# The Usual with a Twist

63 posts / 0 new

No, I conclude that you have not thought deeply about what I have to say because you remain vague, saying such things as "I simply find your logic unconvincing," rather than specifying, and explaining with which clauses of my argument you disagree and what you have to present in their opposition. I am not CNN, nor any other news channel, and this argument is more complicated than a single, arbitrary number, as are all arguments, so expecting me to deliver you a figure to reduce your part of the debate process to a single step is neither socially nor logically realistic. Are you familiar with formal logic? If not, I shall redact the conclusion that you have not though deeply about what I have said, on the social grounds that I assumed that you possessed the ability to do so.

M. V. Reeves's - Mathematics are not necessary to assign a magnitude to a probability"

Oh it most certainly is. The range of all probabilities is [0,1].

How does your evidence, I. "the range of all probabilities is [0,1]," support your conclusion that II. "mathematics are not necessary to assign a magnitude to a probability," is false?

A magnitude is a scalar. A probability magnitude (or just a measure of probability) is a scalar in the range [0,1]. I recommend avoiding things such as magnitude, scalars, and probability if you want to do philosophy.

This is a tangent. I redact the challenged statement, but I note that it was demonstrative, not literal.

Hmmm

Most religions say that "god" has a plan that accounts for things and actions in the future, suggesting that our paths are already laid out before us. To use one of my favorite quotes, "When every choice and path you can take has been created for you in advance, death becomes meaningless, making life the same."- Unknown

I don't want to live in a world that follows that parameter.

The model does not rule out free will. Introducing free will may actually allow me to sidestep the problem of evil more wholly and disprove malevolence, though proving omnibenevolence is a daunting task, especially for a model evidenced only by our ability to imagine and enact.

When you are limited to the path(s) that were created in advance, free will goes flying out the 5th story window.

The model does not necessitate "paths that were created in advance." Even in the instances in which the model confers that we are most probably being enacted by another conscious being, the consciousness with which we were 'controlled,' as it sounds you might be comfortable to label it, was of course only our own consciousness to begin with. A broader sense of free will without predestination is more supportable, therefore, than the predestination that you see.

But all Abrahamic religions stress predestination.

That is not true. Most of the churches of Abrahamic religion local to me reject predestination. More importantly, if you require predestination to title a god as 'Abrahamic,' then I am afraid that I have no proof for his existence. If I were to try to prove the existence of a god, I most certainly would not attempt to prove that he has qualities undesirable to me. As you can see, permitting for predestination in the model would force me to reconcile the problem of evil, which must be avoided in and valid or cogent proof of the existence of an omnibenevolent god. Since there is little point in worshiping a malevolent god, any proof that I make will inherently attempt to rule out malevolence, and therefore to sidestep or reconcile the problem of evil.

The assertion that god is omniscient is pretty standard in the Abrahamic religions. I'm sure you can find some wacky outlier group if you look hard enough though. Anyway, omniscience guarantees predestination. I assumed this is why you left it off your list for your model, because if you include it, it is going to bring everything to a screeching halt (this was the very first thing I looked for in your model and I noticed it's absence right away).

And don't bother posting 3 huge paragraphs redefining omniscience to try to make enough wiggle room where omniscience doesn't guarantee predestination. You've earned a little respect around here, don't piss it away with that non-sense.
-----------------------
M. V. Reeves - "if you require predestination to title a god as 'Abrahamic,' then I am afraid that I have no proof for his existence."

I've long argued that it is easy to make a model for god, just don't include omniscience and free will in the same model; cuz that dog don't hunt. However, this is the model that people give us over and over again.

Nyarlathotep:
Your attitude is impoverished. This is a debate; if you tire, return later, but do not sacrifice the debate at the altar of social ritual. Those interested in discovering whether we have a significant cosmic benefactor may take your place for the time being.

Your assumption regarding my inclusion of omniscience is false; I excluded it because I want to build a verifiable god from what we want him to be, not from what others say he is. Since you asked, I'll address it:

Omniscience need not be redefined. Since this model subjects god to time and helplessness in his own reality, he cannot predict his own future; he is only practically (not practicably) omniscient to us. If he enacts all of our realities in his own time, then he can only know our future by declaring it and following through. Therefore, it is probably impossible to determine whether we are predestined by this model.

M. V. Reeves - "Since this model subjects god to time and helplessness in his own reality"

If you look at the left window of the cabin, you can see the deities omnipotence sailing away into the sunset. Everyone wave goodbye!
---------------------------------------
Oh and I see you altered your initial post to now include omniscience! So now my post stating that you didn't include omniscience, has been retroactively transformed into a lie. Thanks for that.

You may unpublish or edit your post. If you find yourself inhibited to do so, I will gladly and openly, despite your tone, revert the changes to the initial post. You noted that the original post caused you to draw a false conclusion, so I clarified for future readers.

