Quantum Omniscience

[premjan]

Maybe God knows everything in a quantum sense. All peoples' minds are linked together by a single quantum wave function and God is the purely quantum (noncorporeal) entity which is in a position to manipulate that wave function.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by premjan : Maybe God knows everything in a quantum sense. All peoples' minds are linked together by a single quantum wave function and God is the purely quantum (noncorporeal) entity which is in a position to manipulate that wave function.

To what end?

And how would a non-corporeal "entity" be in a "position" to manipulate corporeal reality? Telekinesis? Again, to what end?

If you say some variation on "We can't know to what end," then please don't bother responding. If we can't know what our alleged purpose is, then there is no reason to even contemplate a god in any condition or behave in any particular way.

The only reason to posit a god in the first place is to try to establish objectively existing "reality;" where our actions are judged and a sentence is carried out.

If we can't know what actions will result in punishment and what actions will result in reward, then the entire construct is pointless. If we do know what actions will result in punishment and what actions will result in reward, then we are merely robots fulfilling a program; monkeys hitting the right switches because we were told which switches to hit.

No matter how you look at it, religious dogma (at best) is nothing more than a forced imposition of morality codes and laws, backed up by an assertion of ultimate power in order to make the dogma "stick" and the followers fear retribution for disobeying the cult leaders.

It is that simple.

[markfiend]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
TNo matter how you look at it, religious dogma (at best) is nothing more than a forced imposition of morality codes and laws, backed up by an assertion of ultimate power in order to make the dogma "stick" and the followers fear retribution for disobeying the cult leaders.

It is that simple.
:notworthy
The best justification for a tyrant on earth is a fictional tyrant in a fictional heaven. "Do as I say or die" doesn't have the same fear-factor as "do as I say or burn in hell forever" now does it?

[premjan]

God is not "posited". In the viewpoint of mystics, God is "experienced". This is an observation validated many times by many different people that needs to be explained (e.g. delusion). I was suggesting that God is a quantum phenomenon whereby all minds (only enlightened minds?) are potentially linked together in a quantum sense.

[markfiend]

premjan: What you are describing seems to me to bear a great deal of similarity to Timothy Leary's Eight Circuit model (http://www.deoxy.org/8circuit.htm) of consciousness. Specifically the eighth circuit or "Neuro-Atomic" consciousness.

This in no way should be interpreted as my endorsement of Leary's ideas ;) but it suggests to me that chemical stimulation of the brain can produce similar subjective experiences to the "God-experience". This is not to say that such an experience is "delusional", merely that it can be explained in terms of the known (neurochemistry) rather than in terms of the unknown ("God").

[premjan]

it is explainable using neurology/information theory.

[markfiend]

premjan: If you agree that "God-experience" is explainable using neurology/information theory then why bring God into the discussion at all? Surely we can rule him/it out with Occam's Razor?

[premjan]

If you use occam's razor consistently you will end up with God since it is the simplest way to explain unexplainable things.

[HRG]

Originally posted by premjan
If you use occam's razor consistently you will end up with God since it is the simplest way to explain unexplainable things.

Actually, no. "My cat did it last Thursday" is even simpler than "God did it". There is independent evidence for the existence of my cat, so you don't have to postulate the existence of the (otherwise unevidenced) additional entity "God".

Seriously, the point is of course that "God did X" is no explanation for X, unless you also explain the existence, methods and motivations of God.

Regards,
HRG.

[premjan]

Your cat can be observed to not have done it (i.e. your statement is easily falsifiable).

From the viewpoint of logic, you need a "god of the gaps". It may lack explanatory power, but as a placeholder it does just fine. It's not scientifically falsifiable, but that may be its utility.

[markfiend]

The problem with "god of the gaps" is that the gaps get smaller all the time. There may come a point at which there are no gaps, where does that leave your god?

You don't "need" a god of the gaps anyway. Isn't it easier just to say, "we don't know yet" than to postulate the existence of the (otherwise unevidenced) additional entity "God". (from HRG's post)

[premjan]

this is the basic pantheist/atheist split.
which is more important: affirmation or skepticism?

I don't mind adjusting the gaps with time. Knowledge is always in flux anyhow.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by premjan : God is not "posited". In the viewpoint of mystics, God is "experienced".

That doesn't address any of the questions I asked you.

MORE: This is an observation validated many times by many different people that needs to be explained (e.g. delusion).

It's exceedingly simple to explain. One is brought up believing that such a creature exists and "works through you." The belief thus generates a perceptual bias and the individual simply ascribes their beliefs to events they have expereinced.

Hence, "God must have surely been watching out for me when I survived that plane crash," or, "My life changed dramatically after I prayed for God's guidance." It's nothing more than the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc applied according to a preconceived bias as a result (typically) of childhood indoctrination techniques into a cult.

If you are conditioned to believe that a sunrise is the result of a god, then everytime you see a sunrise, you will declare, "Evidence of god!"

It ain't rocket science. Or, in this case, quantum physics.

MORE: I was suggesting that God is a quantum phenomenon whereby all minds (only enlightened minds?) are potentially linked together in a quantum sense.

And I was asking you, "To what end?" And how would a non-corporeal "entity" be in a "position" to manipulate corporeal reality? Telekinesis? Again, to what end?

Which then led me to my observations regarding our free agency (the topic of this thread, last time I checked).

If "God" is a quantum phenomenon, then there is no longer any reason to personify it and name it "God," now is there?

