Quantum God Episode Two: Properties of the Universal Orch-OR

[Prometheus1df]

Hey there Johanan. Could you add me as a contact as I'd like to send you a private message just so you can help me out on understanding a few things. Really enjoy the videos, thanks!

[Duplooytim]

Love it :)

[JohananRaatz]

@Duplooytim Thanks! I think you'll like this one as well: watch?v=_cKj3kx4NTY

[krutonsbproductions]

Im a Christian and i have no problem with atheist. Christians who bash atheist give us a bad name. Same as atheist who bash Christians give atheist a bad name.

[EXALTEDDIRT]

@krutonsbproductions You should be trying to convert them if you truly believe the truth that they will perish eternally on the day of judgment if they don't repent! They hate the only true and living GOD; Jesus Christ; that should offend you if you love him, but never to a point to where you return evil for evil. Jesus commands that we love our enemies. If you truly love your enemies you will warn them of judgment day and their dire need to Repent, turn from their sins, and trust alone in Jesus

[4umy]

What song was this?

[JohananRaatz]

@4umy Foundations of Stone from the Lord of the Rings sound track and then Preliator by Globus/Immediate Music.

[4umy]

@JohananRaatz Thanks. 

[soldatheero]

"We say that God is our Creator, which implies an act of creation occurring in time. Suppose we remove that concept from the time process and say the same thing in a different way: that God is our Origin or Source, the essential Being at the center of our existence. He, or rather It, the Ultimate Reality, is our own Self, the one Self of every self."

If that intrigues you google Meher Baba

[JohananRaatz]

@soldatheero Oh yeah I get it, it was a "creation" in the "in time" sense, and God is still the sufficient reason for the universe, but yeah, outside of space-time means literally outside of time.

"that God is our Origin or Source"

That sounds like it fits into Neoplatonism. I like it!

[3dgisawsome]

@KTK401 praise(my guestion mark button dosnt work) i think not nubsor i see no reason to pray to a god who doesnt interact with humans

[IoPizzaPlanet]

@3dgisawsome Well the simple argument regarding the wave-function of the universe just proves a deistic God. Though if you bring in the holographic universe concept and model the wave-function of that things get a little more interesting:

watch?v=qAjC81MUe_I

&

watch?v=Jzfj4R52Q6I

And lastly, tell me if this doesn't make your head explode: watch?v=TufKcBa5RaI

[eronni]

Fallacy in the first 8 seconds. All minds are self collapsing wave functions, but not all self collapsing wave functions are minds.

[JohananRaatz]

@eronni Um no, it's supposed to be an equivalence. We know from the Wigner's friend thought experiment that collapse is ontologically equivalent to conscious observation (assuming dualism is false). Based on that we know that self-collapse is by definition self-observation (which is consciousness.)

Perhaps I should have restated that as self-collapsing wave-functions are categorically minds.

[eronni]

@JohananRaatz Making an assumption is a bad place to start with your proof

[JohananRaatz]

@eronni Well that's not assumed, that's a direct extension of the idea of wave-function collapse. For the conclusion of the Wigner's friend thought experiment to be wrong, it would necessarily mean that wave-functions do sometimes not collapse when we are observing them. And unless you are the first person in history to observe an uncollapsed wave-function the conclusions of the Wigner's friend thought experiment are pretty airtight.

[termi892]

where can you learn all this

[MewCat100]

Keep drinking the kool-aid

[JohananRaatz]

@MewCat100 Are scientists like Paola Zizzi, Stuart Hameroff, or perhaps even Eugene Wigner drinking kool-aid also?

[MewCat100]

@JohananRaatz It would seem so.

[KTK401]

@boredofargueing "see no reason why an omnipotent mind should be the primary explanation behind the mysteries of Science,"

Well actually quantum physics & quantum cosmology point to a consciousness or "organizing force" that is outside space, outside time and is infinite, literally Eternal.

best wishes!

[UnoRaza]

"Proof of God" More accurately intelligent design can be proven by the phenomenon of "ESP" or prophecy which proves 'time' is only linear to those w/five senses.

This happens to "normal " people and is partially depicted on the 9th degree apron; at least the portion that pertains to ego.

[JohananRaatz]

@DaStCl87 I'll PM you.

[KhinShaider]

@Philosophier121 Age of Reason / Aquarius? Could it be? The one preached by the New Age Movement. That might be on or after Dec 12, 2012.

If that is going to happen. LOL!

[IoPizzaPlanet]

@MrArpas123 "Folks don't be fool with Atheist Theory to explain the universe they don't understand in the First place !"