If you continue to make comments like the one to which this replies, then I shall be forced to cease to respond to you until you bring something material to the table. If you disagree with something, be explicit, and show why it is illogical. If you want some help, a good way to start any post in a debate is:

"I disagreed with your idea that _ because _."

If you are explicit and at least provide some reasoning, then I shall respond in kind.

M. V. Reeves - "You may unpublish or edit your post. If you find yourself inhibited to do so, I will gladly and openly, despite your tone, revert the changes to the initial post."

Instead of you editing your posts, then me having to catch those edits so I can edit my posts, then you having to catch those edits so you can edit again (and so on); how about you just put an edit tag on your edit, and save us all that trouble?

You told us that this deity child needs to eat and well defecate:

M. V. Reeves - "In the case of the human child in our own reality who makes believe a story, the Enactor (the child), as we ourselves can observe, has a need to cease to play resultant to the physical conditions of his reality (to sleep, t̲o̲ ̲e̲a̲t̲,̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲d̲e̲f̲e̲c̲a̲t̲e̲, &c.). Since we humans all have this restraint, all enactment conditions that we can scientifically observe (e.g. those performed by humans on Earth) suggest that it is quite probable that the s̲a̲m̲e̲ ̲c̲o̲n̲d̲i̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ ̲a̲p̲p̲l̲i̲e̲s̲ elsewhere, to other physical beings of consciousness."

But earlier (well later since you snuck it in with an edit) you told us that the deity/child's world is empty:

M. V. Reeves - "God knows none of the nature of His own realm, as it is p̲h̲y̲s̲i̲c̲a̲l̲l̲y̲ ̲d̲e̲v̲o̲i̲d̲."
------------------------

A physically devoid realm makes it kind of tough to eat and poop.

The rough idea for the model as a whole is presented below. the paragraphs don't work out, but it's more readable than a single blob.

If you accept the premise that when you imagine and enact a person in an imagined physical reality, then when 'being' the Enacted, you can interact with the physical things that you have imagined, then you have effectively created a reality not unlike our own, populated by a conscious being -- whoever you are 'being.' Since this is the only way I know by which to create realities with conscious beings, I induce that it is probable that our reality was created the same way. If that is true, then 'above' our reality, there quite probably exists another that also contains physical things, and which is also populated by conscious beings. So on, and so on.

Thus, there probably exists an arbitrary number of such realities. Let each reality be given a numerical label {N | N is an integer}, and arbitrate that for our reality, N = 0. Let the set of all realities and the set of all labels N be an ordered bijection. Let any reality, the conscious beings of which enact those who exist in reality N, be labeled as N + 1. What are some properties that we can extrapolate as N approaches positive and negative infinity? First, consider the detail: as you attempt to imagine and enact nested reality within nested reality within nested reality within . . . nested reality, you will find that each reality becomes less and less detailed, and that

your memory of the rules and physics for each becomes jumbled -- you can also try this for yourself. Additionally, the number of enacted beings that you populate in each reality becomes lower and lower, as to populate reality, not only do you require time (in your reality) to think of new 'characters,' but you need the memory to continue their existence. This is the result of the physical limitations that your brain places on your ability to store and process information. Since this can be tested on more than two levels (you can imagine and enact more than two realities nested in one another in significant and meaningful detail -- you can also try

doing this yourself), we may extrapolate the pattern inductively using the contrapositive. Therefore, not only is it probable that as N decreases, the number of conscious individuals, the degree of detail of the reality, the computational power of each conscious individual, and the mechanical consistency of each reality decreases, but it is just as probable that as N increases, the number of conscious individuals increases, the degree of detail and mechanical consistency of the reality increases, and the computation power of each conscious individual increases. This would suggest, contrary to what I have this far claimed, that there be an infinite

pantheon of gods living at N = infinity. However, there is evidence to contradict this mathematically. The most complicated unit of an imagined realm, in terms of entropy, is the conscious individual, not because it can be imbued with character and other details, but because its consciousness grants it memory as necessarily as its Enactor has memories of his own reality. Therefore, the greatest quantizable unit (in terms of minimum information represented) regarded so far (among the list: the number of conscious individual in a reality, the mechanical consistency of a reality, the computation power of the average individual in each reality, and the degree

of physical detail in each reality), is the conscious individual. What's more is that by definition, the reality without a conscious individual to observe it is no more than a visualization. If a reality must be populated by at least one conscious being, but it is possible to enact multiple in the same reality using the mind of only one Enactor, then there are more ways to increase the number of conscious individuals per reality as N decreases than there are to decrease them (in fact, this means that there is no way to decrease the number of conscious individuals per reality to less than one without making no reality at all). Therefore, as N

decreases, until the computation power of each individual is less than what is needed to remember and enact a conscious being, the number of beings in each reality will very probably increase. Contrapositively, as N increases, the number of conscious individuals per reality very probably decreases as N increases. Ultimately, then at some arbitrary level {M | M is an integer}, there would exist only a single individual. We might say, because his computational abilities would be vast, his reality is intricate and persistent, and he is the only conscious inhabitant, that this individual is God, as he would, just as a child has complete control

