Intent

[lifegazer]

"If I'd have been born two hundred years ago and had the same kind of philosophy as now,I might have predicted the base knowledge known via QM."

Lifegazer, this is exactly what I've always thought was missing from your philosophy - real world connection.

If you could have predicted it, do you think you would have?

That's impossible to answer. All I know is that I could have. It wasn't beyond me or my philosophy.
I knew about the indeterminism of fundamental energy before I began relating it to God's indeterministic nature/energy. Whether I would have done that without knowing about it first is a different matter. I cannot say.

Still for me, a prediction would be great. It would help to silence the skeptics here as well.

You won't believe whatever I predict until science verifies it. Do you have the connections to conduct an experiment which might prove my prediction?

Is there anything left in your philosophy that can tell us something new about the experience of reality that science might use to ameliorate the human condition? What can we look for? What are the avenues that science should be pursuing. Or is science pretty much at it's dead at this point.

Mark 11
24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

We are God. By the measure of our will shall we receive. The placebo effect is a proof of this.

You seem to put your philosophy above science, that's why I ask.

Philosophy is above everything except God itself. Reason is the path to God.

 

[lifegazer]

Now I wonder if this same indeterministic deity would've led you to the same kind of interventionist deity of Judeo-Christianity.[edit] Surely, it could have.[/edit]

Surely? Why "surely"?

My philosophy is that God gives unto man that man gives unto himself, since man is really God, afterall. I do not expect miracles unless I expect miracles first.

 

[hammegk]

hamme,
It is not that god is incompatible, it is that LG's description is ludicrous.

Okey-dokey: just pretend for the QM GR argument that Objective Idealism is it, maybe lg is a little off. Why does one think QM, GR & Idealism are incompatible?

His theory should state that QM and relativity are immaterial because they are illsuions of percieved reality.

Here is the problem, "perceived material reality" is not illusory; it is as real as any other part of idealism. Is your mind illusory?

Some how QM is proof of the will of the primal cause and relativity is proof that light is the mind of god.

Hmm, I admit that isn't apparent to me at least; and also I missed seeing those contentions.

 

[Atlas]

Surely? Why "surely"?

My philosophy is that God gives unto man that man gives unto himself, since man is really God, afterall. I do not expect miracles unless I expect miracles first.

As for surely, part of your quote was this:I might have concluded that since God is existence and God has free-will, then God's energy (God itself) is indeterministic. If God has free will and is indeterministic surely he could be as interventionist as the Judeo-Christian deity. Those are the same qualities He'd possess, true? So, if you were in the prediction business you might just as easily predicted massive interventions. The religions do. Why wouldn't you.

As for this: I do not expect miracles unless I expect miracles first. You certainly have a way with words. Might someone near you in the illusion expect a miracle and catch you off guard. I don't suppose anybody has yet, huh?

 

[Atlas]

Okey-dokey: just pretend for the QM GR argument that Objective Idealism is it...

Here is the problem, "perceived material reality" is not illusory; it is as real as any other part of idealism. Is your mind illusory?

Hammegk,
As I understand the philosophy of Objective Idealism (which is not much), their seems to exist a reality with trees and brains that is simultaneous with appearances and ideas. Likewise my real self is blood and guts but the mirror shows an objective reality that is mere appearance which is simultaneous with my general idea of self.

I don't know whether Objective Idealism says that the appearance IS the idea or what it says about other ideas not based on the objective world. Maybe you can comment.

I don't think that lifegazer's Monism is even Subjective Idealism because my subjective reality is hardly my own, it is an impression of God experienced as me. An uber-idealism that calls me deluded twice. Once because I accept hard reality and not the insubstantialness of it, and twice because even my experience, while real, is not unique to me but "I" am the dream of another. Does it seem that way to you?


Lifegazer, I'm hoping this clarifies how your philosophy strikes me anyway. I think we need to contrast it with other thought to identify and illuminate the areas that cause us trouble. Either I am understanding, or your message needs a finer edge. (I do not accept that I am too dense -- you've got to take message into the world of the very dense.)

 

[lifegazer]

As for surely, part of your quote was this:I might have concluded that since God is existence and God has free-will, then God's energy (God itself) is indeterministic. If God has free will and is indeterministic surely he could be as interventionist as the Judeo-Christian deity. Those are the same qualities He'd possess, true? So, if you were in the prediction business you might just as easily predicted massive interventions. The religions do. Why wouldn't you.

God does what man is sure of. If man is sure of God's "intervention", then sobeit.

