Universal Orch-OR Presentation on The Atheist Experience Show -9/19/10 Episode #675

[maxm007]

Look how anxious they were to keep the discussion safely into the realm of their own dogmatic view of God.

[JohananRaatz]

@maxm007 I noticed. lol

[lilrat489]

It's funny how they tried to explain away the argument without even letting you finish it.

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@CardinalPoochie

1) You attempt to discredit Raatz by stating he is a Physics STUDENT, & insinuating that somehow PROFESSORS stop learning & then you admit the Atheists in question have no Physics background

2) You gave an analogy of winning/losing, but you yourself stated 'FAIL' with a personal insult of 'moron', raatz sticks to observations, you just insult

3) Are u AGAINST detailed speculation,but complain about it being vague,when clearly that was the Atheists choice to not get more details

[JohananRaatz]

@PhilosphicalFuture Technically I've graduated so I'm not a student anymore, but as of this episode I was. Thanks though.

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@CardinalPoochie

On their Website, they redefine 'Atheism', even acknowledging its against the dictionary and majority's definition. Their actions show the main presenters at least are not Agnostic. They claim they are for separation of Church and State .... Secularism supports Freedom of Religion! They even have 'Donation' box. what exactly is there goal ? They are totally polarized on Religious Fundies for their own worldview to be sustainable.

There are 3 things you are inconsistent about:-

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@CardinalPoochie

Settle Down! You know when you resort to terms such as 'pseudo intellectual' on youtube then you're struggling. Do you think these Atheists were curious to learn by even attempting to look at the video or were intellectually curious enough to research what Raatz asserted in regards to WolfGang Polly and so forth? Of Course Not! They just want to appease their egos by mocking the Religious Fundies to compensate for their own Fundie Gnostic Atheist mindset.

[CardinalPoochie]

@JohananRaatz I know you're pretty high on yourself because you think you have presented something so profound and revelatory, but all it is is pseudo-intellectual garbage. You are a physics STUDENT, not a professor or scientist. None of your claims are backed up by peer review. Get over yourself, moron!

[JohananRaatz]

@CardinalPoochie (part 3) Actually I emailed this to Stuart Hameroff, he agreed with me and told me to look up an Italian physicist named Paola Zizzi who had a very similar idea called the Big Wow. There's your peer review.

Are Zizzi and Hameroff morons too?

BTW sorry I've been in a combative mood for the last few days. I get a little cocky like this when that happens.

[CardinalPoochie]

@JohananRaatz Not only that, but your theory is crippled from the get-go because you make several unsupported assertions, the main one being that wave function collapse creates a mind - Penrose's Orch-OR model requires a mind to already exist in order for consciousness to emerge from it. If you reply that it is different than what I state, than you are simply being willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Not only that, but Penrose's model has been falsified many times. FAIL!

[JohananRaatz]

@CardinalPoochie (Part 1) "been falsified"

Did you read the paper by Hameroff and Penrose published last year? Do you know the claim that quantum effects can't affect biology has been falsified? (this is the basis for much of the scientific criticism of the model) I mention this because as of 2010 they've found qubits in microtubules: watch?v=VQngptkPYE8

"mind to already exist"

Penrose's model says that conscious experience = self-collapse. Nothing here conflicts with that.

[PhilosphicalFuture]

I posted these video url on The Atheist Experience forum with some criticism of them, no surprise the moderate deleted it promptly. Their double standards and hypocrisy continues ..

[JohananRaatz]

@PhilosphicalFuture LOL figures. Try reposting it without the criticism. See what happens.

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@JohananRaatz

I tried, but was prompted by You have been blocked by the owner of this video. by The Atheist Experience.

Now, I was courteous throughout, and I said criticism in a passive manner that was objective in (John Searls Ontological Context), being holistic as possible with heavy justification giving it weight throughout. Even by their standards I was surprised - but if anything it shows if they simply cannot counter it, they will ignore it and pretend we dont exist,*coughs* like God.

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@JohananRaatz

I wish I took a screenshot, I just never anticipated for the moderator to delete my comments, as well as the Atheists who commented back to it, and then imminently counter argue a fundamental Christian in the comment box. It's like tongue in cheek satire, but unfortunately they are absolutely sincere!