But he's not explaining the universe. He's explaining God. How can he be an atheist if he not only proves God exists, and even explains how with science?

[PanDeism]

This is exactly consonant with the pandeistic theologic model!! Pandeism proposes that our Universe was designed by a Creator which then fully became our Universe -- and why would an entity capable of so doing so do? Because it was necessarily a being of information, but by its very omniscience lacked the knowledge of facing limitations; and so it becomes our Universe of energy, a Universe designed to give rise to intelligent life, through which our Creator obtains this knowedge!! :)

[JohananRaatz]

@PanDeism In other words it's not as much fun if you know everything. To make it fun you have to split yourself off "making reflections/images/emanations of yourself" so you can forget and then have the fun of figuring it out again.

[UncannyRicardo]

@JohananRaatz

Nah Johanan, remember were panentheists. Pandeism is just deism, but also just states that the "creator" became the universe (thus there is no more god outside of it). But remember that panentheism states that the universe is only a part of god, but not the whole.

Obviously this is so because as you stated in the previous video the universe (which pandeists would call god) can't self-collapse itself. Plus theres also the other "parts" of god (like afterlife), dont forget Jung.

[UncannyRicardo]

@PanDeism

Sorry no, this is more for panentheism. Thats what me and Johanan here are going by.

[JohananRaatz]

@boredofargueing "Instead of using observable evidence to produce a hypothesis, these arguements attempt to prove an ancient idea of a God, first imagined by a civilisation before the scientific age."

Actually that's not how I thought of it at all The initial idea I showed in the first video I quite literally stumbled onto by accident. It was a simple matter of putting 2 and 2 together.

[JohananRaatz]

@wkrepelin Look my major was physics myself. I know what you are thinking here, but it literally was just Penrose's Orch-OR applied to the wave-function of the universe. I showed the original video on this to Hameroff and he even responded in an email saying that he liked it and that an Italian scientist by the name of Paola Zizzi had a different variation of the exact same idea (he told me to look up "The Big Wow"). So real scientists are saying this also.

The rest is just regular physics.

[JohananRaatz]

@wkrepelin You don't understand. I've taken QM. This whole thing derived from a spontaneous idea I had one day when I realized that the wave-function of the universe must collapse by itself. I had already accepted Penrose's model way back so I put 2 and 2 together.

Everything here is physics, and I'm not attaching any other "woo-woo" concepts to it. And yes I have a problem with Chopra and his kind.

[wkrepelin]

@JohananRaatz Look, I don't kow how much you have invested in this so I appologize if the following statement seems harsh. This all became "woo-hoo," to use your phrasing, the moment you called it science and posted it to a public forum (one that is well known for charlatanry) instead of writing it up and submitting it for peer review. This is not science but rather the very worst sort of conjecture - one that claims to be true without verification. This is *at best* metaphysics.

[JohananRaatz]

@wkrepelin Well Zizzi had the same thing in a peer-reviewed paper, and it wasn't pseudoscience when she did it. I'm just presenting it as a video for my channel. I could very well write a paper on it as well. You know, different presentations for different fora.

"*at best* metaphysics"

Yes Orch-OR has some metaphysical assumptions like panexperientialism tied to it but so does everything. However Orch-OR is testable.And this follows from Orch-OR.Here qubits in microtubules: watch?v=VQngptkPYE8

[wkrepelin]

There are outcomes that cannot be realized by collapse so there is an "unlikelyhood" that forbids a phenomenon. Your presentation of QM seems to imply that seemingly impossible things are mearly very unlikely when they are actually impossible. 3 You refer to quantum gravity and the idea of a holographic universe as if they are verified theories . . . they are not. At this point thay are mere hypotheses and not part of general QM.

[JohananRaatz]

@wkrepelin Remember the whole point of my bringing in the Zeno effect was that there is a way in which these very improbable events could be artificially selected for -Beck&Eccles "quantal selection" = the mechanism for free will.

As for the holographic principle yes though it has some evidence (google GEO600) is not fully proven. That said the only reason for that is that it is extremely hard to experiment @the Planck scale. But other than that it is all but proven -like 99% the way there.

[wkrepelin]

@JohananRaatz What you just said is scientifically meaningless (99% proven). You don't know that QM has anything to do with free will (which we do not have by the way, if you think you have free will then sprout wings or imagine what a sixteen dimensional cube looks like - you can't) nor is the holographic universe a well founded theory it's just a nice hypothesis to be tested and as far as the planck scale being a hurdle well that's why string "theory" is just considered a hypothesis.

