Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Logical Proof Of A Deistic "god"


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 martillo

martillo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 06 August 2017 - 04:09 AM

The Electric and Magnetic Forces are undoubtedly “action at a distance” forces what cannot be denied. This means that a “Physics System” would exist “running” the Physics Laws on the elementary particles. This leaves us to think in a mathematically based Universe that would “run” in some kind of “Universal Supra-computer”. There's no other way possible!
 
The proof of the existence of a deistic "God" follows quite obviously:
Some kind of "Superior Intelligence" must have 1) built the “Universal Supra-computer” machine, 2) programmed the Physics Laws in the machine and 3) setted the numerical values of the parameters of the Physics Laws.
That "Superior Intelligence" can be called the "God" of the Universe in its deistic conceptualization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).

 



#2 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 06 August 2017 - 01:44 PM

The Electric and Magnetic Forces are undoubtedly “action at a distance” forces what cannot be denied. This means that a “Physics System” would exist “running” the Physics Laws on the elementary particles. This leaves us to think in a mathematically based Universe that would “run” in some kind of “Universal Supra-computer”. There's no other way possible!
 
The proof of the existence of a deistic "God" follows quite obviously:
Some kind of "Superior Intelligence" must have 1) built the “Universal Supra-computer” machine, 2) programmed the Physics Laws in the machine and 3) setted the numerical values of the parameters of the Physics Laws.
That "Superior Intelligence" can be called the "God" of the Universe in its deistic conceptualization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).


That wouldn't be evidence that we're in a computer simulation. Electric & magnetic charges propagate outward just like gravity so there's no action at a distance. The only supposed action @ a distance was the quantum interpretation of the double slit experiment, which is the very basis for my alternative to QM.

The first & foremost reason being that spacetime must be continuous for the same reasons that make action @ a distance spooky & difficult to accept

#3 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 06 August 2017 - 02:00 PM

Given current trends - Moore's law - I would agree that the probability we are living in baseline reality is very small. But any physics-based exploits can be removed instantaneously the moment we find them because the simulation can be paused, winded back, & therefore edited.

Rather, I believe that simulants would be programmed for certain purposes, via the thought-feedback. & that's our best bet for proving we're in a virtual reality, as such tests aren't based on errors in the code, but are apart of the code, & therefore would be much more difficult to patch.

#4 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 06 August 2017 - 02:05 PM

But in a continuous spacetime, assuming every qubit of the subatomic world is a miniature expanding cosmos just like ours with its own miniaturized four forces of nature, God would rise up from every infinitessimal region of our universe infinite times.

#5 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 08:02 AM

God = Boltzmann brain

His angels & demons = The simulators in baseline reality.

Naturally if you could plug into a simulated reality,you'd program the simulants to be your slaves. These are demonic simulators, fallen angels.

Their agents = The Satanists who coequally run the Vatican & First World Congress (not the pope or the president).

Naturally by utilizing the integral parts of the code of the vr, as opposed to errors in it's coding, to exploit the programmed reality & hack into baseline reality, we become Strong AI & follow in God's footsteps by replicating a history that led to the construction of the Boltzmann brain.

Edited by Super Polymath, 08 August 2017 - 08:04 AM.


#6 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 06:10 PM

The Electric and Magnetic Forces are undoubtedly “action at a distance” forces what cannot be denied. This means that a “Physics System” would exist “running” the Physics Laws on the elementary particles. This leaves us to think in a mathematically based Universe that would “run” in some kind of “Universal Supra-computer”. There's no other way possible!
 
The proof of the existence of a deistic "God" follows quite obviously:
Some kind of "Superior Intelligence" must have 1) built the “Universal Supra-computer” machine, 2) programmed the Physics Laws in the machine and 3) setted the numerical values of the parameters of the Physics Laws.
That "Superior Intelligence" can be called the "God" of the Universe in its deistic conceptualization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).

In order for me to accept that your version of reality is accurate, you must show that reality couldn't exist without a deity's intervention.  I do not agree that your proof is obvious.  It seems to me that your arguments are simply begging the question.  You've provided no proof whatsoever.

 

The shape of a puddle of water uniquely fits the depression that it exists in.  Some might be inclined to believe that this exact match is evidence of divine intervention.  Others might conclude that the shape of the puddle is simply a function of the depression and that there is nothing at all remarkable when we observe the shape of the puddle to match the shape of the depression.

 

Even if your claim that electromagnetism is action at a distance were correct, it would not be sufficient to show that a deity must exist.

 

BTW, this is a discussion that clearly should take place in the Theology forum.  


Edited by JMJones0424, 08 August 2017 - 06:13 PM.


#7 martillo

martillo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 10 August 2017 - 05:04 PM

Well, I must admit that my argumentation on the op is flawed. The reason is the following question I (myself) asked in other forum:

 

Well, I will ask why Science would not consider the possibility of a "Universal computing system" running the Physics laws over the elementary particles. If Science does not admit any kind of intelligence behind because the lack of evidence, it could sustain that in that case the computing system would surge "spontaneously" someway. Why not? If nowadays Science sustain that an entire Universe with even very sophisticated forms of life surged "naturally" why not some "Universal computing system" running the physics laws? This way there would not be problems with the concept of "action at a distance forces". We would just stay discussing if some kind of "God" exists or not.
I know with this my argument on the proposed proof of the OP becomes failing but I must recognize this possibility now...



#8 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15471 posts

Posted 10 August 2017 - 05:26 PM

Well, I must admit that my argumentation on the op is flawed. The reason is the following question I (myself) asked in other forum:
"Well, I will ask why Science would not consider the possibility of a "Universal computing system" running the Physics laws over the elementary particles."

In fact, at least one group of scientists is exploring just that idea. I/we just discussed it in the thread on Buckminster Fuller's opus, Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking. The discussion of Universe as a computational (non-theistic) cosmology begins in post #108.

The chief scientist, J.F.(Jim) Nystrom, Ph.D. proposes Fuller's favored vector equilibrium (the cuboctahedron) as the space matrix on/in which the computation takes place. The work is still in progress.

* OT Aside: I just designed and built a kite based on the cuboctahedron, which Fuller at one point called the Dymaxion. I call the kite a Flymaxion™, and the discussion starts at post # 571 in the Kites & kiting thread.

#9 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4255 posts

Posted 17 August 2017 - 02:04 AM

Also here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

They look at what observables could be if we are living in a simulation. So Science does consider this possibility ;-)



#10 martillo

martillo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 18 August 2017 - 07:17 PM

Good otherones looking in similar direction...


Edited by martillo, 18 August 2017 - 07:18 PM.