Who is “God” ?

[write4u]

@brmckay

What would you call the aggregate of all relative infinities, if not “The non-relative infinitude of the Whole”?

How about “Singularity” or “Wholeness”? Neutral definitions.
Not “Holiness” or “God”. Those terms have too much baggage.

@brmckay

Or, one could cut to the chase and say that “There is Only God”…the implications of which encourages one to practice the art of not projecting relativity onto the absolute.

There is only the expanding dynamical Singularity that started at low entropy and simplicity, then increased to higher entropy and greater complexity, only to end up with high entropy and simpler complexity.
All of it via natural generic mathematical equations that are the guiding properties of the wholeness.

Tell me br, does your god have intent? If so, with what goal in mind?

[lausten]

@brmckay

What would you say makes 1+1=2 True? What does 1 represent? (in the absolute, i.e. non-relative sense)

In the link about Kant in my Varities of Religious Experience thread, he says the intuition of a thing in space and time is something we do without being told how. Later in life, just a few years after birth, we find out others do it too, and have given it a symbol. But we recognize it intuitively.

Zero was in music before it came to be a symbol in math. We know what is just by being human.

[write4u]

@lausten

In the link about Kant in my Varities of Religious Experience thread, he says the intuition of a thing in space and time is something we do without being told how. Later in life, just a few years after birth, we find out others do it too, and have given it a symbol. But we recognize it intuitively.

I believe the term is “Axiom”?

Axiom

, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4]

As used in mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: “logical axioms” and “non-logical axioms”. Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be true within the system of logic they define and are often shown in symbolic form (e.g., (A and B) implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually substantive assertions about the elements of the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic).

[citizenschallengev4]

@brmckay

@citizenschallengev4

“I’d love to hear you unpack that one.”

Not really right?..

@brmckay

your version of “consciousness” that has a lot of unexplained dependencies on other things and dimensions.

Saying stuff like that, it would be nice to know if you actually had something behind it, or if it was just nice sounding words again.

@brmckay

We Hippies went the extra mile . . .

Which Hippies were those?
The freeloading kind, or the kind that knew how to work an honest day for an honest buck?

My version of consciousness is,
that we are biological creatures of Earth’s creation, via evolution.
Consciousness is a product of biological activity and started with the first creatures and has been improving ever since, where ever the need to deal with new challenges drove it.
Consciousness is an interaction, that is receiving and sending information.

What are these “dependences” you speak of?

What “other dimensions” are you referring to?
You talking about size?
Or the multi-verse, which you ought to know, I have a low opinion of.

A biological creature to receive and process incoming signals?
What wrong with that?

[brmckay]

@citizenschallengev4

“My version of consciousness is,
that we are biological creatures of Earth’s creation, via evolution.
Consciousness is a product of biological activity and started with the first creatures and has been improving ever since, where ever the need to deal with new challenges drove it.
Consciousness is an interaction, that is receiving and sending information.”

Compared to what does “consciousness” improve? Where is spacetime and gravity, quantum flux and entanglement factoring into your summation of consciousness?

In your next response please observer the role that “unexplained dependencies on other things and dimensions” plays.

(that is if you actually do want to accurately interpret what I have said)

Here is a question for you: Is mass an “improvement” on gravity?

@lausten

"In the link about Kant in my Varities of Religious Experience thread, he says the intuition of a thing in space and time is something we do without being told how. Later in life, just a few years after birth, we find out others do it too, and have given it a symbol. But we recognize it intuitively.

Zero was in music before it came to be a symbol in math. We know what is just by being human."

Nice…thank you…interdependent co-arising synchronicity. The nature of all phenomena, no matter how it seems.

@write4u

“I believe the term is **“Axiom”?*”

From the human centric perspective, yes…and actually?

@write4u

“How about ‘Singularity’ or ‘Wholeness’? Neutral definitions.
Not ‘Holiness’ or ‘God’. Those terms have too much baggage.”

I made myself clear…your baggage didn’t make the cut. (further demonstration below)

@write4u

"There is only the expanding dynamical Singularity that started at low entropy and simplicity, then increased to higher entropy and greater complexity, only to end up with high entropy and simpler complexity.
All of it via natural generic mathematical equations that are the guiding properties of the wholeness.

Tell me br, does your god have intent? If so, with what goal in mind?"

Guiding properties of wholeness? Is it the egg or the chicken that has these goal driven properties?

(careful climbing down off that soapbox there write4u)

Anybody else what to reinforce or clarify that? Please feel free to chime in.