Its crazy! You would think they would appreciate Theists who want to discuss these topics openly with them, but they dont! They just want to thrive on schadenfreude with Fundies

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@JohananRaatz

When you call back into the show, you better use euphemisms, because these poor souls have very low self-esteem and confidence if you're curt.The majority of these Gnostic Atheists used to be Religious Fundies themselves, still have that mindset! The Gnostic Atheists ACTIONS 'effect' make them feel better but more importantly the 'CAUSE' makes Theists feel better,so we both win at their expense. Lemme give a brief anecdote if you will, say 50,000 years ago ...

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@JohananRaatz

[Cont ..} When the most successful, were the psychos sociopaths who could murder without hesitation, rape. and so forth for hunting food and reproducing. The freaks were the ones introspective to hesitate on murdering or raping where now in modern day it is juxtaposed. Now being linear at that moment in time, this is seen as illogical and irrational to the hunters, but empathy and Theistic Philosophy is what helped mold an altruistic society.

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@JohananRaatz

The crux is, maybe you can agree/disagree with me.Many Theists do with each other-thats ok!Maybe Deism is more apt nowadays but the pace of our progress was heightened due to Theism,as well as partially detrimental at times on the other side of the coin.Ultimately,these Gnostic Atheists tend to be dogmatic to empiricism and believe that equates to absolute materialism.Quality cannot be defined because it intellectually precedes any intellectual construct of it

[PhilosphicalFuture]

Quality cannot be defined because it empirically precedes any intellectual construct of it

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@JohananRaatz

Finally I am curious

1) Regardless of the truth, if empiricism progress can be achieved just as quick or quicker via placebos of Theism,i.e physically making people happier, more motivated, healthier and live longer,is that illogical to be against?

2) Do you agree that they are complacent and irrational over empiricism, which ironically disrespects it,and completely unaware of the abundance of revolutions Science will go through?I.E Potentially Neutrinos etc

[JohananRaatz]

@PhilosphicalFuture "illogical to be against?"

Yes. I've argued that way back actually. Suppose religion is false and atheism is true etc. IF that is the case, then it is what Plato called a "dangerous truth" and should be buried.

"unaware of the abundance of revolutions"

Oh they already are! Most of them have this impression that "science proves atheism via evolution," but when it comes to QP I have to drag them kicking and screaming to its immaterialist conclusions.

[Duplooytim]

They wont let you finish... their just being stupid!

[JohananRaatz]

@Duplooytim I don't think they wanted me to! lol

[ex0gen]

This video only illustrates the conclusion that I have had on this show for some time now. For the most part, the people that call in are all idiots, however when someone who is educated, and on the theistic side does call in (as in this case), the show no longer has much support for the idea that theism is irrational.

[JohananRaatz]

@ex0gen I'm thinking I should call in a lot more then! lol 

[ex0gen]

@JohananRaatz Yeah, you should. They tried to deflect your argument by saying that 1. he is a fan of another theory of mind, 2. stating that this discussion is to complex for the audience 3. that the argument is to "theoretical." However even granting these premises, even if they were/are true, it only shows that theism itself, is not "irrational,"

[JohananRaatz]

@ex0gen The ironic part of all of this, is that I had very strong argumentation for the "just theoretical" parts. And granted I did go into too much detail perhaps, but the basic concept of it is very simple, one only need a layman's understanding of QP to get it.

[ex0gen]

@JohananRaatz Right, that was very obvious. On most of the premises, you pointed out how it was not very controversial and YET, they ignored it. And for the parts that are, i.e. Penrose theory of mind, you conceded that this was in depute. However, all they said was that they have another theory.  But none of that makes the theistic argument here "irrational." These people disappointed me because from what I saw, they CLEARLY folded, but tried to save face.

[JohananRaatz]

@ex0gen I think I caught them off guard! lol

The funny thing is that Penrose shouldn't even be controversial, as I pointed out to them "self-collapse = mind" basically follows as an immediate consequence of substance dualism being false.

Unless these atheists would like to be caught arguing substance dualism!

[ex0gen]

@JohananRaatz Well you know they wouldn't. Also "these atheists" which in this case is really just a cover term for "materialist" are forced to take a view on the mind that cannot possibly work.

[JohananRaatz]

@ex0gen I know lol. I had them pinned into a corner. They didn't like that!

[CardinalPoochie]

@JohananRaatz "I know lol. I had them pinned into a corner."

LMAO! No you didn't. Not even close. You're the one who invented this hare-brained, pseudo intellectual theory, so how could they possibly be expected to know what the fuck you were ranting about, especially when you were so vague? Your little self proclaimed victory is akin to the grade 8 bully being proud of beating up a kindergarten child on the playground. They stated outright they don't have a physics background.

