There is a God

[StolenWindows]

In a religious system consciousness is fundamental. The double slit experiment proved God. Because if all existence is tied to observation, one observer created all else. Even Max Planck believed that consciousness was fundamental. Our arrow of time is linear. The universe only came 14 billion years ago. The universe will end with an expanding nothingness. This is where string theory enters the picture. The idea is that your consciousness is information that enters a new universe in a higher dimension not bound by time (4D) that's truly timeless. Cyclic and eternal universe is physically impossible under the second law of thermpdynamics. Plus it's impossible for the universe to contract due to general relativity. There's not enough matter in the universe to reverse an expansion, and based on current observations, the expansion is speeding up. Eventually there'll be none left in the ever expanding nothingness once the universe overheats, stars burn out and black holes evaporate back into space. Also, look into the past hypothesis. The universe started 14 billion years ago with the big bang when it came from low entropy and expanded. The only question is what created that singularity, which is where the god hypothesis comes in. God will exist after the universe goes black and so will his believers. Atheists can't understand infinity.

 

[Milles d'Allemagne]

Yes there is; My lovely wife. up top

 

[UnFuNnYmEmE]

I know

 

[ToroidalBoat]

The double slit experiment proved God.

That idea the the observer effect somehow means "consciousness can magically alter reality" is a misconception. At a subatomic scale, in order to measure a particle, another particle has to interact with it. I think a better argument for the existence of God could be why this reality exists at all. Or maybe why you are you, and not someone else?

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

*the

 

[MadStan]

A guy who pretends to understand scientific laws and discoveries, who also pretends to argue their invalidity by their proven existence as proof of the existence of something else he has no proof does.

 

[ReceiveAndAsk]

So we are 'rediscovering' what every single esoteric/occult practice has taught since time immemorial.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

The double slit experiment proved God. Because if all existence is tied to observation, one observer created all else.

Unfortunately polysemy exists. In physics, "observation" doesn't refer to a conscious mind noticing something, it means a physical interaction. Like, a particle interacting with a detector or measuring device. A photon hitting a screen counts as an observation. No awareness is required there.
If "observation" meant "a mind looking", then you'd get different experiment results depending on whether a human was paying attention. (that's not the case)
So that "all existence is tied to observation" is already a bad claim.

Even Max Planck believed that consciousness was fundamental.

Some physicist's metaphysical opinion does not turn it into a physical result. Physics does not derive the existence of a personal creator, afterlife, or privileged "believers"

The universe only came 14 billion years ago. The universe will end with an expanding nothingness. This is where string theory enters the picture. The idea is that your consciousness is information that enters a new universe in a higher dimension not bound by time (4D) that's truly timeless. Cyclic and eternal universe is physically impossible under the second law of thermpdynamics. Plus it's impossible for the universe to contract due to general relativity. There's not enough matter in the universe to reverse an expansion, and based on current observations, the expansion is speeding up. Eventually there'll be none left in the ever expanding nothingness once the universe overheats, stars burn out and black holes evaporate back into space. Also, look into the past hypothesis. The universe started 14 billion years ago with the big bang when it came from low entropy and expanded. The only question is what created that singularity, which is where the god hypothesis comes in.

Even if you grant that a beginning exists, nothing specifies who or what did anything. Like, a low-entropy boundary condition does not entail a conscious being who persists after heat death and rewards followers. That's pure conjecture

God will exist after the universe goes black and so will his believers.

That's a narrative stapled on to unresolved questions. There is nothing to bridge the gap from "we don't know why initial conditions were this way" to "a personal God + post-mortem survival"

Atheists can't understand infinity.

... infinity is a mathematical issue, not a religious one. Not to mention it has no bearing whatsoever on whether consciousness collapses wave functions or whether a deity exists.

Thing is, if you're trying to claim that physics shows that consciousness is ontologically fundamental, then you'd need to show the specific mechanism. If you're merely claiming that some questions are currently unanswered, then that fact does not privilege any particular answer, especially one that comes with so much extra baggage

 

[StolenWindows]

@XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG

What a croc of shit. This is just appeal to ignorance fallacies with a naturalistic mindset as if something more intelligent isn't out there.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

@XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG

What a croc of shit. This is just appeal to ignorance fallacies with a naturalistic mindset

Pointing out that a conclusion does not follow from the premises is not an appeal to ignorance
An appeal to ignorance would be "we don't know A, therefore B is true"
What I said instead was "you have not shown how A entails B"
Pretty much the opposite of an appeal to ignorance
Like,

The only question is what created that singularity, which is where the god hypothesis comes in.

is a textbook jump from "unknown" to "therefore my preferred answer".

as if something more intelligent isn't out there.