[citizenschallengev4]

@brmckay

Compared to what does “consciousness” improve?
Where is spacetime and gravity, quantum flux and entanglement factoring into your summation of consciousness?

Where you ask?
Down in the tiniest realms of matter imaginable.

That may seem confusing, but to help put it into perspective:

It turns out there are over 1.5 sextillion molecules in a drop of water and more than 5 sextillion atoms per droplet. {a sextillion being (10 to the 21st power)

Down inside there within the realm of single atoms at the very boundary between matter and energy. It took over 13,000,000,000,000 solar years for that Big Bang to produce its first living creatures (to the best of our knowledge).

@brmckay

In your next response please observe the role that “unexplained dependencies on other things and dimensions” plays.

Such as?
Not sure what you’re driving at.
I’m the guy that points out it’s all interdependent,
from living organisms to awareness and consciousness in all its levels.

@brmckay

Here is a question for you: Is mass an “improvement” on gravity?

So I should pretend to be god here?
This is a belly button gazing question, you can spend years dwelling on it and not find anything constructive to do with whatever your answer might be.

How does something that got settled by around 13,500,000,000 - how does my opinion on what reality did back then matter to our lives today?

@brmckay

Guiding properties of wholeness? Is it the egg or the chicken that has these goal driven properties?

The goal driven properties are embedded within single cells and reiterated through all the layers of biological matter that had to came together to create the chicken, or before that the dinosaur, or human for that matter.

As for wholeness. Seems to me wholeness is a bit like my icon, folds within folds regressing all the way to the beginning. I don’t see any need to make it more complicated. A wolf is a whole creature, but to prosper requires the wholeness of a pack of wolves working together, and so on, and so forth.
Besides, before getting into, wouldn’t you have to come up this a distinct definition for wholeness?

[write4u]

@write4u

Tell me br, does your god have intent? If so, with what goal in mind?"

No intent. No god .
The wholeness is driven by a dynamic environment, it functions as it must and in accordance with the mathematical logical interaction of inherent generic relational values.

I don’t see why dynamical relational interaction is controversial. It is the axiomatic part of the universe. Why are you trying to assign human properties like “meaning” ?

There is no “why”. There is only “how”. And the how has a generic mathematical aspect.

This is already evident in the original self-organizing patterns as described in Chaos Theory.

The dynamic interactions of water molecules. Individual H2O molecules are V-shaped, consisting of two hydrogen atoms (depicted in white) attached to the sides of a single oxygen atom (depicted in red). Neighboring H2O molecules interact transiently by way of hydrogen bonds (depicted as blue and white ovals).

Strong linkages—called covalent bonds—hold together the hydrogen (white) and oxygen (red) atoms of individual H2O molecules. Covalent bonds occur when two atoms—in this case oxygen and hydrogen—share electrons with each other. Because oxygen and hydrogen attract the shared electrons unequally, each end of the V-shaped H2O molecule adopts a slightly different charge. The area around the oxygen is somewhat negative compared to the opposite, hydrogen-containing end of the molecule, which is slightly positive.

Opposites attract, so this lopsided charge difference allows bonds to form between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms of adjacent H2O molecules. Each H2O can bind to a maximum of four neighbors through these so-called hydrogen bonds. Although short-lived and much weaker than the covalent variety, hydrogen bonds contribute significantly to water chemistry because they are extremely abundant in H2O.
Credit: Nicolle Rager Fuller, National Science Foundation

https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/water/popup/flash_molecules.htm#

Graphene: structure and shape

Graphene is a two-dimensional carbon allotrope. It is composed of carbon atoms positioned in a hexagonal design, which can be said to resemble a chicken wire.

A single layer of carbon atoms arranged in such a honeycomb structure forms a single graphene sheet. Several sheets stacked one on top of the other are regarded as multi-layer graphene, up to the point where the material becomes graphite (usually over about 30 layers, although clear standardization is severely lacking at the moment). Graphite, a 3D crystal composed of weakly coupled graphene layers, is a relatively common material - used in pencil tips, batteries and more.

Graphene: structure and shape | Graphene-Info

Is there meaning to this? Where does this word god come from? Science?
Is it a natural property of the universe? If not, I don’t want to hear the word in connection with natural phenomena.

There is only self-organization of physical relational values in accordance to inherent generic mathematical properties that guide the formation of regularly repeating patterns.

That’s HOW! You can assign your own “why”. It’s irrelevant.

