Would Religion still continue if....

[Guest]

Algorithms, and atoms.

 

[Franko]

Your consciousness is an algorithm. The Logical Deists call this Algorithm MPB (Maximum Perceived Benefit). Essentially, here’s how it works.

Imagine your existence as consisting of a series (or sequence) of “decisions”. These “decisions” are triggered by a situation in Time (an event, and actually events are ALWAYS triggered by an entanglement with another consciousness). Whenever you find yourself approaching an “event” Your consciousness begins to scan through its memory of past situations, which are similar or analogous to the present one. From this database of past experiences (information from the past) your mind extrapolates and ranks a list of options.

But here is the thing … the list of options is RANKED, and the top choice on the list is the “option” that is perceived (by YOU) as MOST beneficial. It may not actually be the most beneficial choice in reality, mind you, but according to the information that you carry – as far as YOU know – it is your best choice. YOUR Consciousness always, Always, ALWAYS selects the option of Maximum perceived benefit. In reality you make NO choice. In reality you are an Algorithm that follows a preordained path based on logical rules.

Despite what you may think, your mind is not “magical” (or random/acausal). It only seems that way, because you do not fully understand it.

Atoms? ... you'll have to be a little more specific on that one.

 

[Guest]

Your consciousness is an algorithm. The Logical Deists call this Algorithm MPB (Maximum Perceived Benefit). Essentially, here’s how it works.

Imagine your existence as consisting of a series (or sequence) of “decisions”. These “decisions” are triggered by a situation in Time (an event, and actually events are ALWAYS triggered by an entanglement with another consciousness). Whenever you find yourself approaching an “event” Your consciousness begins to scan through its memory of past situations, which are similar or analogous to the present one. From this database of past experiences (information from the past) your mind extrapolates and ranks a list of options.

But here is the thing … the list of options is RANKED, and the top choice on the list is the “option” that is perceived (by YOU) as MOST beneficial. It may not actually be the most beneficial choice in reality, mind you, but according to the information that you carry – as far as YOU know – it is your best choice. YOUR Consciousness always, Always, ALWAYS selects the option of Maximum perceived benefit. In reality you make NO choice. In reality you are an Algorithm that follows a preordained path based on logical rules.

Despite what you may think, your mind is not “magical” (or random/acausal). It only seems that way, because you do not fully understand it.

Atoms? ... you'll have to be a little more specific on that one.

Yes, at last I understand algorithms and what you mean by it now.

Atoms and TLOP seen you say it before master

 

[Franko]

Pie:
Yea I understand.

Ohh, come on Pie! You'll have to dance much better than this if you want to be in my harem ...

 

[Guest]

Franko's harem!?

There's a mental image I could have done without.

 

[Franko]

Now here’s the thing ... From Your POV, there are actually Two light cones (The OmniWorldTree (and it’s Roots)), in other words, a pyramid above you, and another one below your. The one below you is your past, and the one above you is your future.

If you imagine a Tree-diagram, and you are a point particle following a path along that Tree, and when you reach a branch in the tree that represents a decision in your existence (a “choice you make”). Now even though you are on this Tree structure, the actual path you follow is a single jagged line, sort of like a lightning bolt would make. The LD call this your worldline, it is your path of Destiny (worldline through spacetime), it’s like your own personal path of least resistance.

The “Thing” that determines your “Path” is your MPB algorithm. Your Graviton (your fractal pattern in the Energy).

Always-With-Foot-In-Mouth: (Indian Name)
There's a mental image I could have done without.

Hehehe … more conclusions based on no evidence?

 

[Guest]

I'll bet the Godess gets jealous.

 

[Unas]

Unas can I ask what do you believe in then?

Specify. What beliefs are you asking about?

One little thing you say not knowing the rules does not mean that they do exist, ok, but science it self uses rules it doesn't know are real applicable or are correct, that is why they are called theories isn't it? People accept them readily do they not?

Theories aren't "rules". Theories are explanations regarding observable phenomena. If a theory can consistently explain a particular phenomenon, and can accurately predict what new observations may be made in later trials, then it is provisionally accepted as 'correct', until new observations come along that don't fit the theory. No scientific theory is exempt from questioning, re-evaluation, revision, or discard -- although, being human, many scientists may cling to a favorite theory (especially if they had a hand in formulating it) long past the time when the theory must be altered or abandoned.

 

[Unas]

Your consciousness is an algorithm. The Logical Deists call this Algorithm MPB (Maximum Perceived Benefit). Essentially, here’s how it works.

Imagine your existence as consisting of a series (or sequence) of “decisions”. These “decisions” are triggered by a situation in Time (an event, and actually events are ALWAYS triggered by an entanglement with another consciousness). Whenever you find yourself approaching an “event” Your consciousness begins to scan through its memory of past situations, which are similar or analogous to the present one. From this database of past experiences (information from the past) your mind extrapolates and ranks a list of options.

But here is the thing … the list of options is RANKED, and the top choice on the list is the “option” that is perceived (by YOU) as MOST beneficial. It may not actually be the most beneficial choice in reality, mind you, but according to the information that you carry – as far as YOU know – it is your best choice. YOUR Consciousness always, Always, ALWAYS selects the option of Maximum perceived benefit. In reality you make NO choice. In reality you are an Algorithm that follows a preordained path based on logical rules.