[JohananRaatz]

@wkrepelin "What you just said is scientifically meaningless"

Oh come on, show me a prominent physicist who rejects it and I can show you 20 more that do not.

"You don't know that QM has anything to do with free will "

Actually it does. Look up the Free-Will Theorem by Conway and Kochen.

"(which we do not have by the way"

We are self-aware of our own free-will. It's known a priori. (and no we can't imagine ANYTHING just because we have it)

[wkrepelin]

The Zeno effect cannot skew probabilities towards "any state" but only "realizable" states. Again, if the boundry conditions restrict it the probability is zero - period. Also the zeno effect being perpetuated towards infinity has serious problems because of the uncertainty priciple and spans of time involved. Also,the aeno effect"s presence in the newborn field of the "quantum mind" or "quantum conciousness" is all very premature to start putting faith in. Best just to see where it goes.

[JohananRaatz]

@wkrepelin Well the idea was that you could get the Z-effect to recurse on itself if you did it with self-collapse. It is a bit speculative yes, but the logic follows if you combine it with self-collapse. The idea then being is that each recursion skews it a little more. I guess what I'm saying is there's no reason not to think so -even though it's a bit speculative.

"uncertainty priciple"

Right, but remember the waves here are the size of the universe and everything smaller -unlimited play.

[JohananRaatz]

@wkrepelin "Also,the aeno effect"s presence in the newborn field of the "quantum mind" or "quantum conciousness" is all very premature to start putting faith in."

Well ok, it is very new yes. But we have a few pieces of evidence that directly entail that whatever it is the mind is doing is related to QM. First is the Wigner's friend thought experiment. Second is the combination of the Lucas-Penrose argument + the Conway-Kochen argument. That combination demonstrates it very succinctly.

[wkrepelin]

The wave function is not omnipresent as it has a beginning and an end in time even if it appears to fill all of space. 2 As for omnipotence you site Penrose objective reductionism which is a metaphysical interpretation of Quantum Theory like Everett's many worlds interpretation or the most favored Coppenhagen interpretation. These are philosophical musings on what the theory "means" beyond predicting measurements and not the theory itself. The distinction is a very important one.

[wkrepelin]

All wave functions do exist everywhere in the universe but that doesn't mean that they are nonzero everywhere! There are places that particles are strictly forbidden from ever appearing depending on the boundry conditions.

[JohananRaatz]

@wkrepelin "There are places that particles are strictly forbidden from ever appearing depending on the boundry conditions."

Yes, but remember those boundary conditions are the size of the universe itself. And there is no true Infinite Square Well in real life.

[wkrepelin]

@JohananRaatz what about any state already occupied by a fermion? No other fermion can occupy that state so there are *real* places *inside* the universe where the probability is zero such as occcupied orbitals. I actually like your metaphore but you should present it as such and not as science.

[JohananRaatz]

@wkrepelin Right, but the wave-function here is the wave-function of the universe, which is the sum of all of the other wave-functions -including all fermions at once. So yes no two fermions can occupy the same state, but before the wave-function defining all of them at once is collapsed, each one of them is everywhere in every possible arrangement with respect to the others.

Besides, the wave-fcn of the universe would be everywhere anyway by virtue of the fact that it includes everything.

[wkrepelin]

Okay, you just show that the wave function must be normalized (i.e. the region bound by the distribution must be metrically equal to one). that's basic probability not omnipresence. It means that if you search the entire universe for the particle you have a 100% chance of finding it. That means it's "somewhere" not "everywhere" because you have to look everywhere to find it. If it was omnipresent then you could look "anywhere" and find it. It means the opposite of what you think it does.

[KevinStanton84]

@boredofargueing "Therefore, being an Atheist at present, I am willing to change my views should evidence present itself for the existence of God."

You should take a look at what someone discovered hiding in one of his other physics videos then: watch?v=TufKcBa5RaI

I asked him about it but he didn't seem to want to talk about it. Though granted I could understand why.

[OlifantVis]

Sure enough

Property of A=B

Property of X=B

that does not mean that X=Z

The problem is that the self collapsing wave function could be a property of the mind? and not all self collapsing wave function are minds.

[JohananRaatz]

@OlifantVis Ok yes you CAN assume that self-collapse is only a property of a mind and/or correlated to mental activity, BUT if you assume that substance dualism is false (which I think there is strong philosophic ground for doing) then you have to equate the two. Otherwise you will have two fundamental things (wave-function self-collapses and "I's") that are not equivalent -which leads us to substance dualism.

