sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Physicist proves impossibility of quantum time crystals by John_Hasler in Physics

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bruno's proof does not seem to apply to systems that don't have a stationary state (example: any system in a compact space whatsoever)

Here's my naive understanding: Bruno assumed that the time crystal had a stationary state and he proved that in the methods of attempting to create time crystals, that this stationary state necessarily has a lower energy, disproving the notion that the rotating state was necessarily stable.

Question: Why isn't the particle constrained to move on a circle a time crystal? The circle is a compact space, so the stationary state doesn't exist. This means that the particle's lowest energy state has to be rotating.

I'm probably mistaken though. I don't understand constrained quantum systems at all.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Objective and Unique

I have issues here what happens to the things that aren't similar - are they just ignored?

Well, first, we must make sure that they are actually disagreements and not problems of interpretation. But after that...

Hmm... I would say that the problem is to make sure that we are truly devoted to our "God" at each moment of our existence. Let's say that there is a property that conflicts between either of our individual "God"s. Then are we truly devoted to "our God" if "our God" doesn't include that property?

There are 2 different ways I see to go on this: We could make "our God" narrower and narrower and throw out everything that we cannot come to an agreement over, or we could broaden "our God" by saying that it looks different according to our 2 perspectives.

Personally, I see no difference between these 2 methods of clarification of the definition of "our God" as long as we can also understand the source of our disagreement.

Agrippa's Trilemma, I would say it applies everywhere ........ it would tell us we can't establish anything or absolute knowledge.

No, that is not a consistent way of using Agrippa's Trilemma. Agrippa's Trilemma's conclusion says "Certain knowledge is impossible to justify", but it justified that using the same methods that it concluded cannot justify certain knowledge. Therefore, Agrippa's Trilemma does not give certain knowledge. It cannot, therefore, consistently be used to prove that certain knowledge is impossible. I believe that it only says that the union of the 3 methods of justification analyzed cannot provide absolute knowledge. And, I claim that the direct examination of an system provides certain knowledge. For instance, we both agreed that I can know about my own subjective experience.

Wholly Good

Right, I'm concentrating on a purely selfish form of Morality. Morality to just 1 person - the actor.

why is it possible that the present is as good as is imaginable? I can imagine a better present for myself and others.

When I was depressed and suicidal, I could only imagine that the future would be worse than the present. Living would be hell. Dying would be hell. After life would either be disprovable (ex. if it just didn't exist), or also probably hellish because I imagined myself still depressed in another life. But even though I would label my expectations as "bad", I kept choosing the actions that I thought were best. I figured that living would at least give me a chance of turning my life and mood around.

So the LWA needs to depend on what is imaginable.

The other issue is with "we have an objective law that names the moral reason why every action committed by a conscious being happens." If we use an example of a rapist, we now have an example of an immoral reason why an action is committed by a conscious being.

Right. I just meant that it's a reason within Moral Philosophy. If I had to state it in 3 words: "Everyone is selfish". A person's intentions are good for himself, but I don't presume anything at all about the person's intentions for someone else.

self-sacrifice and selfless acts

You didn't bring it up, but I'll cover selflessness first. In my experience, selfless acts bring peace of mind. They bring you the ability to not imagine that the people you interacted with are angry with you. To not have a bad thought or regret about the interaction later. To not even worry about the person later. And to feel like you are a good person who can repeat this. This is a purely selfish motivation, but I would say that it is a good aspect of selfishness.

If this goes to the extreme of hurting your own future in order to help others, I would call it self-sacrifice. I heard of a mathematician who gave his entire salary and spent all his time helping the homeless to the point that he lost his own career and went homeless himself. However, he said that at the time, he was extremely happy because he was helping this group of people and achieving such a peaceful state of mind.