That's a most interesting theory of psychology. Now... what experimental evidence exists to support it?

More importantly, what experiment could be performed that could potentially falsify your theory?

 

[Franko]

Unas: (insane)
That's a most interesting theory of psychology. Now... what experimental evidence exists to support it?

What evidence did I offer (how about you following me around like a trained monkey?)? This is a Philosophy forum not a Science symposium A-Theist-Clown. But the JREF does have a Science forum, unless perhaps www.Infidels.org is more to your liking?

Now, do you have a LOGICAL reason for disputing my little “theory”, or are you just here to make morons out of anyone calling themselves an Atheist?

More importantly, what experiment could be performed that could potentially falsify your theory?

You could begin running red lights, jumping off the roof of tall buildings, or burning your hand on the hot stove repeatedly … Doh! Too late … hehehe … you crack me up sock-puppy. Dance for me!

 

[Unas]

What evidence did I offer

None. It begins to appear that there is no evidence for Franko's theory.

Now, do you have a LOGICAL reason for disputing my little “theory”

I've disputed nothing. I asked Franko a civil question, regarding the evidence for his theory. As expected, he has responded with evasion and ad hominem attacks.

 

[Unas]

WOW! I noticed...

Franko is merely repeating his earlier post. He is unwilling to take responsibility for his lies, and seems to believe that spamming this forum will somehow magically make all knowledge of his lies vanish.

 

[Franko]

WOW! I noticed you have already managed to make 150 posts without answering a single question. That is excellent work A-Theist I want to thank you for beautifully demonstrating an oft quoted prophecy of mine … A-Theists are masters of talking without saying anything.

Why are you unable to cite the SPECIFIC POINT that you disagree with regarding my beliefs, and SPECIFIC REASON for disagreeing with it?

Are you so embarrassed by your own beliefs that you cannot tell us what they are? Why have you even bothered to post on a SKEPTICS forum then? Perhaps www.Infidels.org would be a more appropriate venue for your hate-mongering against individuals who believe in God then a board full of Free-Thinkers, and Philosophers?

Why your repeated demonstrations of such intellectual dishonesty, cowardice, double standards, and hypocrisy? Surely you must realize what a huge embarrassment you are causing the other A-Theists here? Some of them have even had the ballz to tell you to your face.

Do you honestly believe that your continued nonsense is making me look bad? ... keep thinking that A-Theist.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

WOW! I noticed you have already managed to make 150 posts without answering a single question. That is excellent work A-Theist I want to thank you for beautifully demonstrating an oft quoted prophecy of mine … A-Theists are masters of talking without saying anything.

Why are you unable to cite the SPECIFIC POINT that you disagree with regarding my beliefs, and SPECIFIC REASON for disagreeing with it?

Are you so embarrassed by your own beliefs that you cannot tell us what they are? Why have you even bothered to post on a SKEPTICS forum then? Perhaps www.Infidels.org would be a more appropriate venue for your hate-mongering against individuals who believe in God then a board full of Free-Thinkers, and Philosophers?

Why your repeated demonstrations of such intellectual dishonesty, cowardice, double standards, and hypocrisy? Surely you must realize what a huge embarrassment you are causing the other A-Theists here? Some of them have even had the ballz to tell you to your face.

Do you honestly believe that your continued nonsense is making me look bad? ... keep thinking that A-Theist.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Quantum/qkids.html
Ok, here's a citation, and I'll explain it too.

The whole venture of theroretical physics has taken phenomona and condensed them into mathematical form. Such was the precision that could be onbtained with these calculations that some thought everything could be predicted.

In fact, newtonian physics, which is still the groundwork for modern engineering held that things could be perfectly predicted if all of the forces were known.

It seemed that everything was making sense, and in fact there are many quotes from this time predicting the end of science:

In 1894 Albert Michelson (who is famous for his experiments on the velocity of light) said in a speech,

"While it is never safe to say that the future of Physical Science has no marvels even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established, …1, p19
http://www.albertson.edu/aboutaci/liberal_arts/la_lecture.asp


But in fact there was more to be explained. Nobody thought that the bizzare shift of two stars that occured when a planet passed between them would be the begining of a new sort of physics, but it was.

Elsewhere in the world, Albert Einstein was working out the basis of relativity.

What it meant was not that Newtonian physics was wrong, but that they were not the underlying structure of the universe.

In relation to your philosophy Franko, it means that the universe is not entirely predictable. This is not magic, nor is it some unknown force poorly defined, but the conviction, in accordance with all observed phenomena that the universe is not entirely predictable.

I'll let that sink in for a paragraph.

The world is at it's most base level acting withing a set range of actions, some more likely than others. We live at a high enough macro level that it seems predictable, and this is due to statistics rather than the laws of physics.

So, in short Franko I disagree with your citing the laws of physics as a reason for determinism. With what is now known about the cosmos, no such position can be as firmly (and rudely) posited as you posit you position. Who knows, perhaps quantum mechanics is only one step closer to reality, with the actual truth being much smaller and complex.