[JohananRaatz]

@boredofargueing Well yes, I was a theist before I came up with this idea BUT the Universal Orch-OR concept I literally just stumbled into. I honestly wasn't trying to find something like this when I started. I was actually thinking about something else when I came up with it.

[jonesgerard]

Very good video, interesting tidbit, Jung was one of the founders of AA, he wrote step 2 of the 12 steps. He showed alcoholics the way out was to have an experience with the Power of the universe ( which we call God). And it worked.

Jung wrote to AA founder Bill Wilson, "spiritus contra spiritum" alcohol kills the soul.

Jung was right, he knew ... he really did.

[KhinShaider]

Some people believe that God is an energy or a form of energy. Well, this could be a religious & a scientific fact at the same time. And his angels & other "unseen" beings are made up of energy as well w/c allows them to move freely beyond solid borders.

Well, I still find this belief hard to accept. But again, hard to refute. Is it really enough to stay w/ the Christian doctrine or should we gather from other beliefs? I'm open to all possibilities.

[MegaExelo]

@KhinShaider

i am a Christian but the idea that god is energy is absurd, it would limit god's speed to the speed of light, you could theoretically trap god or an angel using a black hole and if in theory i could convert the angels or god into matter.

[KhinShaider]

@MegaExelo That's logical too. But some scientists who are involved in quantum physics theorized Him as God 2.0 (a title of the article in a science magazine). This "God" accdg. to them is our interpretation, that is human in form (God 1.0). God 2.0 is a creative force in the 9th dimension (or 7th D,), responsible for the creation & order of all things. It can be the Observer of all multiverses.

I may have mistaken some details, just check it out here in YT. 10th D might be new heaven.

[MegaExelo]

@KhinShaider

can you please PM me a source, it sounds very interesting.

[KhinShaider]

@MegaExelo OK. Now for those who are interested here's the links:

God 2.0

watch?v=V-Y4xseftgQ

Is God in the 7th Dimension?

watch?v=oKKw_QilTcQ&feature=re­lmfu

[KhinShaider]

@KhinShaider I wonder I cannot type youtube url here? Just stick these links after the youtube url. Is Google on anti-spamming crusade?

[jonesgerard]

@MegaExelo

God is the source of all energy, God underlies all physics.

God is everything because we are all within God.

[jonesgerard]

@KhinShaider If I want to know about God I'll ask someone whose life was transformed by God, not skeptics.

Discovering the consistency between spirituality and physics is not a substitute for experiencing God within.

Christian doctrine is correct in the regard that God is love, ...but don't try to quantify Love.

NEither the muslims nor jews hold that concept.

But christians are probably wrong about everything else. hahaha.

Corrintheans is right.

[KhinShaider]

@jonesgerard That might be reason why I stick on the Bible more than what the preachers, priests & pastors are saying.

Sadly, some of them are making business out of religion. This is true. I've heard rumors or reports that these "preachers" have mansions, mercedez & "gasp" security guards. Their abusing the tithe for their own selfish intentions. Luckily there is no tithe system in my own.

[UnoRaza]

@KhinShaider I loved Bill Hicks comment on this fact in the context of the Pope mobile: "Now there's faith!"

However, don't be fooled into thinking that due to corruption found in ALL 'holy texts' that this 3d existence is all there is. This sort of 'database in the sky' that appears to be a FACT is controlled by something as it KNOWS what the seeker needs to know.

The Truth is contained even w/KJV it's just being misinterpreted by most religions to keep you from connecting.

[KhinShaider]

@UnoRaza I already knew there is a commonality in all these things. I had doubts at first, until I've come upon string theory (Thanx Rob Bryanton). Yes it's still a theory, but again we are accepting & applying scientific theories in our lives. So what's the difference. I know that this will challenge both the religious and secular minds, but for me, I feel enlightened becoming more connected to our universe.

I don't see any oppositions but the convergence of all things.

:-)

[FatGnomeTribute]

lol win, subscribed. 

[evanWith7]

I had a dream a few nights ago. In it, I was forced to try and prove God is real. One guy said all the things I would say to prove there's no proof, then it was my time to speak, and right there in my dream on the spot I came up with an idea: If quantum physics allows us to calculate probability for the seemingly impossible, and an infinite number of parallel universes can exist with an infinite number of possible outcomes, then by sheer probability God exists in one, so he exists in all LOL

[JohananRaatz]

@evanWith7 Ah yes! Once you combine the ontological argument with parallel universes you have a sure win!

[Medhiv83]

omniscience and omnipotence do contradict each other actually O_o

[JohananRaatz]

@Medhiv83 I think I've seen that argument and it only holds together assuming your deity is conceived of as existing in space-time. But in my case the wave-function of the universe is outside of time, so it doesn't hold.