This is the exact issue I'm pointing out
That assertion does not answer any of the points I raised unless you specify what "intelligent" means here, how that intelligence interacts with physical processes, and how any of the physics results you mentioned require such an entity, rather than merely being compatible with it
I'm refusing to let you insert some conjectured agent without any supporting evidence, call that "naturalism" if you like, but it doesn't solve the problem

 

[StolenWindows]

Pointing out that a conclusion does not follow from the premises is not an appeal to ignorance
An appeal to ignorance would be "we don't know A, therefore B is true"
What I said instead was "you have not shown how A entails B"
Pretty much the opposite of an appeal to ignorance
Like,

is a textbook jump from "unknown" to "therefore my preferred answer".

This is the exact issue I'm pointing out
That assertion does not answer any of the points I raised unless you specify what "intelligent" means here, how that intelligence interacts with physical processes, and how any of the physics results you mentioned require such an entity, rather than merely being compatible with it
I'm refusing to let you insert some conjectured agent without any supporting evidence, call that "naturalism" if you like, but it doesn't solve the problem

Consciousness is both fundamental and emergent (ours is). Also, you don't understand the twin slit experiment. Two slits existed where photons were shot out and hit a canvas, and behind them was an eyeball statue, and the particles became a wavefunction as if they knew they were being watched. Einstein called it spooky action at a distance. Some atheists believe in afterlife. There are atheists who believe in panpsychism (mind-like properties everywhere), simulation theory (reality as computation), forms of non-theistic spirituality or even reincarnation without a creator god. Why is my opinion so controversial to you?

 

[StolenWindows]

"God" is simply a state from which spacetime emerges. So if that's the case, then he's undeniable

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Consciousness is both fundamental and emergent (ours is).

Unless you specify the relationship, these two things go in complete opposite directions
If consciousness were fundamental, then "emergent" needs a clear meaning that doesn't amount to "it appears in brains in a complicated way"
If consciousness is emergent from non-conscious physical parts, then it is not fundamental in the relevant sense
What exact claim are you even making? That consciousness is a basic feature of reality like electromagnetism, or that brains generate it?

"God" is simply a state from which spacetime emerges. So if that's the case, then he's undeniable

So if a word can be redefined to match something that exists, then that vindicates the worldview content that's attached to the word?
To wit, if "whatever fundamental conditions from which spacetime emerges" is "God", then that does not prove anything you claimed at the start of the thread
You do not get a conscious observer, you do not get "God will exist after the universe goes black and so will his believers", you do not get anything that observes photons, you do not get a personal mind, agency, intention, or survival, you do not get to pass go, and you do not get $400
If you're arguing for a conscious intelligent agent that observes, creates, and rewards, then you'd need a mechanism and evidence, not an eyeball statue story
If you're arguing for an abstract unknown basis from which spacetime emerges, then stop with this observer, believer survival, and "double split proved God" talk, because none of these things follow
Right now you're just switching between these approaches to keep the conclusion no matter what the premises allow

 

[StolenWindows]

Unless you specify the relationship, these two things go in complete opposite directions
If consciousness were fundamental, then "emergent" needs a clear meaning that doesn't amount to "it appears in brains in a complicated way"
If consciousness is emergent from non-conscious physical parts, then it is not fundamental in the relevant sense
What exact claim are you even making? That consciousness is a basic feature of reality like electromagnetism, or that brains generate it?

So if a word can be redefined to match something that exists, then that vindicates the worldview content that's attached to the word?
To wit, if "whatever fundamental conditions from which spacetime emerges" is "God", then that does not prove anything you claimed at the start of the thread
You do not get a conscious observer, you do not get "God will exist after the universe goes black and so will his believers", you do not get anything that observes photons, you do not get a personal mind, agency, intention, or survival, you do not get to pass go, and you do not get $400
If you're arguing for a conscious intelligent agent that observes, creates, and rewards, then you'd need a mechanism and evidence, not an eyeball statue story
If you're arguing for an abstract unknown basis from which spacetime emerges, then stop with this observer, believer survival, and "double split proved God" talk, because none of these things follow
Right now you're just switching between these approaches to keep the conclusion no matter what the premises allow

Now you're just arguing semantics. Emergent as in it emerged from another thing that gave it (God). Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[StolenWindows]

Now you're just arguing semantics. Emergent as in it emerged from another thing that gave it (God). Why is that so hard to understand?

