+- Las Venturas Playground (https://forum.sa-mp.nl)
+-- Forum: Miscellaneous (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: General Talk (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-24.html)
+--- Thread: [Serious Discussion] Religion (/thread-26936.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Dominator33 - 06-18-2011
Why can't you just post it here? lol..
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Tuism - 06-18-2011
yea why not just posting it here?
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - 0Target0 - 06-18-2011
You can join the orch or sect right now! Scientology is old school!
Stlyla is to god-orch or what tom cruise is to scientology
.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-18-2011
failed to answer the question (which most of real scientists did) so yea.. let's start about the topic TwistedDemon has no clue about (he got way too scientific with his Quaran and "how to sleep" xD ) and Dominator33 , Slice and other uL fan-girls, i know i've trolled you alot ingame etc. but this is a debate not considering sa-mp.
1.) "unless you define the words (cause a broad interpretation is possible): self-observation, self-collapse and the circumstances for the self collapse, i can not aswer that question."
"ok let me make this really simple:
self-observation = consciousness, self-collapse = Orch-OR, therefore consciousness = Orch-OR - see 5.) "
2.) "I have problems with the use of ontological arguments. Since they are not based on any scientific proof."
"then you have a problem with scientific proofs as scientific proof is necessarily dependent on philosophy of science which is necessarily dependent on ontological proof. To negate this is to contradict oneself."
3.) "The reason why there is a misinterpretation is that the universe does not equal a self collapsing wave function,"
"no one said it did. The wave-function OF the universe is self-collapsing. The wave-function of the universe is "behind" or more fundamental than the universe though."
4.) "it is a property that we (humans) have given to the universe in order to try and understand the behaviour and the quantumphysical measurement problem. Is this property correct?"
"yes wave-function collapse is a real phenomena just look up the "Zeno effect'"
5.) "maybe so, maybe not. We use it untill it proves us wrong. Since there are much theories about that problem you can just pick one out and combine it with just whatever theory you like."
"well it's a bit more than that. most people who don't like it don't like it based on materialist or positivist grounds. however since the Wigner's friend experiment demonstrates that collapse = observation it is by definition true that self-collapse = self-observation."
6.) "penrose Orch Or has nothing to do with God. You have to prove me wrong on that one. Because according to your theory. Universe=Mind=Self Collapsing wave function=God=Consciousness.""
"no Orch-OR ITSELF doesn't have anything to do with God, but you haven't been paying attention. Let me restate this very carefully:
1.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (Orch-OR)
2.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing. (true by definition as there is nothing physical outside of the universe -by definition- to measure and collapse it)
therefore: the wave-function of the universe is a mind."
my answers, im free today so..
mis interpretation? ure inventing ur own stuff.. so yes misinterpretation, come on m-
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - [SAE]Grim - 06-18-2011
That has to be one of the most messed up posts of yours so far, rofl
Didnt understand shit of who were saying what
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - durrrrr - 06-18-2011
Wait a second... Julius Caesar (13 July 100 BC – 15 March 44 BC).
Died 44 years before Christ was born. How could he know Jesus then?
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - 0Target0 - 06-18-2011
Well hello johnatan ratz, Maybe i should call stephen hawking to enter this forum. You might as well make your own sect you youtube troll.
(06-18-2011, 12:34 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: 1.) "unless you define the words (cause a broad interpretation is possible): self-observation, self-collapse and the circumstances for the self collapse, i can not aswer that question."
"ok let me make this really simple:
self-observation = consciousness, self-collapse = Orch-OR, therefore consciousness = Orch-OR - see 5.) "
Yes, where is your god proof in this thing? Because i'm not discussing the orch or, i'm discussing the fact that you connect this theory to Universe=God. Nevertheless Orch-Or is one of the million theories which remain extremely doubtful today, just as anything else in the psychology-philosophical domain.
(06-18-2011, 12:34 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: 2.) "I have problems with the use of ontological arguments. Since they are not based on any scientific proof."
"then you have a problem with scientific proofs as scientific proof is necessarily dependent on philosophy of science which is necessarily dependent on ontological proof. To negate this is to contradict oneself."
Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. Scientific proof is not dependent on philosophy of science. Scientific proof is observation and measurement. And not intuition and reason alone, which is ontological.
(06-18-2011, 12:34 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: 3.) "The reason why there is a misinterpretation is that the universe does not equal a self collapsing wave function,"
"no one said it did. The wave-function OF the universe is self-collapsing. The wave-function of the universe is "behind" or more fundamental than the universe though."
(06-18-2011, 12:34 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: 4.) "it is a property that we (humans) have given to the universe in order to try and understand the behaviour and the quantumphysical measurement problem. Is this property correct?"
"yes wave-function collapse is a real phenomena just look up the "Zeno effect'"
Look up the anti-Zeno effect without packet reduction.
(06-18-2011, 12:34 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: 5.) "maybe so, maybe not. We use it untill it proves us wrong. Since there are much theories about that problem you can just pick one out and combine it with just whatever theory you like."
"well it's a bit more than that. most people who don't like it don't like it based on materialist or positivist grounds. however since the Wigner's friend experiment demonstrates that collapse = observation it is by definition true that self-collapse = self-observation."
I bet you can use any theory you want and combine it to the result you want. Seeing that there are an enormous amount of consciousness theories and an enormous amount of quantum theoretical models. Both of which have yet to be proven. So for every theory you use, i can use a theory who contradicts yours, because thats just how many theories there are. Therefor i believe this discussion is useless.
Use Schrödingers cat?
(06-18-2011, 12:34 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: 6.) "penrose Orch Or has nothing to do with God. You have to prove me wrong on that one. Because according to your theory. Universe=Mind=Self Collapsing wave function=God=Consciousness.""
"no Orch-OR ITSELF doesn't have anything to do with God, but you haven't been paying attention. Let me restate this very carefully:
1.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (Orch-OR)
2.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing. (true by definition as there is nothing physical outside of the universe -by definition- to measure and collapse it)
therefore: the wave-function of the universe is a mind."
my answers, im free today so..
mis interpretation? ure inventing ur own stuff.. so yes misinterpretation, come on m-
So the schrödinger equation is a mind? So the atom orbital is a mind? Minds can be seen as self collapsing wave function. They do not equal them
Sorry i'm not even answering more of your stuff because it has become irrelevant for this discussion in my opinion. Al you do is use ontological arguments, which are not proof, so they are useless in my opinion.
Sorry Styl4, i'm gonna leave it at this. I can't really afford to lose much time this week, cause i have a lot of work. Just bear in mind that philosophical theories (which you seem to like) do not equal the truth. They might be interesting, but philosophers are not scientists and not out for the truth. They love the art of reasoning (without proof). Let CERN do their work and let them prove to us how this quantumphysical world really works.
My opinion on god remains the same. It's a fairytale, you may believe in it, but to consider it the truth is quite naive.
You have failed to prove the existance of God, which is a really hard thing to do. Cause you can't prove things that don't exist, nor can you disprove them.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Tuism - 06-18-2011
(06-18-2011, 12:34 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: TwistedDemon has no clue about (he got way too scientific with his Quaran and "how to sleep" xD )
Is that what Christianity taught you? make fun of other people and their beliefs?
dear STyL4... have you ever read the bible?
23-june is the day kid... get ready to say bye bye to Christianity
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - LIke - 06-19-2011
mmm so what is this argue about if god exist or not? you cant proove anything theres not a solid proof from both sides
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Gibbs - 06-19-2011
(06-18-2011, 07:05 PM)TwistedDemon link Wrote: 23-june is the day kid... get ready to say bye bye to ChristianityWhat's that supposed to mean? ;D