In fact in my model omniscience and omnipotence are not only compatible but very closely connected. The mechanism of knowledge is also the mechanism of omnipotence. If God does or doesn't collapse a particular state (ie. observe & know it) then it either does or doesn't exist.

[Medhiv83]

@JohananRaatz

another contradiction ... we cannot fathom the workings of a being outside of our space-time but we can understand a wave-function outside of it?

[JohananRaatz]

@Medhiv83 No, not at all. Remember the wave-function outside of it IS the said being outside of it. ;)

Thus we have the Wheeler-DeWitt equation:

H|Psi> 0 (equ 1.1)

Where H = the Hamiltonian and God = Psi...

Yes I know this runs against the grain of most theists who say God is automatically beyond our understanding. But I don't hold to that. I guess a little odd like that. Of course this premise has some interesting implications but bring'em on!

[MegaExelo]

@Medhiv83

I believe i have heard that contradiction before ( if something is omniscience than it can't be all powerful since the being would not have the power to do something without the knowledge of doing it, therefore he would be limited by his knowledge) however the same holds true for humans since you cannot consciously act without knowing what you are doing before hand.

[JohananRaatz]

@Philosophier121 I think that was Shiva.

[JohananRaatz]

@Philosophier121 Yeah, the first is the end of the "Foundations of Stone" piece from the Lord of the Rings Twin Towers sound track. The second is "Preliator" from Globus (aka Immediate Music).

[Jasonator1000]

Oh look everyone! It looks like two know-it-all atheists didn't like getting PWNED by the omnipotence of the Quantum God!

[KTK401]

@Jasonator1000 Haha, nice one! :)

[bobtg]

ok I'm converted. Praise vishnu!!

[JohananRaatz]

@bobtg Well who knows?

[KTK401]

Outstanding.

Praise God!



[Lifewontwait29]

wow, this is great

[fudgedogbannana]

way over my head but I'll try to hang on.

[bass109]

Yes and his name is jesus christ. Give him praise

[ThePr0tege]

I liked, commented, and favorited this on both channels. haha! This is amazing stuff!

[theprodigy2186]

Holy shit Mr. Raatz! Well done sir!

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish (cont.) The problem with the later kind of critique is that it's not taking the mind as the mind, but rather trying to shoehorn it into something that is not the mind. If you doubt you can know something (in this case about the mind) then you can't then proceed from this to claim you know how the qualia, mathematical understanding and ego come about -if you argue human thought isn't what we think it is -then maybe those arguments aren't what they think they are either.

[LaserBlowFish]

You're making this too complicated :)

1. The laws of physics are eternal becuase they've never been shown to change in time.

2. The laws of physics are omnipresent because they've never been shown to be different in different parts of the universe.

3. The laws of physics are omniscient because they in fact govern your thoughts

4. When any of the above don't hold, the laws of physics are changed, so they will always be true

Should we pray to the laws of physics ?

Should we worship them ?

No.

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish No, you didn't watch the other video then. If this is just the laws of physics then no, except the point is that due to Orch-OR the wave-function of the universe happens to literally be a mind: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8 (not just figuratively speaking)

And if you have a mind which is omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, and omnipresent what do you call that?

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz I did watch it, I even replied, with the same objection I make here :). You are making an equivocation, just like with free will. If I have such a thing, I call it a "scipotersent entity" ;). Again, words get their meaning by what they are used for. God is a term reserved for something that you worship, something that you pray to, more specifically, something that it is actually beneficial to pray to or worship. Even if this mind exists, how can you justify wasting your time on it?

[LaserBlowFish]

@LaserBlowFish In other words, I'm a pragmatist. Even if you justify that something exists, there's no point in thinking much of it until you can demonstrate a benefit in doing so. And I apply this consistently. String theory for example falls short here, it manages to unite existing theories but it makes no additional claim, it doesn't give us anything new, therefore it's fine to study it but it should only be universally accepted when it predicts the future better than existing theories.

[LaserBlowFish]

@LaserBlowFish So all this is very interesting physics and I wish you luck with developing it, but it's just not God yet, sorry.

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish Well if God is an omnipotent mind and the wave-function of the universe is an omnipotent mind, wouldn't that mean it's God?

Now of course maybe it won't give you a religious God, but it still technically is an omnipotent mind.