[JohananRaatz]

@CardinalPoochie (Part 2)"pseudo intellectual"

Actually Hameroff agreed with it in his email but said I reinvented the wheel. Paola Zizzi had a very similar idea first. She's not pseudo-intellectual is she?

"so vague"

Well where was it vague? It's just the realization that self-collapse = consciousness, and the wave-fcn of the universe is self-collapsing.

"don't have"

Their token physicist didn't have a particular problem with it. He actually thought it was an interesting.

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@JohananRaatz

The 'Atheist Experience' show in general is white collar terrorism trying to hijack words such as ;rational' and 'logic' and connotate it with their own social construct. From what I have seen from their actions, words such as schadenfreude should be associated with them. If you give them your time again, dont be so high brow, its way over their head. Just explain the basic tenets of Theism such as no beginning and opposed to something over nothing. values etc - Keep up the Vids!

[JohananRaatz]

@PhilosphicalFuture "hijack words such as ;rational' and 'logic' and connotate it with their own social construct."

Well that's why I was being highbrow to begin with -to rub it in a little!

If they want to play their game, I will go the full nine yards, and cause them to see things they thought impossible.You know spook them out, and then grin when they start to crap their pants. ;)

I guess I'm a prankster like that. I'm ok with atheists, just not when they get smug.

[ex0gen]

@PhilosphicalFuture Yeah, they have hijacked those words, its ridiculous.

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@ex0gen They are attempting to. Altruism is an incomprehensible concept for them! The crux of the matter is that we are sentient beings, and empirical evidence goes so far. The concept of God is not empirical, numbers are irrelevant. You cant put a number on an axiom i.e stream of thought which they totally avoided confronting, 1 is only used to make it unified and make it distinct from Solipsism and Pantheism. These Gnostic Atheists will probably try and cause war with other Agnostics in future

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@JohananRaatz

The Extremist Atheist guy with glasses is definitively being intentionally obtuse to avoid conceding throughout parts of the conversation. He seems to think an 'entity' or literal 'deity' with properties is only way God can be otherwise it is useless semantics.When you mentioned axiom i.e abstract such as the mind, he really got pretentious and conceited stating the 'audience' wouldn't understand, how evasive! You gave them way too much credit.

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@JohananRaatz

It is entertaining, as these Gnostic Atheists are an embarrassment to typical Agnostic Atheists just as Fundamentalists are to Theists. They are so in denial, and incapable of being introspective; in turn have to criticize and be judgmental on the very people that share their flaws and negative traits, i.e the Fundamentalists. They are a disservice to Atheism. They lack any insight of Theism, hence why they are doing this show, they need more callers like you to explain the basics

[PhilosphicalFuture]

@JohananRaatz

Great Vid. You have great values, more than these inept creatures on the Atheist Experience. You showed them unconditional respect and courtesy that they clearly did not reciprocate nor deserve. I hope when you go back on there, you call them out on their BS again, and be inquisitive about THEIR ASSERTIONS AND AGENDA. They struggle when it isn't an easy target. They have no interest in Philosophy nor Science. They have no genuine interest in epistemology or learning in general.

[PhilosphicalFuture]

These hosts on 'Atheist Experience' take the worst parts of Atheism and practice it. Its sickening. They are equivalent to fundamentalists at other end of spectrum.

1) Their primary identity is a speculative hypothesis i.e Gnostic Atheism.

2) Proselytizing their world view

3) Community based on mutual hatred for other worldviews

4) Become parochial and dismiss the negative aspects of their worldview

5) Evasive when directly confronted

They do not care for the truth!

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

Hmmm maybe I can email the AE and tell them how easy it is to shred Raatz's argument.

[TheisticThinker]

@HonestTechnoAtheist I'm listening.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@TheisticThinker Well I've been getting into it with Raatz quite a bit about how he claims matter doesn't exist. He says that all matter can be boiled down to labels. Which is true in a way but labels are boiled down to matter. And that doesn't negate the existence of the matter either.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@TheisticThinker And Raatz claims that a mind is not a brain, yet is unable to tell me exactly how this is, could YOU by chance?