What is known now is that the undelying structure of the universe is not predictable, not magical, and randomized.

 

[Franko]

Neutrino_cannon (arrogant)

What it meant was not that Newtonian physics was wrong, but that they were not the underlying structure of the universe.

Newton works fine (here in this Universe). Go to the planet Mercury, and compute Mercury’s position while in orbit using Newtonian mechanics – you’ll get the right answer.

Relativity is only meaningful in terms of observers (Copenhagen) and Points of View (consciousness).

In relation to your philosophy Franko, it means that the universe is not entirely predictable. This is not magic, nor is it some unknown force poorly defined, but the conviction, in accordance with all observed phenomena that the universe is not entirely predictable.

Nonsense – utter nonsense.

Furthermore you standing here and trying to act “smart” while asserting NOTHING more than a Special Plead (universe is not entirely predictable/ This is not magic/ nor is it some unknown force poorly defined/ but the conviction)

“Conviction”? Gimme a F*cking break meatwad! What’s the difference between Your conviction, and any other religious nitwits Faith?

The world is at it's most base level acting withing a set range of actions, some more likely than others. We live at a high enough macro level that it seems predictable, and this is due to statistics rather than the laws of physics.

Statistics are based on Logical rules and a logical sequence (order) of events. Are you denying this?

What is known now is that the undelying structure of the universe is not predictable, not magical, and randomized.

You sound very convinced.

Unfortunately I can’t believe in the tooth fairy (It’s not magic) just because you say it’s not. It sounds just like Magic to me.

Magic: = without Logical (comprehensible) cause.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Newton works fine (here in this Universe). Go to the planet Mercury, and compute Mercury’s position while in orbit using Newtonian mechanics – you’ll get the right answer.

You would get the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. The biggest problem being that gravity propigates at c, rather than instantly, as in newtonian physics.

As for that last bit, I'm not sure what you're on about.

“Conviction”? Gimme a F*cking break meatwad! What’s the difference between Your conviction, and any other religious nitwits Faith?

Well, there was the link.

Magic: = without Logical (comprehensible) cause.

Webster says :

"1a) The use of spells, charms, and rituals in seeking or pretending to cause or control events or to govern certain natural or supernatural forces"

could need some reconciliation.

Neutrino_cannon (arrogant)

Da*n straight Franko.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Franko:

Newton works fine (here in this Universe). Go to the planet Mercury, and compute Mercury’s position while in orbit using Newtonian mechanics – you’ll get the right answer.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. (To be perfectly honest: No, I'm not sorry, but you are still wrong).

If you try to compute the orbit of Mercury using only Newtonian mechanics, you DONT get the right answer. This puzzled astronomers for the better part of a century and led to the search for a planet inside the orbit of Mercury. It even got a name, Vulcan. Only after the discovery of Relativity, it was possible to calculate the orbit of Mercury and make it fit observations. For an easily readable and yet comprehensive description of this, I recommend Isaak Asimov's "The Planet That Wasn't" (Doubleday).

The Copenhagen Interpretation is about Quantum Mechanics, not Relativity. And it doesn't say, as you seem to claim, that QM only functions when there is an observer. It says that any part of QM has to be proven empirically to be accepted true. Which also means that all accepted statements about QM have been proved empirically.

Hans

 

[neutrino_cannon]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. (To be perfectly honest: No, I'm not sorry, but you are still wrong).

If you try to compute the orbit of Mercury using only Newtonian mechanics, you DONT get the right answer. This puzzled astronomers for the better part of a century and led to the search for a planet inside the orbit of Mercury. It even got a name, Vulcan. Only after the discovery of Relativity, it was possible to calculate the orbit of Mercury and make it fit observations. For an easily readable and yet comprehensive description of this, I recommend Isaak Asimov's "The Planet That Wasn't" (Doubleday).

The Copenhagen Interpretation is about Quantum Mechanics, not Relativity. And it doesn't say, as you seem to claim, that QM only functions when there is an observer. It says that any part of QM has to be proven empirically to be accepted true. Which also means that all accepted statements about QM have been proved empirically.

Hans

Darn, missed that one.

 

[Guest]

Specify. What beliefs are you asking about?
Theories aren't "rules". Theories are explanations regarding observable phenomena. If a theory can consistently explain a particular phenomenon, and can accurately predict what new observations may be made in later trials, then it is provisionally accepted as 'correct', until new observations come along that don't fit the theory. No scientific theory is exempt from questioning, re-evaluation, revision, or discard -- although, being human, many scientists may cling to a favorite theory (especially if they had a hand in formulating it) long past the time when the theory must be altered or abandoned.

Unas if I knew what you believed in, in the first place I wouldnt bother asking you would I I would be however spending the Randi's million having so proved my mind reading ability of you lol.

ok

 

[Guest]

Ohh, come on Pie! You'll have to dance much better than this if you want to be in my harem ...

You want me to dance Franko? Sorry but I have been told to punish you for being bad Franko Never bite a friend Franko she bites back harder xxx