Prior, we were potential. We were spoken into existence (Logos theology/John 1:1). Life begins at conception.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Now you're just arguing semantics.

No, it's about explanatory structure, not word choice
I asked concretely whether consciousness is fundamental (a basic feature of reality) or emergent (depending on something else). They describe entirely opposite dependency relations
Calling that "semantics" is tantamount to refusing to say what you're actually claiming

Emergent as in it emerged from another thing that gave it (God).

If consciousness "emerged from God", then consciousness is not fundamental. God would be fundamental, and consciousness would be derivative. Directly contradicting your earlier claim that consciousness is fundamental.
You don't get to use "fundamental" for both the source and the product, one of them has to give way

Prior, we were potential. We were spoken into existence (Logos theology/John 1:1).

Doesn't explain anything that's been discussed so far. Nothing but some theological narrative after the physics-based claims didn't achieve any success
Nothing about wave functions, entropy, cosmology, or measurement theory entails "spoken into existence", Logos, or a personal act of creation. You're asserting those ideas after the fact to rescue the conclusion
Well, it should be plain to see now that the earlier appeals to the double slit experiment and cosmology are rhetorical props rather than evidence

Life begins at conception.

........ how is that in any way related to the argument?
I don't see how this supports any previous claim about consciousness, quantum mechanics, or cosmology. Unless this is just more proclamation rather than explanation

Like, what is this?
I press for mechanisms, you reply with theology. I press for definitions, you dismiss it as "semantics". I point out contradictions, you just reassert God as the source of everything. Is this an argument or are you just declaring your belief?
If you want to argue theology, then just do that and drop the physics talk. If you want to argue from physics, then you don't get to smuggle in theology as a substitute for missing steps. Gotta show some commitment to one of these things

 

[StolenWindows]

@XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG

Prior, we were potential. We were spoken into existence (Logos theology/John 1:1). Life begins at conception.

From Google:

Panpsychism is the philosophical theory that consciousness, mind, or soul is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of all physical matter, from subatomic particles to the entire universe. It argues that conscious experience does not just emerge from complex brains but is present in rudimentary forms at the most basic levels of nature, providing a potential solution to the "hard problem" of how subjective experience arises from non-conscious matter.
Key Aspects of Panpsychism
Definition & Core Idea: Panpsychism ("all-soul" in Greek) posits that even simple entities like electrons possess a form of experience, often called proto-consciousness or, in panexperientialism, basic subjective experience.
Types: Major forms include panexperientialism (subjective experience is fundamental) and pancognitivism (thought is fundamental). Another, constitutive panpsychism, argues that human consciousness is built from the micro-conscious experiences of fundamental particles.
Main Arguments: It offers an alternative to materialism (which struggles to explain how non-conscious matter creates consciousness) and dualism (which separates mind and matter). It suggests that physical science describes the behavior of matter, while panpsychism describes the internal nature of that matter (i.e., its consciousness).
Main Criticisms: The primary challenge is the "combination problem"—explaining how many small, separate consciousnesses (like those of atoms) combine to form a single, unified, complex consciousness (like a human mind). It is also criticized for lacking empirical evidence and appearing counter-intuitive.
Implications for Science: Panpsychism integrates consciousness into the physical world rather than treating it as an anomaly, potentially aligning with quantum mechanics regarding the fundamental, interconnected nature of matter.
Note: Panpsychism should not be confused with hylozoism (the belief that all matter is alive) or pantheism (the belief that everything is God).

My idea — that our consciousness is emergent from God — could be seen as a theologically flavored version of constitutive panpsychism: human minds are made from micro-consciousness already present in the universe, with the ultimate “source” being God. Science doesn’t weigh in on God, but panpsychism provides a philosophical framework for understanding why consciousness exists at all, rather than just emerging mysteriously from neurons. Some approaches use emergentist rules, like higher-order structures allowing micro-consciousness to integrate into macro-consciousness (a bit like neurons forming a conscious mind). This mirrors my Logos idea: God or a higher order might provide the “glue” that combines fundamental proto-consciousness into actual, aware beings.

 

[The Repeated Meme]

Christ is King, all glory to God, etc, etc.

 

[StolenWindows]

Christ is King, all glory to God, etc, etc.

Recursion, Fibonacci sequence, etc. Etc.

 

[The Repeated Meme]

Recursion, Fibonacci sequence, etc. Etc.

Uh huh. You're so smart.