Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Interesting New Argument For God's Existence

SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 1:44:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okay, so this is a long video. In summary (and from what I understand of the video), it's basically arguing that the universe is quantum information that's being processed by a quantum computer, and that quantum computer is pretty much God. Not necessarily an omnibenevolent God, but still. I found it interesting.

I'm interested to see what atheists have to say about this.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 1:45:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ignosticism.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 2:13:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 1:45:27 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Ignosticism.

Your thoughts on the video itself, please?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 2:26:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 1:44:23 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:


Okay, so this is a long video. In summary (and from what I understand of the video), it's basically arguing that the universe is quantum information that's being processed by a quantum computer, and that quantum computer is pretty much God. Not necessarily an omnibenevolent God, but still. I found it interesting.

I'm interested to see what atheists have to say about this.

No, that quantum computer is us, or rather, our brain. I've heard of studies that show how our brain does act as a quantum computer, or even is a quantum user. It is us who process that information and collaps wavefunctions. If there was not us, this universe would be just a bunch of uncertanity.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 2:29:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Last I checked "quantum computer" was not part of God's definition.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 4:03:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 2:26:01 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 5/1/2012 1:44:23 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

Okay, so this is a long video. In summary (and from what I understand of the video), it's basically arguing that the universe is quantum information that's being processed by a quantum computer, and that quantum computer is pretty much God. Not necessarily an omnibenevolent God, but still. I found it interesting.

I'm interested to see what atheists have to say about this.

No, that quantum computer is us, or rather, our brain. I've heard of studies that show how our brain does act as a quantum computer, or even is a quantum user. It is us who process that information and collaps wavefunctions. If there was not us, this universe would be just a bunch of uncertanity.

I'm going to be honest and admit I don't know enough about this to give an actual rebuttal. BUT, I think this video somewhat refutes this statement. Either way, it's cool.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 4:03:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 2:29:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Last I checked "quantum computer" was not part of God's definition.

And?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 4:44:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 2:29:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Last I checked "quantum computer" was not part of God's definition.

So, you claim to be able to define God?
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 5:43:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 4:44:03 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/1/2012 2:29:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Last I checked "quantum computer" was not part of God's definition.

So, you claim to be able to define God?

Yes.

"Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God. God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections."

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 5:52:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself.

This is a very general definition that does not explain what God really is and the exact processes used to create and maintain the Universe. All that does is give a very vague description of what we know about him.

I don't believe in the quantum computer theory, but you can't rule it out from a God perspective because to do so would be to say you know how God created the Universe. Nobody knows that.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 3:42:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 1:44:23 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:


Okay, so this is a long video. In summary (and from what I understand of the video), it's basically arguing that the universe is quantum information that's being processed by a quantum computer, and that quantum computer is pretty much God. Not necessarily an omnibenevolent God, but still. I found it interesting.

I'm interested to see what atheists have to say about this.

If the computer that constitutes our universe is God, then that would be pantheism. (Or panentheism -- I can never keep those two straight.)
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 8:36:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This video hijacks the theory and asserts that the "computer" is God. There is no reason to assume that; the computer could easily be part of another, larger universe and was constructed by another sentient species. Plus, even classic computers have a conception of infinity, so I don't see why we even need a computer as large as the video asserts.

Finally, the theory completely defeats the Christian conception of God, which I know is the conception that you believe in.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 8:45:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm actually reading a book about this subject. The author (so far) doesn't equate this computer with god.

In any event, this is just the pantheistic tactic of taking something we already know and have a label for and slapping "god" onto it.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 9:24:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm torn whether to call this view cyberpantheism or technopantheism. Techno- implies a broad ranch of technological applications which can be applied to creating a universe, while cyber- implies an active man-machine interaction where the former has causal priority.

If pressed, I would have to give the edge to techno-, because I don't suppose we can simulate a universe with steampunk technology.

. . . or can we?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 12:13:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/2/2012 8:36:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This video hijacks the theory and asserts that the "computer" is God. There is no reason to assume that; the computer could easily be part of another, larger universe and was constructed by another sentient species. Plus, even classic computers have a conception of infinity, so I don't see why we even need a computer as large as the video asserts.

Finally, the theory completely defeats the Christian conception of God, which I know is the conception that you believe in.

This.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 2:51:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/2/2012 12:13:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/2/2012 8:36:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This video hijacks the theory and asserts that the "computer" is God. There is no reason to assume that; the computer could easily be part of another, larger universe and was constructed by another sentient species. Plus, even classic computers have a conception of infinity, so I don't see why we even need a computer as large as the video asserts.