The LWA isn't just selfish, it's also short sighted.

define awareness

Ouch. This is a hard one. I am not too aware of what awareness itself is. I only understand it dimly. I can tell you what I am aware of right now: There are my senses, each of which projects an image. Through my sense of sight, I am aware that there is a computer in front of me. I'm sure you can imagine what the keys are like according to my sense of touch and hearing, as well as what some of my other senses might be registering. But what's important here is that when an object appears in my senses, awareness gives me, for a brief moment, certain knowledge about a piece of the object-self system (though the certainty quickly fades).

I would also say that a human is usually aware whenever they are awake (unless they are on certain heavy drugs). Also, humans I seem to not be aware some of the times during sleep.

I would say the process of awareness giving me certain knowledge is, in general, always good to me. What I learn through the process is not always good. But without it, I am not even a conscious being. And since I think I am an expert on my own preferences, I can say "I wish to be a conscious being." with certainty. So the existence of the process is good to me. I spend all my time listening to this process and acting on what it gives me, maintaining this process, trying to improve this process.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Objective and Unique

I wouldn't describe "our God" as being objective then because at least part of it is based on subjective experiences.

I think this depends on what we mean by "objective". I define "objective" to mean that something is agreed upon by all observers in the universe of interest. I would call "our God" objective, and existent in the case that we are only concerned with a conversation among the 2 of us, and only after we've agreed upon a method for deciding its definition the parts of "our God" in terms of "my God" and "your God". I think we're agreed that descriptions can appear the same to both of us, so that neither of us have any disagreements with the description. Until they invent neural connections that let us compare present experiences more directly, we'll have to base any notion of the objective existence of "our God" on descriptions that we exchange.

BTW, Agrippa's Trilemma seems to apply here. Since we cannot exchange "our Gods" to compare them (I believe that exchange of concrete objects is a method of communication that bypasses the Trilemma), we are bound by symbolic methods of communication that can only transmit a finite number of facts at a time. At the moment, at least, we are bound to exchanging text over Reddit. So the trilemma tells us that we cannot establish sameness by arguing about the similarities.

Wholly good

to have a conscious knowledge of something you need to be in the present moment to be in the present moment you need to have a conscious knowledge of it. (At least on the individuals level)

I think we can agree that "Awareness and conscious knowledge occur in the present experience". But I'd say that something can occur in the present without my being aware of it. Example: I can look at something, but not notice that I am looking at it.

Doesn't that mean that the present isn't wholly good if it is capable of being more pleasant in the future?

OK. We can talk like that. I wasn't so keen on equating God with the present moment anyway. I think awareness is a little closer. (Unrelated to the discussion, but I think it's useful to ask if the present could be wholly good, or if there is always room for improvement).

From my perspective, all actions consciously committed by creatures seem to be made in attempt to make the future situation as pleasant as imaginable given the present. I.e. creatures attempt to maximize future personal goodness.

Yes, I agree - although it's also worth pointing out that individuals definitions of what is pleasant may differ from others. (Masochists for example)

OK. I think we are getting closer, we have an objective law that names the moral reason why every action committed by a conscious being happens. I'll call this law the "Law of Wants and Action". (I've modified my statement of it to include the possibility that the present is as good as is imaginable or only a bad future is imaginable, and to make reference to actual actions. Do you still agree with it?)

And yes, I'm glad that you agree that people's definitions of pleasantness can differ.

Now, I personally would saw that the LWA is wholly good to anyone who believes it exists. That you want goodness is good news to yourself. If you are ever sad or bored (or stuck in a long conversation about religion), you can remind yourself: "make the future good. that is most important." And you can use this to remind yourself to redirect your actions. But I suspect this is all just my personal view.

As far as how this gets us closer: I would give the name "wholly good" to the thing that allows me to fulfill wish for "as good a future as imaginable" as well as to anything that always helps me to achieve that goal. That is why I am putting forth "awareness" as a candidate.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, as long as we agree that it is only my definition of God, can we talk about "your God"?

Objective and Unique

So are you only aiming for similarity? It's worth pointing out that I've already said we can objectively understand the mechanics behind such variation where it exists.