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz If that is YOUR definition of God then fine. The problem is, that is not what everyone else expect from a God. They expect it to answer their prayers, to give them an afterlife, something to ground their morality, something that can perform miracles, something that is depiced in the Bible or the Quran etc. This God of yours doesn't qualify for any of this. So when you tell them you've proven God, the truth is, you haven't proven it by THEIR use of the word.

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz Have you read Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman ? When Feynman was a kid he invented new symbols to deal with calculus and he was convinced these were better, easier to use than the existing symbols. But as he got older, he realized he cannot use these because he needs to communicate with other people. Same thing here, you need to consider what OTHER people expect from the words you use. Otherwise you are easily misunderstood.

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish True, well I did have a brief explanation for lay persons in the other video. That's what the "Pause video here" part was for.

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz Still I worry that for example an Islamic extremist will bump into this video and go AHHA ! SEE ! deluded atheists are deluded ! jihad !! .. Clearly this has nothing to do with 99% of their dogma just some basic properties but as insane as that sounds I've argued with people like that and this is a legitimate risk I think. They just cannot be reasoned with.

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz There are so many different and often contradictory definitions of God that it has become meaningless to the point where I think the word should just be removed from the dictionary and people should be more specific. So when you say you've proven (or disproven for that matter) God, you're pretty much guaranteed to have lied to a large mass of people, it doesn't matter that it's true based on your definition, it's still a lie.

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish Well there are some generic definitions of God which I think everyone could agree to. "Omnipotent mind" being the simplest.

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz But why should you apply a label to it which has been eroded to virtual meaninglessness ? Why not just call it for example "cosmic consciousness" ? That seems to describe it much better than any other term. Even the word omnipotent can confuse people for the reasons I mentioned above.

[UncannyRicardo]

@LaserBlowFish

I would imagine he choice that term because its better and will make a bigger impact.

"hey I got proof of a comsic consciousness." Answer: "who gives a shit".

But

"I got proof for a god" Answer: "Show us". Obviously the later will attract much better publicity and curiousity.

[LaserBlowFish]

@UncannyRicardo Right well he does tend to post all around YouTube to attract publicity but I've seem examples of him actually using this as a rebuttal to atheism. That is why I started out by saying it's equivocation. The problem is mostly with particular dogmas, generally anything improperly supported by evidence. As Feynman said, "Nature's gonna come out the way she IS!'. If it's all matter and energy fine, if there's some cosmic mind, also fine, just more layers of nature.

[UncannyRicardo]

@LaserBlowFish

uh, ok. Just saying that I have no problem and infact rather like this type of cosmic "god". But yea ofcourse others might not.

[JohananRaatz]

@JohananRaatz (cont.) Secondly is the group of criticisms more leveled from positivism than anything else -this is the majority of them. I've seen one of Dennett's criticisms and it jumps through hoops to try to explain that we just have a fascimile of mathematical understanding when we have mathematical understanding. It doesn't explain however how we could know that this fascimile we have of mathematical understanding is even close to the mathematical understanding it represents.

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz Stupid Youtube, I didn't get the part that is supposed to go before "Secondly". I have problems like this myself when posting.

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish I'll just pass it over on private message.

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz Have you received my reply to that ?

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish Oh yes. Sorry I got busy last night.

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz "how we could know that this fascimile we have of mathematical understanding is even close to the mathematical understanding it represents." .. why does this seem so obvious to me though ? I mean, it all got started when a caveman wanted to tell the other he should pick up not one but two sticks to make a fire. The brain already had a pattern matching system for evolutionary reasons and it derived from the commonality between two sticks, two rocks etc the concept of numbers.

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish Right, but is that actually a perception of two or just a facsimile of a perception? How do we really know it's not three and not two? (not that that would be likely but if we are going with eliminativism we could never know).

Way back Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead tried to prove 1+1=2 from formal logic. They had this huge construction which was ultimately based on metamath. What they were trying was ultimately shown impossible from Godel -yet we still know 1+1=2.

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish (cont.) The problem is that you are confusing actual knowledge and insight with something that only functions as knowledge and insight. If this is true, then a robot or a zombie which has no knowledge or insight would be identical to us. In fact we might just as well be 'p-zombies.'

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz And another thing the very word omnipotent is self contradictory, never mind the contradictions with the other omnis: watch?v=kSDhju8QMsk

So I'm assuming you've given these words physical interpretations which don't contradict eachother but this just proves my point that this is just a massive play on words. Please just be honest and call it like it is, don't give people the wrong idea about your conclusions, the world is confusing enough as it is.

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish For omniscience this is the problem of evil and my video wasn't addressing the problem of evil. We could even have a disotheist God if you want, though there are plenty of other approaches to the problem of evil (the hole theory of evil for example) which might solve the problem as well.