[write4u]

@ CC

I just realized that your favorite “folds within folds” is just another metaphor for “set theory”, where the universe consists of sets of patterns inside sets of patterns or “folds within folds”.

You are just using a more poetic form…

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

dynamical relational interaction

Though I’m not a fan of your clinical language, at least those words have a coherent meaning that I can make sense out of.
Whereas, this never coalesces into meaning, no matter how much I try,

@brmckay

The non-relative infinitude of the Whole

---

@write4u

Is there meaning to this? Where does this word god come from? Science?
Is it a natural property of the universe?

No. Same answer. God is humanity’s answer to fear of the unknown & overwhelming awe life can hit us with now and then.
God is the answer to a longing heart under the celestial vault of our the dark sky on a frigid night.

Science is all about sober observation and measurement of things that belong to the physical world, and remain provisional, since more information always improves our understanding.

@write4u

I just realized that your favorite “folds within folds” is just another metaphor for “set theory”, where the universe consists of sets of patterns inside sets of patterns or “folds within folds”.

You are just using a more poetic form… !

That’s what I keep telling ya. I’m a humanist and a lousy poet.

[cuthbertj]

@brmckay

What would you say makes 1+1=2 True

Sorry, chiming in late. 1 + 1 = 2 is a false statement in some contexts, true in others, just depends on the context. So it’s not some high-falutin indication of some absolute truth.

[write4u]

@cuthbertj

Sorry, chiming in late. 1 + 1 = 2 is a false statement in some contexts, true in others, just depends on the context. So it’s not some high-falutin indication of some absolute truth.

Yes it is, in principle. It is just a simple expression of pure Logic.

Just because you can extend the equation to fit other logical scenarios does not diminish its mathematical quality.

There is nothing absolute about the universe itself. Its dynamical nature does not allow for perfect self-organization but is in fact responsible for the evolutionary processes which are caused by slight errors in the mathematical functions, caused by the dynamical nature of spacetime.

Below is an excerpt from quora.com by a contributor trying to justify the existence of God (as a concept).

Without logic the universe itself could not exist . Logic nor mathematics are actually invented but, rather, discovered. The mystery of the universe, according to Einstein, is why it is mathematically intelligible at all.

I agree wholeheartedly!

This is why I say ‘etymology is everything’, because if there was no causative, inherently intentional logic to the universe then the concept of description - the manner in which formal systems like languages could represent aspects of that universe in an orderly and consistent fashion - would be entirely impossible.

I totally disagree with these unsupported assumptions of intentional causality.

I know it annoys people when I say ‘the fact that we can talk about anything at all proves there is a God’, but it’s necessarily true. In a universe without logic, nothing makes sense - especially not describing that universe as meaningless and coincidental.
https://www.quora.com/What-if-logic-suddenly-ceased-to-exist-in-human-beings-What-will-its-impact-be

And here is where this musing becomes mystical. The writer confuses God with Logic, but the God described in scripture is not a logical agency at all and is just a metaphor for implacable Logic

Therefore the first paragraph is true, but the assumptions and conclusion are false.

Logic does not require intent or motive, nor do mathematics.
These qualities are inherent in the spacetime fabric and are functional only but their guiding regularities, not from a motivated intelligence.

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

The mystery of the universe, according to Einstein, is why it is mathematically intelligible at all.
I agree wholeheartedly!

Hmmm, Einstein also said “God does not play dice” - yet what else is the quantum world, that then makes up the material world, but an endless dice game.

Seems to me, if it were not mathematically intelligible, then the Big Bang could only resulted in a cosmic puke. No organized quanta, no nothing, no universe as we know it. Our universe required exquisite precision for it to exist, extreme precision will always be mathematically rigorous.

intentional logic

Isn’t that sort of like math as god?

@write4u

These qualities are inherent in the spacetime fabric and are functional only but their guiding regularities, not from a motivated intelligence.

The motivated intelligence is what we put into it.
Which is also where our gods come from,
from inside of us, and our human longing for more.

[write4u]

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:472, topic:7931”]
Hmmm, Einstein also said “God does not play dice” - yet what else is the quantum world, that then makes up the material world, but an endless dice game.

Every throw of the dice has a limited number of outcomes, depending on the probabilistic self-organizing patterns forming during the dynamic event of the rolling.

Seems to me, if it were not mathematically intelligible, then the Big Bang could only resulted in a cosmic puke. No organized quanta, no nothing, no universe as we know it. Our universe required exquisite precision for it to exist, extreme precision will always be mathematically rigorous.