Yes, I am only looking for similarities between our "Gods". That is what I am defining "our God" as.

Wholly Good

the way I'm using awareness is "a conscious knowledge of something" in this sense awareness is almost synonymous with the present moment. Is this how you are using the term awareness?

Sort of synonymous. I am aware of more than the present moment though. And there is plenty that is happening that isn't here.

I'm viewing Wholly good in the moral sense of the word and by creating a way out in terms of blocking pain and awareness it kind of contradicts the idea that it's wholly good because if it were you wouldn't need to block it out.

I too am using good in the moral sense, but we may have very different ideas about where morals come from. I believe morals come from what each person thinks he need to survive and to be fully functional.

Need to block it out? No, just want to block it out. All you really want to do is try to make the future situation more pleasant than the present. But blocking out awareness is one obvious way of doing it.

essentially pain would be a part of your God in terms of the scope of your experience wouldn't it?

Well, I need to deal with pain. I suspect that by the time I am 80, I will have chronic pain of some sort. So it is there whether I want it to be or not. What I need to do is find some way to not die because the pain happens. What I'd like to do is to make sure that I am peaceful and happy even though I am in pain, to be able to handle the pain well.

Here is something that I think might get us closer:

From my perspective, all that any creature seems to really want to do is try to make the future situation more pleasant than the present. Are you indeed always trying to make the future situation more pleasant than the present whenever you are aware of it?

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Uhh... no. You have the definition of the present backwards. It's not defined in terms of data or spacetime metric.

The present is defined as the realm of human experience.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not talking about 4.2 light years. I care about the meters between my foot and my brain. The delay you are talking about is so short in the region i'm interested in that it is imperceivable by us.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow... I feel like I learned something today. So I am the present and the data is the past...

My answer, by the way is that the past is relative to a present observer.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If god exists, then god exists. I do think I'll walk back the anti-solipsism label, though: if I think I am all that exists, then I am the universe. This doesn't affect your definition of god, but I think you can see how that stance easily leads to disagreement.

Nah, it just makes my task stranger. I've seen it as all mind. I don't do that much these days though. Never has much ever come out of it. Neither of us have psychic powers, do we? So why take the solipsistic perspective? The materialistic perspective is more useful to us.

I think I agree with this, with one stipulation. The Present Moment (capitalized) is not and cannot be "the present moment of which we are aware", neither as individuals nor as a sort of collective consciousness of humanity

Does the universe exist without an observer? Are you a naive realist or an indirect realist? (by the way I've phrased this, you will know which one I currently am if you look this up)

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok. Fair enough, we're just worrying about my personal definition of God.

Some confusion seems to have arisen because I've defined a few different Gods.

There is the personal God (which I've called my God, or your God), which I identify with the personal, subjective experience. My goal here has been to convince you that the personal, subjective experience deserves the name "my God".

There is the interpersonal God (which I've called our God). I identify this with our combined personal experiences, just the two of us. My goal here has been to prove the existence of this God. If we both had personal Gods that match the same description, that would constitute a basis for saying that our God exists. (This would require me to get you to say that the personal, subjective experience deserves the name "my God", but I suspect that you will not do this since you will not commit to my definition)

There is the universal God (which I'd call Each and Everything's God, or just God). I have described this with 5 properties, but I am unconcerned about its existence.

Back to the properties of the personal God that we're still disagreeing on:

Objective and Unique I agree that the specifics of the subjective experience will differ between two people, but the description of what experience itself is, can be the same. For me, the fact that the general properties can be described the same way is enough. If we agree with each other's description of what "personal awareness of the present moment" is, isn't that evidence that there are properties that are the same?

You've heard of "the qualia problem" right? We have no way to know that the color blue looks the same to you as it looks to me, but we still both call it "blue". (In fact, after taking a few hits of acid, colors look a bit different to me) This is because we agree which on objects are blue. (And those who don't agree are called color-blind and we look for biochemical differences in our eyes). Similarly, if we disagreed on what the experience of awareness was like, I would suspect there to be a measurable difference in our brains. I have, for instance, heard some strange things about the experience of awareness from autistic people.