[TheisticThinker]

@HonestTechnoAtheist I'm no proponent of his argument, but I find some of his arguments interesting. Regarding the question of the mind and the brain; Didn't Raatz argue for this based on Wigner's thought experiment etc? Because Wigner's thought experiment seem to possibly indicate that consciousness is immaterial (assuming the validity of the thought experiment). Atleast if we take the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. And this was also Wigner's view.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@TheisticThinker I have trouble remembering all of Raatz's arguments, since they are so strange.

But if I stab someone through the head with a sword, they are most likely going to lose conciousness. Because conciousness comes from the brain, NOT the mind. The mind is only a term.

[JohananRaatz]

@HonestTechnoAtheist "Because conciousness comes from the brain, NOT the mind. The mind is only a term."

No consciousness IS the mind. Whether or not it comes from the brain is not the issue. It's obvious the mind exists though right? Otherwise you wouldn't be self-aware.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@JohananRaatz Conciousness is from the brain/mind. I will happily agree there.

It is obvious that conciousness comes from the mind/brain.

[JohananRaatz]

@HonestTechnoAtheist "It is obvious that conciousness comes from the mind/brain."

Consciousness is not from the mind, consciousness is the mind. Equivocating between the mind and brain however is illogical, or else there wouldn't be such a thing as the "mind/body" (read "mind/brain") problem.

Minds are the set of subjective qualities we have that comprise our state of consciousness, bodies/brains are the empirical correlates of those subjective qualities.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@JohananRaatz Sorry but you have yet to show that the mind and brain are different. And there is no mind body problem I have ever heard of. If you think there is, then please explain it.

Besides it is already a FACT that concisouness comes from the brain. If you get stabbed through the head, you will probably die, or at least lose conciousness.

And consiousness is only part of the brain, there is also control of the body, and personality. But it's all physical.

[JohananRaatz]

@HonestTechnoAtheist "show"

That's easy. It is conceivable (not to say that it's the case but it is conceivable) that the mind could exist without the brain. (a floating "I")The brain however couldn't exist without the brain. So the mind has a property that the brain doesn't -the conceptual possibility of existing without the brain. Thus the mind and brain aren't equal.

"no mind body problem"

Educate yourself on philosophy of mind then.

"all physical"

Define "physical."

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@JohananRaatz "A floating I"

I hear a duck somewhere. If you get your brain plucked out of your skull, I guess you won't die then? If you assert that the mind has a chance of existing without the brain, then I expect you to show me how. Of course you haven't even shown me what a mind IS, or how it's any different from the brain.

"educate yourself on philosophy of mind then"

First tell me what a mind is.

Things that can be obeserved, and demonstrated to exist. Tangible.

[TheisticThinker]

@HonestTechnoAtheist You should check it out, it's quite a big thing actually.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@TheisticThinker Hey I like discussing this with Raatz on skype? Would you care to do the same?

[TheisticThinker]

@HonestTechnoAtheist Haha, I have Skype, but I'm not really the world's funniest guy to talk with and I usually prefer to write, but I can probably add you guys if you want.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@TheisticThinker Yes I will add you on skype, I only hope you aren't a skype deadbeat.

My skype name is HonestTechnoA

[TheisticThinker]

@HonestTechnoAtheist I sent a request.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

Well Raatz I didn't think you would have the balls to call the AE. I'll have to watch this tonight and say what I think, though I'm sure the AE will pwn you!

[AJatheistgod]

Hi, I'm an atheist Baha'i, would like to explore with you the claims of Baha'u'llah as the One mentioned by all religions through the entirety of the homo sapien religions experience. The idea of "God" is a human constructed, and ultimately created by the religious figures like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad etc., in order to prepare for the appearance of Baha'u'llah.

[JohananRaatz]

@AJatheistgod Interesting. How do you compatibilize the two.

On a side note, on the issue of human archetypal constructions have you heard of Jung's ideas?

[AJatheistgod]

@JohananRaatz can i send you a private message?

[JohananRaatz]

@AJatheistgod Sure.

[AJatheistgod]

@JohananRaatz Well, let me try to spell it out this way. I'm taking the Bahai concept of unknowability of God seriously, and applying it to all realms, including philosophy, psychology, science, quantum science, even religion, nature, archetypes, the self, the universe itself, consciousness, and so on. Sure someone can say some or more of these approaches leads to knowledge of God, but this is a contradiction, isn't God unknowable? so when we say we "know" we mean something else

[AJatheistgod]

@JohananRaatz in other words any "knowing" of God is indirect, and so I can say something as simple/absurd as "this potato chip crumb on the floor here shows that God exists" and this statement would literally *equal* your extremely complicated and exotic approach through quantum physics. See what I'm saying? In other words, your quantum approach is not *any" distance closer to God than my potato chip crumb approach.