Exactly.

This is what happened during the “inflationary epoch” . There was only chaos.
Until the plasma cooled and particles began to self-organize into the patterns of the Table of Elements.

Note that the first element was also the simplest possible configuration.
Hydrogen

The simplest element on the periodic table – hydrogen – is made of zero neutrons, one proton and one electron. The more complex an element, the more neutrons, protons and electrons an atom will contain.Apr 21, 2020
Learn about the atom: from the simplest to the most complex | Duke Energy | Nuclear Information Center

[quote] w4u,
intentional logic
[/quote]

Isn’t that sort of like math as god?

@write4u

These qualities are inherent in the spacetime fabric and are functional only but their guiding regularities, not from a motivated intelligence.

The motivated intelligence is what we put into it.
Which is also where our gods come from,
from inside of us, and our human longing for more.

I agree wholeheartedly. And of course, humans do not control the workings of the universe. That leaves only the mathematical functions based on the relational values of the input.

[write4u]

I just picked up an interesting substitute term for “intelligence”.

This scientist, working with slime-molds found that slime=molds are capable of decision making , but lack brains and therefore don’t qualify for the term “intelligence” (IQ).

He uses the term “problem-solving ability” and that throws a new light on the question of evolving consciousness.

Watch this entertaining and informative conversation by practising scientists in the field of botany.

Intelligence Without Brains

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

Watch this entertaining and informative conversation by practising scientists in the field of botany.

Seen it, so fortunately was able to skim through.

I agree it’s a fun talk, though still relatively early days.

Chapters: 0:00 - Program introduction
0:57 - Opening film on the study of plant intelligence
3:45 - Panelist introductions
5:25 - Plant bio-acoustics
12:55 - Slime mold intelligence
19:40 - Interaction between fungi and trees
30:04 - Plant memory and learning
44:30 - Transmission of memory in slime molds
48:35 - Collective intelligence
50:22 - Leaf-cutter ant intelligence
59:04 - Swarm behavior
1:06:04 - Applying swarm intelligence to robotics
1:13:05 - Moving beyond the neuronal model of intelligence
1:16:15 -Consciousness
1:18:40 - Ethics of our interaction with plants and animals
1:23:05 - Environmental effects on collaboration

[write4u]

@citizenschallengev4

I agree it’s a fun talk, though still relatively early days.

FYI, my reposts of interesting links are for the convenience of any newcomers, so that they may become familiar with the threads background, withoout having to read 476 pages! This has turned out to be a very productive effort.

I agree, but as the panelist admit we have been walking among a sentient world without ever knowing what, why, and how.

It is about time we started studying the earth’s biome for interrelated communication and data sharing among all living organisms.

[mriana]

You know, IF we are going to use science to show deity, why not do it from a Pantheistic view? If we are all made up of everything in the universe, why not say god is in us and everything on the planet earth, including the planet earth? In essence, the Universe is deity, because it is in everything within it and all around us. This leads to cause and effect too, because anything or anyone, which takes action or even none at all, affects everything else in the Universe. In which case, “God” is not a who, but a what.

[write4u]

@mriana

In which case, “God” is not a who, but a what.

I agree, but then “scripture” becomes moot in favor of “wholeness” and the term God becomes superfluous as a scientific concept .

It also would solve the question “why” and replace it with “how”.

[lausten]

@write4u

but then “scripture” becomes moot in favor of “wholeness”

I would add “as we know it”. that is, “scripture as we know it”. I’ve seen translations of ancient lines, like the creation story, and they are more nature-oriented. But, I can’t refute or confirm them. And a book like Job seems almost anti-God. The big one; that the books weren’t intended by the authors to be one long connected narrative. This is a domino in the religious house of cards that is falling.

[write4u]

@lausten

This is a domino in the religious house of cards that is falling.

Religion was invented to establish an authoritarian control over simple people with simple metaphorical stories and parables.

But the deeper you look into the logic of religions , they all show the same flaws of assigning a supernatural causal agency (a God). And that is effective if you can convince the people that only you have access to this God , but practically it is totally unneccessary .

Note that there have been some 4000 immortal gods which have come and gone. Strange that all mono-theists do not believe in and are atheist to 3999 gods, whereas atheist do not believe in 3999 +1 more god!

I had a friend who had never read anything from the bible. When he finally read the Old Testament, he came back and exclaimed that if there was asuch a thing as the Devil, this book was surely written by this supernatural being and not by a loving god.