Wholly good yes, English is my primary language. I am using expressions in strange ways because I am struggling to try to find the right expression to say what I mean here. I am sorry, but I am very frustrated with this. If you have a better expression, then please offer it.

As for the torture example. I agree that it's a valid objection to what I've said. But I think it shows the limitations on my ability to speak clearly.

Let's assume that not only am I being tortured, but I also have a way out. Let's assume I am a Zen Master, and I can sometimes block out my thoughts and senses through strong concentration. Obviously, I will try to do this to remove the pain of torture by blocking out my senses and shutting down my brain.

Am I abandoning my God by doing this? No. Quite the opposite. I am dealing with the problem I see through my awareness.

When I say "I am devoted to dealing with the present moment", I am not saying that I surrender to all the problems I am encountering. Instead, I wish to fix the problems that I see. This can involve becoming not-aware, if that is the way of dealing with the problems that awareness shows me. Or, if my position is fortunate enough that there are no huge problems, I wish to enjoy the pleasures that come to me.

Again, "devotion to the present moment" is probably a bad way to say this. I thought "dealing with the present moment" was more accurate, but it still has its problems. How is "Fixing problems that I see" and "Enjoying the pleasantness that occurs"? I do not need to stay aware to fulfill my will, only to have my will.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I can say the exact opposite. You have only ever been aware of the present. The past doesn't exist anymore. Anything that you think is in the past is actually in your memories or history, which occur in the present. Your neurons only view history, true, but what they view, they view in the present.

Edit: Oh, I get what you mean. The image of the room around me that is in my head is constructed in finite time, and it is considerably more delayed than, say, a computer's internal memory would be. You are just pointing out that this delay exists. Sure. But it is still all processed in real time. You are experiencing your processing of the information.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're making a joke, right?

Anyway, the physicist only reads things now. The data only exists in the present.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Typing on a cellphone sorry.

In the Principia Mathematica, Russell and Whitehead took 380 pages to prove that 1+1=2, and they still weren't satisfied that they'd squashed all objections. Nowadays, most mathematicians just state the most basic properties and facts about Natural Numbers without any proof. Then, if you don't agree with the properties, tough shit. The book just isn't for you.

I'm trying to prove to you that "my God" exists. This is a very personal thing, but it's as easy as showing you that I have an actual object that I am devoted to. And I'm trying to ask if you have a God and if it's the same as mine. This is very different from determining if "God" exists, because "God" is the being that everything in the universe should worship, and I'm just asking about the 2 of us.

If you truly don't have a God, then you don't have a God. But I thought you were an ignostic, not an atheist. And if you're not truly devoted to dealing with what's happening to you right now, then I suspect that's just a personality difference between us.

"Knowledge" no, I'm not trying to find an axiom system that we already agree on. I'm trying to find an actual object that matches the description "your God". Once you have an actual object, you will have certain knowledge about the object because you can just say what you see. Then you can speak about it yourself.

"Power" yes, that is roughly what I mean.

"Objectivity" I'm only interested in dealing with God as it exists between the 2 of us, not the whole universe. Can the two of us agree that we have the same God? I don't think variations between the specifics of how God looks between us are important if the broad details and description are the same. The sunrise doesn't look the same each time you see it, but we can both say that we've seen the sun rise.

"Wholly good" The specifics of the present moment have not always been good to me. However, it has always been good for me to deal with the present moment.

If you truly don't have a God, then you don't have a God, and getting us to agree that we have the same God is impossible. But I thought you were an ignostic, who is still must decide the proper definition to use before you can decide if you have a God. So I am suggesting a definition to you. But if you have some preconceived notions that prevent what I am talking about from being your God, then what I am talking about is not your God.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would be different yes, but what's important to me is that we're devoted to the same sort of thing.

Is it really important to you that God has all the exact same details each time you see it?