[nymphrenic]

What did you think of your experience on the show? What did the physicist think of your idea? Some personal commentary reflecting on your experience would be really helpful.

The guys were right that this is kind of heady stuff that's probably going over their listeners/viewers heads, but I think part of the reason for that was cuz the guy on the right kept interrupting you, and seemed to be lost in his own head by preparing a rebuttal to your points rather than trying to digest your argument

[Christheatheist1]

@nymphrenic - Not only did they NOT talk over you, they tried to explain to you that most of their audience would be unfamiliar with the wave function hypothesis. Trying to equate a physical phenomenon with the extremely unreliable visual observation is fraught with problems. You make all these assumptions based upon a shaky presumption of fact. I have great respect for Roger Penrose but I think equating these observations with proof of a god is a stretch.

[JohananRaatz]

@Christheatheist1 Well I stepped back to explain the wave-function to the audience. But all of the premises for the argument were fairly simple. Collapse is ontologically equivalent to observation. We know that from the Wigner's friend thought experiment. Thus self-collapse = self-observation, and from there it's only short step to show that the universe's wave-function is self-collapsing.

BTW when I emailed Hameroff, he agreed with my reasoning.

[greenghost2008]

It's ok to assumed premises are true for the sake of argument. That is a way to test if it's logical. I.e. if the premises are true is the conclusion good?

[turquoiseguy]

Well now I want to hear you off air conversation with the physicist because I'm not sure the guys on the Atheist Experience fully understood your argument.

[JohananRaatz]

@turquoiseguy I never got called back for some reason after, but the guy talked to me afterwards on youtube PM's. He didn't quite buy it, but he didn't have a particular problem with it either. He thought it was rather interesting though, and left it at that.

[thunderbolt94]

I'm going to be honest and admit that a lot of this went completely over my head. Interesting video though and definitely interesting you presented this argument to the Atheist Experience.

[soldatheero]

So at about 9 minutes they admit that all their really doing is "debunking" primitive conceptions of God, those held by fundamentalists and in fact not even the majority, it is there own misconceptions that the average person believes in a sky-daddy God. So they are not arguing against the existence of God, just selective conceptions of God and very low conceptions at that.

[JohananRaatz]

@soldatheero I know, and they didn't even do that really -because the argument doesn't cut off that possibility. Most atheists I've run into are really more anti-religious than anything, which kind of stinks because oftentimes (though I was able to try steer these guys around somewhat) many (not all) atheists aren't interested in discussing and investigating it as much as aiming to disprove it to begin with.

[TehBruteBeast]

What was the off-air conversation with their resident physicist all about? Just curious.

[Stringprodigy]

@JohananRaatz Do you have links to peer-reviewed papers that back up your claims? 

[JohananRaatz]

@Stringprodigy Actually yeah. I can't remember the name of the paper now, (and of course an explicit reference to a "quantum god" isn't here), but when I emailed Stuart Hameroff with it, he said he liked it, and told me of an Italian quantum gravity theorist named Paola Zizzi who basically had a variation on the exact same argument, which she called "The Big Wow" theory. Hameroff mentions it here (in the last 30 seconds): watch?v=OEpUIcOodnM

[JohananRaatz]

@Stringprodigy Fair enough.

[UncannyRicardo]

@JohananRaatz

Wow Raatz, these guys looked like they really wanted to change the subject cause they were scared. As atheists they don't believe in "God", which one of his main essential attributes is the creator of all things. Yet when you postulate a Orch -Or argument that says that the universe was created by a mind (hence the universe as a creator) they try to brush it off as not being too "religious".

cont..

[JohananRaatz]

@UncannyRicardo I noticed lol. I don't think they weren't expecting this. People usually implicitly assume that "if science explains it it can't be God" (probably because of the assumption that science is materialist -which isn't true), and so the last thing they were expecting was "we found God hiding in the science." I think that caught them off guard a little and so they were doing some damage control.

[UncannyRicardo]

@JohananRaatz

Also didn't you make video showing how Orch-OR also gives the Creator Mind the abilities of omnipotence, omniscience, etc...? Basically the stuff they said was missing about this God compared to the religious one. LOL, I bet if you called them back with this they'd hang up the phone but tell the audience you broke up.