As for this: I do not expect miracles unless I expect miracles first. You certainly have a way with words. Might someone near you in the illusion expect a miracle and catch you off guard. I don't suppose anybody has yet, huh? [/B]

No. I yearn to meet that person within 'me', to be honest. Yet I will not meet that person within me until I am sure that I will meet that person within me. Catch 22.

 

[RussDill]

Still unable to answer any of my questions I see, and you *still* haven't answered the ice cream dellima. Just more hand waving and insisting.

 

[Wudang]

Mud-slinging is so much more fun than explaining, iyo, why lg's god, or more basically Objective Idealism is at variance with QM or GR.

It is not mud slinging. As you well know lifegazer has started threads on QM and relativity where he demonstrated his ignorance of the subjects. For starters he totally fails to grasp frames of reference and as you appear to know that is fundamental to relativity.
I find your comment disingenious at best.

 

[Wudang]

You're a plonker Wudang and I don't want you jumping into my threads after 5 pages just to utter two unsubstantiated lines of garbage. In future, stay away or explain your gripes.

Quantum mechanics
My philosophy declares that everything emanates from a primal-cause which, by default, must possess absolute free-will. A primal-cause cannot be a primal-cause unless it possess free-will, by rational default.
Hence, my philosophy says that God has an indeterministic nature, and that God's energy is essentially unpredictable. However, since God's energy is the cause of perceived [classical order] existence, we should expect to see God's energy moving towards a general ordering. Hence the probablistic ordering inherent within fundamental particles, which are essentially derivatives of fundamental energy - God's energy.

If I'd have been born two hundred years ago and had the same kind of philosophy as now, I might have predicted the base knowledge known via QM. That's how consistent my philosophy is with quantum mechanics.
Not to mention the importance of the observer to particle perception. Without an observer, all energy exists as the whole of its potential. So, without any observers, the energy of existence is just a blurry potential, awaiting observation so that it can become some things definite.

I'm intending to present my own thread about relativity soon. So I won't discuss it here right now.

You've already started and then abandoned your own thread on realtivity. You abandoned it because people who had actually read a book tried to correct you.
And again when caught in a bare-faced lie you throw personal insults.

 

[lifegazer]

You've already started and then abandoned your own thread on realtivity. You abandoned it because people who had actually read a book tried to correct you.
And again when caught in a bare-faced lie you throw personal insults.

I have never started a thread on relativity. And I've told you that I don't want you in my threads unless you have something meaningful to say. You have completely overlooked my take on quantum-mechanics, for example, which I presented in the face of your earlier insult.

 

[lifegazer]

I don't think that lifegazer's Monism is even Subjective Idealism because my subjective reality is hardly my own, it is an impression of God experienced as me. An uber-idealism that calls me deluded twice. Once because I accept hard reality and not the insubstantialness of it, and twice because even my experience, while real, is not unique to me but "I" am the dream of another.

The highlighted bit is wrong. 'You' are not the dream of another. You are God who has been duped, for lack of a better word, into believing that It is Atlas.
Only God exists, remember. That's my philosophy. Everything else is an illusion, held within the mind of God.

 

[Wudang]

I have never started a thread on relativity. And I've told you that I don't want you in my threads unless you have something meaningful to say. You have completely overlooked my take on quantum-mechanics, for example, which I presented in the face of your earlier insult.

My apologies - the relativity thread was started by another, and I confused it with your "reality of space and motion" thread.
What earlier insult?
And it is not your thread, it is the forums thread. I will resurrect the QM, Relativity and "Upchurchs question" threads. If you want me out of this thread do not make false claims about QM or relativity.
And hammegk, I did not say that QM or GR is inconsistent with Idealism because it is not. Idealism is a consistent and coherent philosophy based on the converse of the materialist assumption.

 

[lifegazer]

Still unable to answer any of my questions I see,

What questions? I'll answer any serious questions.

and you *still* haven't answered the ice cream dellima. Just more hand waving and insisting.

"But QM isn't just about indetrminism, there is still excating probability within it. You wouldn't be able to predict free-will like that. It would be like postulating, without ever seeing you eat ice cream, that exactly 65.43202093820% of the time, you will choose chocolate. And then observing your ice cream choices millions of times, and seeing it match. Doesn't sound like free will to me.

(Determining the probabilities of events occuring without seeing them is a fairly straightforward process in QM.)"

This is a "dilemma"?

In my philosophy, God's indeterminate nature is the cause of perceived existence. So, God's energy is essentially indeterminate. However, since this energy is responsible for the order perceived within our existence, it would be expected (in my philosophy) that a general ordering of that energy were to be observable at the base-particle level. There should be a probability that fundamental-particles do conform towards an expected order.