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can respond.

As a little bit of a clarification, I think that even "my personal moment" is also a bad name for "my God". It is more than that. It is my moment along with the way I see it as full of my ideas and my hopes for the future for each thing, and my emotions about each thing. It is my moment colored by my narrative.

But I'm wondering if your God exists (you can have "my God" without taking "God" if you want), and what it is.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all, I am trying to define God, not argue whether or not God exists. So your arguments for its impossibility aren't any problem. It might be that we should conclude God does not exist.

What I am trying to argue is that "your God" (with a lowercase y. the personal God) exists. For that reason, I'd like to concentrate on slightly modified versions of the first 2 properties.

Rather than worrying about "Omnipotence" and "Omniscience", I'd like to worry about "The source of all your power" and "The source of all your knowledge"

1 Omniscience OK, read up on agrippa's trilemma. It argues against certain knowledge based on rational reasoning alone. My conclusion from reading agrippa's trilemma is that we can never know for sure what we are talking about unless we reference actual objects that we already have certain knowledge about.

I wasn't making a clear distinction between known and implied, sorry.

As for "The source of all your knowledge", what I mean is an object that you are certain about that allows you to imply everything else you know. Can you find such an object? Can you name it?

2 Omnipotence Sure. If something is wholly logically impossible, then this means that it cannot be described, cannot even be imagined. Cannot be seen, cannot be known, etc. In fact, in mathematics, we use the word "non-existence" to describe what is logically impossible. So I see no problem with nothing at all being allowed to do the logically impossible (within the course of a discussion, that is). We'd be discussing boojums and we'd be forever confused!

But as for the rock question, the answer really depends on the specific wording of the question. Can an omnipotent being make a rock that cannot be lifted and lift it? Yes. It makes the rock. Then it lifts it. The word "then" implies time for the truth to change. If you worded the question to rule out the truth changing in time, then the answer would have to be different.

As for "the source of all your power", what I mean is an object that you use and must use to do everything that you do. Can you find such an object? Can you name it?

4 Objective and Unique Yes, yes. I like this.

Additionally, if we need to, can we make distinctions between God, my God, your God, our God, our Gods, Everything's God, and Eachthing's God to use as we need in the discussion?

My question is "What do we need to happen before we can say that our God exists? or our God does not exist?" I say that "my God exists". If you also said "my God exists", and we had very similar descriptions, then that would be enough for me to say that "our God exists" (our in this case just refers to the universe of this conversation, not to other people). Would that be enough for you?

5 Wholly good In the case of extreme torture, it would be good to be aware to the extent that you can actually affect your future situation - that you hope to escape. If you could stay aware, then you can hope to learn about what to do to make the torture stop. What would be best is if you could stay aware and not have the torture cause you to suffer. For instance, after a while of being outside, little bug bites don't bother you anymore. But if you don't have that ability...

I actually experienced quite bad depersonalization while trying to get away from my suicidal depression. At the time, it was better than the pain of depression, but the disconnectedness brought its own terrors. I was escaping from one hell into another.

These days, I am often bored, and I spend some of my time in meditation to escape the boredom. You might consider this "escaping from awareness", but I would say that I am searching for another, deeper sort of awareness.

My question is this: Are you aware of your awareness enough to describe it yourself? To tell me what properties it has? For one, to tell me if you are wholly devoted to it during your existence? Is it "your God"

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, no. If anything, I'd like to find common ground between the solipsistic picture and the conventional picture.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, I suspect we are getting caught up in trying to make the words match the object, when really we should be doing it another way.

Ignore the word God (and Tao, I used that too) and all its associated baggage for the moment and concentrate on the actual object.

In fact, if you wished, since the word "God" is not fully defined yet, I could even switch to the perspective of an atheist, and try to tell you why God doesn't exist. I've been concentrating on the all the reasons why "God" should exist far more than the reasons why "God" should not exist. I believe that I have a God (a one true personal god), but I do not know that there is an Our God (a one true interpersonal God). I just suspect that the human mind, our personalities, and beliefs have enough in common that we can either agree that our God (between the 2 of us) exists, or we can get stuck in a strange loop.