[JohananRaatz]

@UncannyRicardo Yeah I did, that was several weeks after this show though.

Now just wait till I try the Omega Simulation argument on them! ;-)

[Stringprodigy]

@JohananRaatz Instead of picking on these particular AE guys who don't seem to have enough of a physics and cosmology background to counter your points, I'd suggest signing up at the rationalskepticism ddott org forum where there are lot more qualified individuals who would be happy to discuss your ideas. Much better format for debate and conversation as well, IMO.

[JohananRaatz]

@Stringprodigy Ok, I'll check that out. (though calling in is fun from time to time -makes things interesting if nothing else)

[Stringprodigy]

@JohananRaatz No doubt.

[UncannyRicardo]

@JohananRaatz

Your argument, as far as I can see, is compatible with Christianity or monotheism in general. So this alone puts the validity of atheism under attack yet they try to ignore that by changing the goal post and saying "oh its not that we care if atheism is correct but rather if its the religious god that is correct".

Plus of course there are other philosophical arguments that give insight to God's properties. Just because one argument doesn't cover all doesn't make it useless.

[Stringprodigy]

@UncannyRicardo "Your argument, as far as I can see, is compatible with Christianity or monotheism in general. So this alone puts the validity of atheism under attack "

LOL How so?

[JohananRaatz]

@UncannyRicardo Yes it is. In fact Neoplatonism (which I buy) meshes tightly with the arguments Penrose makes, and also provides a metaphysical framework that is very compatible with Christianity (in fact there's an entire "clade" of "Christian Neoplatonism" -including people like Dionysius the Areopagite, Clement of Alexandria, and more recently people like CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien.)

I tried to open up the possibility for this at the end, but they kind of shied away from it.

[UncannyRicardo]

@JohananRaatz

Yea platonism has had influence on the Christianity. I mean if I'm correct the idea of heaven being eternal and perfect is basically Plato's world of the Forms. And God is the Form of the Good, the highest most perfect Form of all in which all other forms rely on (hence god being the creator or Unmoved Mover).

cont...

[JohananRaatz]

@UncannyRicardo Exactly. What's interesting is that Christian Neoplatonism actually takes that comparison literally. (which creates a rather interesting if counterintuitive way of resolving things like the Euthyphro Dilemma)

[Stringprodigy]

@JohananRaatz Of course most physicists agree that quantum gravity exists, but without a theory of quantum gravity to describe how it all works, all you can really do is speculate rather than make logical deductions. What you present is more like an interesting idea than a compelling one.

[JohananRaatz]

@Stringprodigy Well remember you don't need QG to determine that the wave-function of the universe exists. QG just deals with how to model it afterwards.

[Stringprodigy]

Why are you consistently talking about quantum gravity models when there is not even an existing theory of quantum gravity from which to draw models from? Even the best physicists today don't know how quantum gravity works. No disrespect my friend, just curious. :)

[JohananRaatz]

@Stringprodigy Oh the concept of the wave-function of the universe is drawn on a lot within quantum gravity. How exactly it behaves is up for debate, but everyone pretty much agrees it exists.

You can deduce that it exists from regular QM actually though -just set up the right energy conditions in the Schrodinger equation.

[31Uriel]

HAHAHA! Guy, you're the best. Guess, they didn't expect that.

So, how was the talk with the physicist later?

[JohananRaatz]

@31Uriel No lol, they didn't. I want to call in in the future with an argument from simulation physics actually. That should be interesting.

The physicist found it very interesting actually. He didn't have any particular objections to it actually and came off rather agnostic about it at the end. Kind of the "huh, isn't that something" reaction.

[hippo11222]

@JohananRaatz I felt as if they kinda just arbitrary disavowed everything you said from any serious assessment. Just sounded a little like they were just arguing from personal incredulity and then topped it off by playing semantics by blurring the line of how to categorize self-collapsing wave function. A mind by definition would be personal. If all that is possible relies on it's ontology than that would pretty much encompass omnipotence.

[hippo11222]

@JohananRaatz Moreover it would appear that if it's very ontology relies on it being personal must take into account it being aware of all potential states it actualizes. If this is the case then that would seem to make this practically omniscient. The idea of this being what is fundamental to reality then omnipresence would not be too hard to argue for either. Personal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.Hmm..... Sounds like God to me! ^_^ What do you think Johanan?

[JohananRaatz]

@hippo11222 I know, I think they kind of wanted to steer it away from that though. You know, damage control.