across the Universal Orch-OR argument by complete accident. And saying the negative of it for certain is just as unfounded as fundieism.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@JohananRaatz
1) Wrong. Space-time is only curved in pressence of mass. Otherwise its flat. Random quantum fluctations average-out over time and they DONT produce gravity. Gravity is only the potential energy of the curvature. So your video is simply wrong becouse gravity is not space-time. Revise ur knowlledge about physics.
Making a fundamentally false assumption and than leading other assumptions from that one does no good.
janko1212 7 months ago
@janko1212 1.) No -not it alone. It's the stress-energy-momentum tensor that does it. That can INCLUDE mass but it also includes energy, energy pressure, momentum etc. etc. And quantum flux does cause tiny curvatures on the micro-scale. It's a well known fact that QG will have to quantize space-time as well as gravity. Read more physics.
"not space-time."
Yes, bent space-time is gravity, but that makes the rest of space-time part of it's field. And you can't have an empty space-time.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@JohananRaatz
1)Well mass=energy so thats ok what i said. But gravity is NOT space-time. That was my point.
2)"And you can't have an empty space-time."
Actually the total energy of the universe is excatly 0.Negative gravitational energy is completly balanced by positive energy of matter. So the universe is flat, just on local scale there are bumps. And only such universe could arrise from nothing. Therefore there is no need for an imaginary creator
janko1212 7 months ago
@janko1212 (1of2) 1.) Well yes, I equivocated a bit there perhaps. The point however remains that to quantize gravity, we will have to quantize space-time as well. To understand how space-time bends, we have to find out what makes it tick -and for that we have to quantize it.
2.) Actually, I have a video on that (The Net Energy Content of the Universe is Zero). But it's never locally flat. In fact it can't be if it is universally flat, it has to be bumped everywhere so as to cancel out.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@janko1212 (2of2) 3.) "And only such universe could arrise from nothing. Therefore there is no need for an imaginary creator"
Aren't you forgetting why space-time exists at all? The holographic principle tells us that at one time when there was zero entropy, there was also zero space-time in existence. Space-time was created when it fluctuated out of Phi at the Big Bang. That implies something more fundamental than space-time exists. And it's not imaginary. God = Hawking's Phi + Orch-OR.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
Fantastic!
KTK401 7 months ago
Being something that exists in the mind of God is an incredible thing to comprehend. I dont know how to take it in but its amazing
TheFaithHunter 7 months ago
@TheFaithHunter It truly is.
Icame to this realization about 3 years ago, and more deeply aout 8 months ago when I started studying in this area of physics.
Suddenly the world around us looks so awesome - it is truly divine when seen from this perspective. The physical universe is not separate from the spiritual realm, it is spiritual itself, if appreciated in that way.
Peace!
KTK401 7 months ago
@KTK401 "Suddenly the world around us looks so awesome - it is truly divine when seen from this perspective. The physical universe is not separate from the spiritual realm, it is spiritual itself, if appreciated in that way."
I know isn't it though? It's the transcendent made immanent in a "overpoweringly sublime" sort of way. You never look at things the same way again.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@JohananRaatz
Yes absolutely. I recently came to this realization and I am glad others have also.
I hope others are doing the same all over the world. We are living in the dawn of a new era.
Thanks for this awesome video. And you explained Gravity (QG) as it fits in with what we have been discussing in the last few months, along with what Dr John Hagelin & Dr Amit Goswami are saying about the subject of consciousness & the universe.
Bravo!
KTK401 7 months ago
The text flows well. I hated the tagged scripture at the end though. Way to blow your credibility among the atheists. O_o
BlowDevilUp 7 months ago
@BlowDevilUp True, well I was telling my brother about it and he mentioned it and I was like "oh neat that fits in real well." I was debating putting it up or not though. Though granted I hardly ever do that anyway.
I just thought the idea of the universe being created from "words" (ie. information) was a little poetic in the end so I put it up.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
sSo what are you suggesting? Some form of quantum pandeism?
Ihatemelee 7 months ago
@Ihatemelee Panentheism actually, in other words the universe exists in side of the mind of God, Bishop Berkeley style actually: watch?v=ee2jtmhyO8Q
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@JohananRaatz I have wondered about such things but in the end it may sound far better than theabrahamic traditions, it still seem to much like just another faith claim. If you agree or believe in a panentheist universe, would would you think about reincarnation? Given that framework I would think that is only 1 "soul" and it would be everything and everything in it as well. That kind of thinking bugs me cause I don't want to have come back here :P
Ihatemelee 7 months ago
Damn! thanks alot
matrixlone 7 months ago 5