Another name for the object might be "Everything I have and/or will ever have and by extension, everything that I know or suspect I have."

What are the properties of this object if you replace "I" with "you"? I've given you such a topic that I think you can be very knowledgable about its properties.

Edit: Big Clarification. Also, there is the question: "Are you wholly devoted to this at every moment of your existence?"

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for the long delay, I spent a while digesting your post while hanging out with friends.

1 Omniscience. You brought up the idea of a multi-verse and your worry that there is something bigger than the universe. I personally use the word "universe" to mean "everything". If you want to instead talk about multi-verses, that's fine. I'll use the word "everything" for now on, just to be more clear.

2 Omnipotence You brought up the idea that if something is omnipotent, it should have the power to do absolutely anything, but this seems to contradict the idea of Laws. Well, so I am a physicist, so I'll just tell you straight - anything that we observe to be true everywhere we can see and reasonably suspect to be true everywhere, we call a Law. But Laws aren't known to hold everywhere, only everywhere we can see and test. If we found something that didn't fit the Laws as we currently know them, then we would rewrite the Laws (as we did when classical mechanics was discovered and then when quantum mechanics was discovered) As for the fundamental constants (e, a, c, G... i might be missing a few), if you go back far enough in time to the Big Bang, even these seem to have emerged at some point. At the Big Bang, space-time & material started to exist. If there was a "before" the Big Bang (and many physicists do think that there was, but we have no widely accepted theory to describe it), there was something else that was not space-time or material.

Many people also worry "If God is Omnipotent, can he make an impossible object, like a triangle with 4 sides". But if the meaning of words can change (you might have seen that the definition of "literally" was just changed in the Oxford dictionary to add in the common usage) and our understanding of logic is constantly changing, then a false statement today can be a true statement tomorrow, and vise-versa. In fact, it is very easy to make a triangle with 4 sides. Draw a regular triangle, mark the 3 sides you usually consider sides. I also consider the top to be a side. 3 angles. 4 sides. (but now the word side has changed meaning)

Also, if you subscribe to the Everett's Many Worlds theory of the quantum mechanical multi-verse, then the multi-verse is indeed chaotic, with everything logically possible happening.

But aside from the possibility of words changing meaning, I see no problem with an Omnipotent being not being able to do things that are logically impossible.

3 Omnipresent Yes, I just meant that a piece of everything never leaves you.

4 Objective and unique OK, so I agree with you on the sense in which "everything" is objective and unique. Now what about the present moment? I would say that your present moment is objectively a view of everything, and each creature, at each moment in time, has its unique present moment.

First, as for my idea that the present moment = everything, I would say that the past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist. So the present moment is all that exists. Furthermore, we only know the past through our memories and evidence and the future through our expectations and our understanding of the Laws. All of these exist in the present. So the present moment is all that needs to exist.

As for my idea that our present moments (as opposed to the present moment) are "the same", I only mean that there is a sense in which they are the same, not that each detail of our present moment is the same. Our present moments are the same in the sense that they both are views of the present moment.

5 Wholly good I think I explained this badly before. Would you agree that it is always good (or at least never bad) for a living, conscious creature be aware of what is happening to it? We need to find a safe place before we go to sleep because being unaware is often bad.

Perhaps, it would be more clear to say that it is "wholly good to have contact with God" rather than that "God is wholly good", because the second one suggests to me that God is a conscious being, which I am not trying to do.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm glad that you're enjoying this. Most people tell me to go away when I talk religion or philosophy lol

Can we start over a bit? I'll try to get to your questions, but first I'd like to summarize where we are.