As for omnipotent, you might be playing on words there. Obviously God can't do something which is logically impossible or contradictory -but then again those things aren't coherent things anyway.

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish "Please just be honest and call it like it is, don't give people the wrong idea about your conclusions, the world is confusing enough as it is."

It's not that much of a play on words. Even so to be technical about it; the Universal Orch-OR exists in all space, is able to induce any particular physical state to exist instantly (via collapse), knows all information in the universe, and is outside time. (fairly literal for the 3 omni's and eternality)

[UncannyRicardo]

@JohananRaatz

I cant believe that our views on god have been virtually identical. Indeed I thought god as this "ultimate" mind/consciousnes and that we are all a part of it ("we" being all the consciousnes/minds in existence). Thus you can see why I lean towards idealism and panenthiesm.

And yes do to the nature of this god it would be omnipresent, omnipotent, etc....

All I can say is BRAVO! Your leading the way man. 

[JohananRaatz]

@UncannyRicardo "All I can say is BRAVO!"

Thanks! This might be a little ways off but I figured something else out about this from two different directions at once. One from analytic philosophy the other as a consequence of Orch-OR. When Orch-OR occurs it corresponds to a phenomenal (ie. mental state). So now if the universe is observed via Orch-OR from the top but appears to us to be empirical this means that empirical vs. mental is a matter of perspective of bottom vs top.

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz Btw by "fine" i meant the argument is valid but:

"The Penrose/Lucas argument about the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem for computational theories of human intelligence has been widely criticized by mathematicians, computer scientists and philosophers,[2][3][4][5][6][7­][8][9][10] and the consensus among experts in these fields seems to be that the argument fails,[11][12][13] though different authors may choose different aspects of the argument to attack.[13][14]"

[LaserBlowFish]

@LaserBlowFish The above doesn't necessarily mean the theory is wrong of course, just that many of ways to justify it fail such as the arguments from free will, qualia, math, Cartesian Ego. It also doesn't mean the mind isn't quantum mechanical, there are alternate theories such as those involving quantum boxes which do specific computation much faster.

That said, it does explain some statistical anomalies and Jung's problem so I think that's the avenue that should be explored in proving it.

[LaserBlowFish]

@LaserBlowFish And here's another reason why I think that Godel's theorem cannot be applied. In watch?v=f477FnTe1M0 he presents as his best example the polyomino sets and that they can't be computationally be proven to tile the plain. The problem is that a proof exists and what is missing is a discussion of how a human arrived to that proof. If it was trivial to solve for him then the same process can be simulated, if not then you just need a true random generator as input.

[LaserBlowFish]

@LaserBlowFish Also I'm curious how this relates to the effects of entheogens, remote viewing and some other stuff related to the extended mind watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY

[LaserBlowFish]

@LaserBlowFish Psi in general watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish (cont.) Now I know the eliminative position is popular. However it's not logical to try to conclusive prove that our thoughts aren't what we think they are. (the thoughts in their premises might be in question if their conclusions prove that the nature of thought is itself in question.) This being the case it's not being logical. The eliminativist type positions (which seem popular), are held together by groupthink and the politics of academia -so of course there's a consensus.

[Dhorpatan]

@JohananRaatz

Is this Omnipresent wave function mind made of energy?

[JohananRaatz]

@Dhorpatan No, remember the wave-function in and of itself has no physical units. The category of physical units is isomorphically constructed from within it though. (think like how a dictionary is itself not a definition, but has a set of internally consistent looping definitions within it)

[Dhorpatan]

@JohananRaatz

So is your quantum God(this mind) made of energy? I think you already said yes in the past, and that you subscribe to monism, but I just want to make sure.

[JohananRaatz]

@Dhorpatan No basically what I'm saying is that it's the other way around. Energy is made of God's mind. (Ditto goes with the other two fundamental physical units -space and time). In a way perhaps you could think of God's mind is being made of a probability amplitude.

[Dhorpatan]

@JohananRaatz

That is very confusing Johanan. So this Quantum God mind is not made of energy, but things(like particles) in the Universe get their energy, from this Quantum God mind? Is that correct? I just want to make sure I have your position correct and don't misrepresent it.

[JohananRaatz]

@Dhorpatan Yes, energy is one manifestation of this neutral stuff. Think like in a computer game you could have an internally consistent physical world, complete with energy, charge, mass, space, time etc. etc. Those things are ultimately made up of the information in the program for the game. Yet if we were little AI's running around in the game, we might think they are fundamental.