Finally, the theory completely defeats the Christian conception of God, which I know is the conception that you believe in.

This.

I thoroughly disagree. You should review Dr. Marco Biagini's assessments.

The concept is not a computer susceptible to infinite regress, but that God's mind is the metaphysical fabric so to speak. That the underlying fabric of what we experience is not itself physical.

That everything in the universe finds its source from 'within' God. It is entirely plausible.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 3:01:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Kool, a Quantum computer....Now demonstrate that it is sentient, then you have God (of course, after this quantum computer theory is demonstrated in the fist place). Until then, this video supports Atheism by replacing God with a computer.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 3:15:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The video also argues that the universe is God (pantheism). How can Christians look at this as ammo? Replacing God with a computer is end game for the Theist, and a win for the Atheist.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 11:30:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/2/2012 3:01:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Kool, a Quantum computer....Now demonstrate that it is sentient, then you have God (of course, after this quantum computer theory is demonstrated in the fist place). Until then, this video supports Atheism by replacing God with a computer.

I'm almost certain you didn't even watch the video and instead replied to my summary. The problem with that is I'm just learning about all of this myself, so you're going to want to respond to the video itself, not my summary of it.

The "Quantum Computer", though that's technically not what the video argues, is a mind. A self-collapsing wave function.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 11:31:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 5:43:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/1/2012 4:44:03 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/1/2012 2:29:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Last I checked "quantum computer" was not part of God's definition.

So, you claim to be able to define God?

Yes.

"Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God. God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections."

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

The universe being the product of a mind, as this video argues, supports that definition. Not the goodness part of that definition, sure, but the rest of it, yes.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 11:32:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 11:30:17 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/2/2012 3:01:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Kool, a Quantum computer....Now demonstrate that it is sentient, then you have God (of course, after this quantum computer theory is demonstrated in the fist place). Until then, this video supports Atheism by replacing God with a computer.

I'm almost certain you didn't even watch the video and instead replied to my summary. The problem with that is I'm just learning about all of this myself, so you're going to want to respond to the video itself, not my summary of it.

The "Quantum Computer", though that's technically not what the video argues, is a mind. A self-collapsing wave function.

I watched the whole video.

The first half discusses the Quantum Computer.

In the second half, the producer hijacks the theory and attempts to call the computer "God".
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 11:35:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/2/2012 3:42:04 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/1/2012 1:44:23 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:


Okay, so this is a long video. In summary (and from what I understand of the video), it's basically arguing that the universe is quantum information that's being processed by a quantum computer, and that quantum computer is pretty much God. Not necessarily an omnibenevolent God, but still. I found it interesting.

I'm interested to see what atheists have to say about this.

If the computer that constitutes our universe is God, then that would be pantheism. (Or panentheism -- I can never keep those two straight.)

You obviously didn't watch the video. The universe wouldn't be the Quantum Computer itself, but a product of that computer. Basically integrated information.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 11:49:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/2/2012 8:36:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This video hijacks the theory and asserts that the "computer" is God.

Lol

There is no reason to assume that; the computer could easily be part of another, larger universe and was constructed by another sentient species.

You obviously didn't watch the video. The "Quantum Computer" is essentially a consciousness, a mind. Besides, if everything we see is essentially a hologram, or a state, there's no longer any reason to believe in materialism at all (besides, materialism has already been disproven). Therefore arguing that another sentient species created this mind asserts materialism is true, even though it is not. Then of course, there's the fact that your explanation suffers from an infinite regress, since you'd essentially be arguing that every consciousness is the result of another consciousness.

Plus, even classic computers have a conception of infinity, so I don't see why we even need a computer as large as the video asserts.

I think you're confused. There's a difference between having a conception of infinity and actually having nearly infinite qubits.

Finally, the theory completely defeats the Christian conception of God, which I know is the conception that you believe in.

??? How?

___________

This is just something I stumbled upon, and I don't know too much about Quantum Physics, but I really expected better refutations.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 11:57:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 11:31:18 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/1/2012 5:43:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/1/2012 4:44:03 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/1/2012 2:29:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Last I checked "quantum computer" was not part of God's definition.

So, you claim to be able to define God?

Yes.

"Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God. God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections."

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

The universe being the product of a mind, as this video argues, supports that definition. Not the goodness part of that definition, sure, but the rest of it, yes.

Then it doesn't support that definition.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 12:07:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 5:43:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/1/2012 4:44:03 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/1/2012 2:29:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Last I checked "quantum computer" was not part of God's definition.

So, you claim to be able to define God?

Yes.

"Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God. God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections."

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

I take great offence at that. As a believer in Norse mythology, my gods are not omnipotent. I am insulted.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 12:10:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 11:57:44 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/3/2012 11:31:18 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/1/2012 5:43:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/1/2012 4:44:03 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/1/2012 2:29:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Last I checked "quantum computer" was not part of God's definition.

So, you claim to be able to define God?

Yes.

"Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God. God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections."

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

The universe being the product of a mind, as this video argues, supports that definition. Not the goodness part of that definition, sure, but the rest of it, yes.

Then it doesn't support that definition.

If I believe that Burt exists, and Burt is a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, non-omnipresent creator of the universe and makes hot air go to cold air, then I cannot prove his existence by scientifically demonstrating convection.

(yes, this is a support, not a criticism).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 12:10:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 11:49:28 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/2/2012 8:36:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This video hijacks the theory and asserts that the "computer" is God.

Lol

There is no reason to assume that; the computer could easily be part of another, larger universe and was constructed by another sentient species.

You obviously didn't watch the video.
I did. Just because I'm not letting you hijack the theory doesn't mean I didn't watch the video.
The "Quantum Computer" is essentially a consciousness, a mind.
There are two parts to the video.

The first advances the physicists' theory.

The second part HIJACKS the theory and uses it to promote the idea of God.

The physicists who discussed this theory DID NOT talk about God or support the idea of God. The producer of this video is taking their theory to do it.
Besides, if everything we see is essentially a hologram, or a state, there's no longer any reason to believe in materialism at all (besides, materialism has already been disproven). Therefore arguing that another sentient species created this mind asserts materialism is true, even though it is not.
Actually, it disproves that THIS UNIVERSE is fake. It doesn't disprove the idea that the computer could be in a another universe that is real. All it does is disprove the idea that we are real, and nothing more. You are misinterpreting my argument.
Then of course, there's the fact that your explanation suffers from an infinite regress, since you'd essentially be arguing that every consciousness is the result of another consciousness.

Nope. My argument only is applicable to this universe. I don't know about the universe in which the computer is located.
Plus, even classic computers have a conception of infinity, so I don't see why we even need a computer as large as the video asserts.

I think you're confused. There's a difference between having a conception of infinity and actually having nearly infinite qubits.

The computer doesn't have "nearly infinite" qubits. There is no way to have "nearly infinite" of anything. Infinity is not a number; it's a concept. The assertion that the computer would have to be the size of the universe in order to contain qubits that size is probably false based on the fact that normal computers can hold so many more bits than their size. You'll have to ask drafterman about this one.
Finally, the theory completely defeats the Christian conception of God, which I know is the conception that you believe in.

??? How?

It defeats the idea of a "good", sentient being who willfully created the universe and replaces it with pantheism.
___________

This is just something I stumbled upon, and I don't know too much about Quantum Physics, but I really expected better refutations.

Your rebuttals to my arguments depend upon misinterpretations and nothing more.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 12:48:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 12:10:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/3/2012 11:49:28 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/2/2012 8:36:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

I did. Just because I'm not letting you hijack the theory doesn't mean I didn't watch the video.
The "Quantum Computer" is essentially a consciousness, a mind.
There are two parts to the video.

The first advances the physicists' theory.

The second part HIJACKS the theory and uses it to promote the idea of God.

The physicists who discussed this theory DID NOT talk about God or support the idea of God. The producer of this video is taking their theory to do it.

Okay, is this some sort of a crime?

Besides, if everything we see is essentially a hologram, or a state, there's no longer any reason to believe in materialism at all (besides, materialism has already been disproven). Therefore arguing that another sentient species created this mind asserts materialism is true, even though it is not.

Actually, it disproves that THIS UNIVERSE is fake. It doesn't disprove the idea that the computer could be in a another universe that is real. All it does is disprove the idea that we are real, and nothing more. You are misinterpreting my argument.

But then you're begging the question: if we aren't real in a materialistic sense, then why should we think that anything outside of our Universe is real in a materialistic sense?

Then of course, there's the fact that your explanation suffers from an infinite regress, since you'd essentially be arguing that every consciousness is the result of another consciousness.

Nope. My argument only is applicable to this universe. I don't know about the universe in which the computer is located.

But that only works if you assert materialism as being true outside of our Universe. But it's inexplicable why it should be true outside of our Universe yet not true inside of our Universe. If our intuitions in regards to believing in materialism in this world are false, why should they be true for a Universe outside of our Universe?

Plus, even classic computers have a conception of infinity, so I don't see why we even need a computer as large as the video asserts.