[premjan]

what you call it, but I hold that the idealization represented by God nevertheless has some sort of fundamental existence, perhaps as a trick of the human mental architecture (maybe a reflection of our personal ego in the superego).

What you are saying is that people will gradually cease to believe in God as time goes by. We will have to wait and see if that is so.

[Keith Russell]

premjan, it seems that you want to believe in 'God', not that there is evidence out there for which that conlcusion is the most rational.

Your claim does not seem to be falsifiable...

K

[premjan]

I wish God existed, but I fear he does not.

God makes many things in life simpler. But we must deal with our own personal freedoms maturely nevertheless.

It is a process of growing up.

[Keith Russell]

Premjan said:
"I wish God existed, but I fear he does not.

God makes many things in life simpler. But we must deal with our own personal freedoms maturely nevertheless."

"God makes many things in life simpler."

Really? Don't you mean that, for some, having a belief in 'God' allows them to avoid the responsibility of independent thought?

I don't see how you can say that you don't know 'God' exists, but fear that 'he' doesn't, then say that "God makes..."

I can see how having a belief in 'God' might make some people's lives easier, but I can also see numerous other ways in which folks can dramatically improve their lives, which do not involve false beliefs.

K

[premjan]

is a means of ego submergence (or collectivization) for people. Not everyone is capable of being (or at least can enjoy being) a radical individualist. There are many stripes.

[Keith Russell]

premjan, again you say ''God' is a means...'

Don't you (again) mean that it is the belief in 'God', that is the means...?

And, if the group is the focus of one's belief in 'God', then why is a belief in an afterlife so often integral to a belief in 'God'? We can be 'collective' right here, right now, on earth, without having to believe in eternal life, ultimate judgment, or any of the other trappings that accompany most religious views.

I don't see your view that 'God' is a means of providing 'ego submergence' as fully explaining most religous views.

K

[premjan]

I wish to believe in God for personal reasons, although I am capable of rationally contemplating his nonexistence. So for verbal purposes I use the word God as if God exists.

Our human design does not contain any explicit notion of collective. Just that our minds are:

1) capable of imagining being part of a larger whole.

2) capable of wishing that they were independent of the mortal frame within which they exist (software wishes it was hardware-independent). This is an offshoot of our desire for survival which is inbuilt.

[Magic Primate]

Ever tried Buddhism?

[premjan]

Modern Hinduism is post-Buddhist. Until the 8th century AD, Buddhism was a dominant belief system of India, but there were problems associated with it (principally a tendency for nihilism). Shankara defeated Buddhist philosophers in debate and established a monist belief system which goes by the name of modern Hinduism. This is why India is not Buddhist today. Actually Shankara's monism is crypto-Buddhist. It is Buddhism with the assumption of God and caste, which were found impossible to discard so easily in India at that time.

[HRG]

Originally posted by premjan
Your cat can be observed to not have done it (i.e. your statement is easily falsifiable).


Not at all. When he created the universe last Thursday, he created all of us with false memories of a past which never happened. His actual act of creation was mysterious and unobservable (I think that's what theists claim for their god).

regards,
HRG.

[Jinto]

Originally posted by HRG
Not at all. When he created the universe last Thursday, he created all of us with false memories of a past which never happened. His actual act of creation was mysterious and unobservable (I think that's what theists claim for their god).

regards,
HRG.

Actually, I think that theists claim it happened last Sunday.:p

[premjan]

If you believe in the right kind of God (a moral, socially responsible God) then it makes collective social sense to believe in him. Human beings are evidently capable of believing in a God concept (basically a sort of omniparent). This may be one of the simplest ways of internalizing social conscience. In the sense of common convention, it is easy to extend such a God to include all believers. This arrangement creates a "convergent" zone of belief. This is why God has periodically been invented by man. However, individualist thinkers (e.g. philosophers) tend to prefer not to accept social conventions regarding God hence they will often try to pull down the God concept (e.g. Nietzsche).

[rainbow walking]

I wish to believe in God for personal reasons, although I am capable of rationally contemplating his nonexistence. So for verbal purposes I use the word God as if God exists.

Our human design does not contain any explicit notion of collective. Just that our minds are:

1) capable of imagining being part of a larger whole.

2) capable of wishing that they were independent of the mortal frame within which they exist (software wishes it was hardware-independent). This is an offshoot of our desire for survival which is inbuilt.

rw: Which is why I have long advocated the refocusing of the collective conscious towards dealing with the expiration date on the hardware. Too much time, energy and resources are plowed into fairy tales that tend towards nightmares.

[premjan]

is probably the true explanation for the notion of God.

[Magic Primate]

Originally posted by premjan
Modern Hinduism is post-Buddhist. Until the 8th century AD, Buddhism was a dominant belief system of India, but there were problems associated with it (principally a tendency for nihilism). Shankara defeated Buddhist philosophers in debate and established a monist belief system which goes by the name of modern Hinduism. This is why India is not Buddhist today. Actually Shankara's monism is crypto-Buddhist. It is Buddhism with the assumption of God and caste, which were found impossible to discard so easily in India at that time.

Thanks for the history lesson, but that doesn't answer my question.

[premjan]

You're welcome.

Buddhism does not appear substantially different from existing Hinduism (the philosophical parts).

Buddhism and Hindu philosophy both spring from Vedantic origins (which is pretty close to existentialism/monism). In modern times, you could refer to Vivekananda.