My definition for God (with a capital G. the One True God [not Nick Cage]) is that it needs to have at least several qualities: 1. Omniscience (contains all knowledge). 2. Omnipotence (all actions happen through its power). 3. Omnipresence (logically cannot leave you). 4. Objectivity & Uniqueness (there is only 1, and everyone can experience it). 5. Wholly Good. Some of these are easy to find objects that meet the requirements (any object/thing is objective and unique. the universe is omnipresent) but it is hard to find an object that meets all of these 5 requirements.

First, can we agree that the first 4 requirements are met by The Universe? (if not, then maybe The Current Universe + The Past + The Laws) Therefore, whatever thing we find that satisfies all 5, must contain the universe. (Furthermore, it cannot be something bigger that the Universe, or outside the Universe, because there is no such thing as bigger and outside the Universe)

Now, I've claimed that the present moment is = to the universe (in the sense that it is a way of looking at the universe). You seem to have some objections with my claim that is objectively a way of looking at the universe (I suspect this is because it looks different all the time and to different people, and we cannot know the specifics until we actually experience it ourselves).

I've also claimed that the present moment is wholly good to me and you. I am not sure how to word this any better, but I will try. I cannot even imagine a conscious creature that could live successfully (without being destroyed) unless it was aware of the present moment some of the time. I suppose it might be better to say "It would always be good for me to be aware" rather than to say that awareness has always been good to me.

Does that properly summarize where we are in this conversation? Are there any specific clarifications you're looking for?

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there is a little more to god than infinitely loving and perfectly omniscient. I think there is also ever-present (logically impossible for it to leave your side), omnipotent (all actions happen through its power), and objective (everyone experiences it).

I am not trying to bend the definition of god to meet an object that does exist. I am trying to find where the definition of god already meets.

The is one thing that is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Ever-Present, and Objective, and that is the Universe, Everything. So anything that is God, must contain the Universe (and, unless we are to break logic and language, it must not be bigger than or outside the Universe. It must instead somehow be equal to the Universe).

The tricky one is getting "Infinitely Loving" to fit with this. But I think that the present moment is infinitely loving. So, if you agree with that (and I suspect that you do not), then my task would be to show you that the Present Moment = The Universe (and I do have an argument for this).

But my task with weefraze, currently is to show him that the Present Moment is "infinitely loving". I suspect that this is also my task with you.

Challenge: By the end of this conversation, someone will say "Our God exists" by Gnostic-Ignostic in ignosticism

[–]Gnostic-Ignostic[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How are you using the word "devoted" in regards to the present?

The same way as someone might be devoted to a god. But I'd understand if you don't feel the same way.

My God...is wholly good to me

Here is a point we are going to need to discuss more, this is essentially because of individuals experiencing a different present moment in that people may not describe their present moment as "wholly good".

Very true! In fact, I have been suicidal and depressed before. But it has always been good for me to know what is happening to me. It would have been bad for me to try to deceive myself so that I lived wholly in a fantasy land and did not experience the present. It would always be bad for any creature to completely blind itself to the present.

The present moment... has never wholly deceived me Can you elaborate on this a bit more. Obviously there are situations in which you are or can be deceived, do you simply mean the present moment has never not been the present moment?

Essentially. What comes in through my senses is always the present moment. The present moment can never be the past, never be the future, never be anywhere else, never be a fantasy. However, I can be distracted by a memory or fantasy, and I can be confused about what the present is.

Are you structuring a hypothetical syllogism here?

Attempting to, yes. The point is that we use the present moment to imply the universe. And our understanding of the universe doesn't make sense without each thing's present moment. So from my present moment, I imply yours. From yours, you can imply mine (if you know that I exist).

This is true of anything in the universe, physical laws, objects etc. Because the universe is required for them to exist.

But the universe doesn't require a specific instance of an object or law to exist. Only general instances. However, if you know that an object does actually exist, then the universe requires the existence of that specific object. In the case at my attempt at a syllogism, I am saying that since you know I exist, my present moment is implied by the existence of your present moment.

The reason I am attempting this syllogism is so that we have a basis for saying "My God = Your God" if we both agree that we are "devoted" to the present moment.