I think you're confused. There's a difference between having a conception of infinity and actually having nearly infinite qubits.

The computer doesn't have "nearly infinite" qubits. There is no way to have "nearly infinite" of anything. Infinity is not a number; it's a concept. The assertion that the computer would have to be the size of the universe in order to contain qubits that size is probably false based on the fact that normal computers can hold so many more bits than their size. You'll have to ask drafterman about this one.

"nearly infinite" is a phrase to illustrate the enormous mass of information required. It's poetic. Obviously you can never be near infinity, because infinity is unending.

Classical computers can only hold one state per bit, but the Universe would require multiple states per bit. Make sense?

Finally, the theory completely defeats the Christian conception of God, which I know is the conception that you believe in.

??? How?

It defeats the idea of a "good", sentient being who willfully created the universe and replaces it with pantheism.

Pantheism? xD No. Not at all. The Universe is essentially the product of a mind, not a mind itself. There is nothing the concept of the Universe being the product of a mind that undermines God's omnibenevolence.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 12:57:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 12:48:06 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/3/2012 12:10:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/3/2012 11:49:28 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/2/2012 8:36:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

I did. Just because I'm not letting you hijack the theory doesn't mean I didn't watch the video.
The "Quantum Computer" is essentially a consciousness, a mind.
There are two parts to the video.

The first advances the physicists' theory.

The second part HIJACKS the theory and uses it to promote the idea of God.

The physicists who discussed this theory DID NOT talk about God or support the idea of God. The producer of this video is taking their theory to do it.

Okay, is this some sort of a crime?

It's intellectual theft. Moreover, it is dishonest of you to claim that I did not watch the video just because I do not support your conclusions.
Besides, if everything we see is essentially a hologram, or a state, there's no longer any reason to believe in materialism at all (besides, materialism has already been disproven). Therefore arguing that another sentient species created this mind asserts materialism is true, even though it is not.

Actually, it disproves that THIS UNIVERSE is fake. It doesn't disprove the idea that the computer could be in a another universe that is real. All it does is disprove the idea that we are real, and nothing more. You are misinterpreting my argument.

But then you're begging the question: if we aren't real in a materialistic sense, then why should we think that anything outside of our Universe is real in a materialistic sense?

Because we know that the universe is a quantum computer and we know that there are projections. Ergo, something must be real in order for those to occur.

You are asserting that this proves God. Why can't I assert that it proves another universe? Certainly that is the conclusions that the scientists are drawing.
Then of course, there's the fact that your explanation suffers from an infinite regress, since you'd essentially be arguing that every consciousness is the result of another consciousness.

Nope. My argument only is applicable to this universe. I don't know about the universe in which the computer is located.

But that only works if you assert materialism as being true outside of our Universe.
So?
But it's inexplicable why it should be true outside of our Universe yet not true inside of our Universe.
Bare assertion fallacy. If our world exists only in a computer, it doesn't mean that there is no external world. You are just asserting this without any warrant.
If our intuitions in regards to believing in materialism in this world are false, why should they be true for a Universe outside of our Universe?

Why can't they be true?

All of these arguments are based on the idea that an external universe has to be exactly the same as our own. That's not true at all.
Plus, even classic computers have a conception of infinity, so I don't see why we even need a computer as large as the video asserts.

I think you're confused. There's a difference between having a conception of infinity and actually having nearly infinite qubits.

The computer doesn't have "nearly infinite" qubits. There is no way to have "nearly infinite" of anything. Infinity is not a number; it's a concept. The assertion that the computer would have to be the size of the universe in order to contain qubits that size is probably false based on the fact that normal computers can hold so many more bits than their size. You'll have to ask drafterman about this one.

"nearly infinite" is a phrase to illustrate the enormous mass of information required. It's poetic. Obviously you can never be near infinity, because infinity is unending.

That was my point.
Classical computers can only hold one state per bit, but the Universe would require multiple states per bit. Make sense?

That doesn't change anything. Do you have proof that quantum computers can only hold qubits equal to their size? If so, I would like to see that evidence. It is clearly wrong for classical computers.
Finally, the theory completely defeats the Christian conception of God, which I know is the conception that you believe in.

??? How?

It defeats the idea of a "good", sentient being who willfully created the universe and replaces it with pantheism.

Pantheism? xD No. Not at all. The Universe is essentially the product of a mind, not a mind itself. There is nothing the concept of the Universe being the product of a mind that undermines God's omnibenevolence.

Ok, I will concede this. However, if we are all just lines of code/products of a brain, the Christian concept of free will is undermined.