[Dhorpatan]

@Johanan

Can you cash out the Eternality part? Why is the Wheeler Dewitt equation time independent? Also, how is the Universe in a quantized state, timeless, prior to wave function collapse? Where does time go if you will? Also, what would you call energy prior to wave function collapse? Virtual/Potential? And what would you call energy after wave function collapse? Kinetic energy? If you call energy prior to wave function collapse virtual/potential energy, does that mean it's not real?

[JohananRaatz]

@Gnomefro Well we can't know what's fundamental from a strictly empirical point of view alone, but we can determine it when we combine it with a priori considerations from philosophy. For example we know that empirical sensation (qualia) is somehow fundamental. Since the world can only be made of one kind of substance and "phenomenal stuff" exists whatever it is at the bottom must have phenomenal properties.

[Gnomefro]

@JohananRaatz Your god concept is one such pointless item. Not only doesn't it provide anything useful, it's also unobserved as far as effects go. You also don't really know anything about it, so you have no reason to think it(or the stuff it's made of) could make your mind "reliable".(whatever "reliable" means... all minds construct their own reality model based on sensory input, so internal consistency and predictive power are the only measures of quality)

[JohananRaatz]

@Gnomefro "doesn't it provide anything useful, it's also unobserved as far as effects go."

Actually that's not entirely true. Penrose proposed experiments to test Orch-OR. And if Orch-OR holds then so too does my model. Besides that it is interesting just for the sake of knowledge -even if it is only trivially true in science. As Richard Feynman once said: "Physics is like sex. Sure it produces useful results but that is not why we do it."

As for not knowing w/o sensory input you forgot Plato.

[Gnomefro]

@JohananRaatz Either way, I suppose it's also worth pointing out that "information" as we understand it is contingent on matter. It's basically what we call the situation where specific structures of matter(symbols) form that represent the state of other matter elsewhere. We don't actually need "third option" in addition to the single observed one(matter) and the imaginary one(mind). The only reason you have for wanting this is that you have a problem dealing with your own material nature. =)

[JohananRaatz]

@Gnomefro Well actually it's the other way around. "Matter" is what we perceive to exist out in the world. The problem is that the only reason we know about it is because of empirical information -which is phenomenal rather than "material" in nature. However if we then realize that substance dualism is false we must hold to monism. However we know that empirical information exists and if there is only one kind of substance in existence that means that everything else is information as well.

[JohananRaatz]

@Dhorpatan As for monism, yes I do subscribe to monism, but it's a somewhat unusual monism. Basically I agree that matter and mind are made of the same stuff, but I think that this primary stuff is neither matter nor mind. I'm a neutral monist. If you want to look up other neutral monists to get a feel for the idea, look up Bertrand Russell, or perhaps Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung's view -they though reality was fundamentally "psychoid" -but neither truly material nor truly mental at the bottom.

[JohananRaatz]

@Dhorpatan (cont.) David Chalmers is another good one to look up concerning neutral monism. I'm not sure if he still holds to it (I heard some rumor that he's now a dualist) but I know that he did for a good while. So as for energy. I am a monist, but I don't think that everything is monistically energy, rather energy (and everything else) is monistically something else.

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish Well we agree on string theory at least. Now if I told you I could combine this model with David Bohm's implicate order concept to generate Carl Jung's metaphysics -and something even more interesting which I won't talk about here, would you consider that to be more relevant?

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz If you can actually predict something new with this theory and it is demonstrably true then sure.

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz Ok I haven't read about Carl Jung's metaphysics until now. Are you referring to the collective unconscious that he posited by looking at various african tribes ? If so then yes this would be an interesting explanation to that phenomenon although at this point but I'd need to look into what others have to say about it as well to determine whether it is a genuine phenomenon or it could plausibly have been a coincidence or caused by hereditary instead of cosmic factors.

[JohananRaatz]

@LaserBlowFish "whether it is a genuine phenomenon"

It's not hereditary. I have a friend who is a Jung expert (was even quoted in the NYT on Jung when they came out with the red book in 2009), and there's definitely something weird with it. Jung specialized in dream analysis and recorded hundreds of dreams, and the details were far to complex but coincidental. Then there's synchroncity which is a whole other ball of wax -which was in part developed by Wolfgang Pauli -the physicist.

[Redstateadvocate]

"There is no matter. The universe is made of mathematical constructs and information, not matter."

Good luck selling that one!

[JohananRaatz]

@Redstateadvocate I don't have to! It's already been established by the work done on the holographic principle. If the atheists don't accept it -well too bad for them! :)