So, God has free-will. God's energy is essentially indeterminate. God's energy produces perceived order. Therefore, God's energy, though indeterminate, should be observed to conform to a general order.

Your icecream has melted away.

 

[EdipisReks]

 

[lifegazer]

And it is not your thread, it is the forums thread. I will resurrect the QM, Relativity and "Upchurchs question" threads. If you want me out of this thread do not make false claims about QM or relativity.

I don't necessarily want you out of the thread. I just don't want you in it unless you're going to say more than a two-line put-down.

 

[lifegazer]

Think of me as your alarm call.

 

[EdipisReks]

Think of me as your alarm call.

i dream of jeannie

 

[hammegk]

As I understand the philosophy of Objective Idealism (which is not much), their seems to exist a reality with trees and brains that is simultaneous with appearances and ideas. Likewise my real self is blood and guts but the mirror shows an objective reality that is mere appearance which is simultaneous with my general idea of self.

I wouldn't say that, exactly, but it seems a reasonable attempt to verbalize the unverbalizable

I don't know whether Objective Idealism says that the appearance IS the idea or what it says about other ideas not based on the objective world. Maybe you can comment.

IMO, "objective" means that "what-is" exists as-it-is independent of what I take as 'myself(for lack of a better word)'. And I assume without possibility of proof that "what-is" in totality is all there is, and that it's objectiveness cannot be revised by any finite group of "individual(for lack of a better word)' sentiences=intents.

I don't think that lifegazer's Monism is even Subjective Idealism because my subjective reality is hardly my own, it is an impression of God experienced as me. An uber-idealism that calls me deluded twice. Once because I accept hard reality and not the insubstantialness of it, and twice because even my experience, while real, is not unique to me but "I" am the dream of another. Does it seem that way to you?

So far as I've seen, nihilism cannot be denied by science or logic. We choose to assume it is not true, since any other asumption is hopelessness and unproductive imo.

Solipsism has the same problem. The best we can do is by gentlemens' agreement accept that "*I* think=exist, and "you" think=exist in some basic sense independently ... so we have something to discuss. No possible proof will ever exist whether we are in any sense "independent" or whether we are both dreams/realities of a True Solipsist.

At this point one does what one's logic and worldview best dictate. Either materialism or immaterialism can be assumed, ones' worldview examined logically, and a choice made and defended. I mention again that the non-life/life problem, HPC at the level of human brain complexity, and now dreaming, are interesting points to examine to assist one in making a choice. So as I see, neither position cannot make any comment on "free-will" vs. "super-determinism". I choose to act as though *I* can employ "free-will", which from my parochial knowledge & understanding is the same -- again, to me -- as super-determinism.

LG chooses to accept a True Solipsist which he names "god" would be one way to think of his stance, again imo.

 

[hammegk]

oops, dammit ...

 

[sackett]

Behold, this dreamer cometh; let us ignore him, and see what becomes of his dream

I recently read an opinion by an Islamic scholar (a German; no Arab would dare say this) that every fifth sentence of the Quran doesn't make sense - not even in isolation, let alone in relation to what comes before or after it. And yet, you can hardly name a more influential religious text than the Quran.

The Old Testament, especially in the prophetic patches, is not much more coherent than the Quran. Other holy books run to gobbledegook in places, and none of them is without its obscure passages. And of course if you try to parse them in detail to extract paraphrasable meaning, you're soon in deep doodoo, or rather the holy inspired authors would be if they were around to respond.

None of that counts for a tinker's fardt when it comes to assessing a holy book's effectiveness. The more incoherent the message, the better it goes down with those predisposed to believe. It's the poetry that matters, not the content: the medium is everything, the message is almost nothing.

So if you want to start a religion, ~don't~ follow LiteSaber's example. He has a vision of the-universe-as-god/god-as-the-universe kinda thing; nothing new, but, I suppose, inspiring to a poorly stocked mind. There's no intrinsic reason why LG's religion (in formal descriptive terms, a cosmology known as Big Giant Head) couldn't take off and become a viable cult, with the right holy book to inspire belief.

But, alas, LG attempts to -reason- his universe into existence, using misunderstood science and metaphysics. Won't work, just won't work, and couldn't work, let him ply his tools ever so well. Inspirational religious texts, that is, books that enflame the faithful, aren't reasoned or even reasonable.

Prophets, bring not peace but a sword! Clothe your horse's neck with thunder! Roll up the heavens like unto a scroll! Behold, a pale rider! Etc. (I admit I can't do this stuff myself, but then I lack motivation: I already have a job.)

Also: Telling prospective converts to piff oss is -not- the way to build a following.