over his imagined reality, be omnipotent so far as our reality was concerned. But who created him? How is he conscious? Since the only mechanism of which we are aware that dons the characteristics of consciousness significant to this model (imagination, the ability to enact, remembrance, self-awareness of your own cognitive processes) is the process of imagination itself, as described earlier in this reply, this god was most probably made in the same way! So he is not omnipotent. But whoever created him (the lone being who lives on level M + 1) would even more powerful, for he would control all realities beneath M, as well as

the god in M. The same argument could be made over and over and over and over. One property that repeats when you do this, as long as you follow infinitely along the chain of all-powerful god that grows as M approaches infinity, is that God must be omnipotent in all realms beneath his, but not in his own. So he would not consider himself to be omnipotent, but we would think him omnipotent, for lack of significant evidence to the contrary and in consideration of this model itself. To finally address the contradiction that you present, you are correct, Nyarlathotep: I have no way of proving that this god would live in a physically

devoid reality. Based on what I didn't run with with this model, I could argue that it is probable, but It seems like a tangent for now, so I am going to fix the part of the initial post that you quoted, if you will let me. I won't do it until you give me the thumbs-up this time.

So now you can see what I have done. If you want to derive another property of God, you can now do it yourself if you want, just as I have, and see for yourself how cleanly this fits together.

Analysis of post reveals....... Nothing. Inventive you may be, but progress you have not made.

Do you have any reasoning to support your claim that I have not successfully induced the existence of a god by the same logic with which atheism combats apologetics? I've gotten closer to doing so, but if you need it to combat effectively, I can complete the conversion to a propositional-predicate format.

I was talking to both of you.

I responded.

I'm going to redact my statement due to the fact that the only appropriate means I have to explain is a 25 page, 100k+ word document.

Well, that's no reason! You don't have to negate all of it; you just have to disprove one part to take out a whole branch. Let's see what you have!

M. V. Reeves - "What are some properties that we can extrapolate as N approaches positive and negative infinity?"

This means there must be realities with negative N scores, meaning there is a reality with N=-1. Which according to you ("Let any reality, the conscious beings of which enact those who exist in reality N, be labeled as N + 1") the conscious beings in the N=-1 reality are create by us (the N=0 reality). This is going to get you into trouble, fast.
---------------------------
M. V. Reeves - "Let the set of all realities and the set of all labels N be an ordered bijection."

Here is the first sign of trouble. You said we live in N=0, so we are creating the beings in the N=-1 reality. But here you are telling us it is a 1 to 1 map. So each being in N=0 creates one being in the N=-1 world? This does not sound like what were describing earlier with one deity/baby creating the whole world.
---------------------------
M. V. Reeves - "Therefore, not only is it probable that as N decreases, the number of conscious individuals, the degree of detail of the reality, the computational power of each conscious individual, and the mechanical consistency of each reality decreases"

More trouble: if each lower level has less and less beings (or more and more as you later claimed), you can't have a 1 to 1 mapping
---------------------------
M. V. Reeves - "The most complicated unit of an imagined realm, in terms of entropy, is the conscious individual"

Stellar sized black holes contain exponentially more entropy than a conscious individual. So this statement must be false, at least in a realities with black holes (like our N=0 reality).
---------------------------
---------------------------
Remember when I suggested avoiding the mathematics? This is why.

I see what you mean, but I can deal with the math. The categorical calculus is going to be the toughest to defend.

First, I erroneously failed to account for that in any realm of multiple beings, each being is capable of producing a reality of his own, which I shall call 'adjacent' to the reality of his friend's over the hill. Both sub-realities thus must have the same value N = -1. Therefore, the set of realities cannot be a bijection on the set of scalar values N. I expect that an arbitrary number of arbitrarily sized matrices populated by iterator variables will work, however. Reformulating to account for that in a logically rigorous way will take some time (I also just thought of about a dozen other similar problems), so I'll get back to you on that with a full repost.

You are right regarding black holes: they do contain more entropy. My mistake is major, but it is still only a problem of terms. You see, I meant "information," (and yes, I realize that that is a very significant mistake) as I was referring to the ability of an Enactor to mentally sustain an imagined reality. In our reality, we know that a galaxy contains more information than a dog, but we see and consciously perceive dogs far more than we do entire galaxies. So to a consciousness that enacts us, the amount of information held in a galaxy does not need to be memorized; especially as our reality is not inherently consistent, and as we would not be able to show it as inconsistent presently if a small change were to occur in one of our more distal galaxies. The amount of information encompassed by what we know is massive, so to maintain even some semblance of mechanical consistency, a consciousness responsible for imagining our reality would have to be able to house at least enough information to force our reality to remain at least apparently consistent. Since no less information must be present in the reality in which ours is nested than that of which we ourselves are aware, and considering that our collective consciousness and conscious knowledge as humans continues to grow, I induce that the amount of information present in a reality is probably lower than the amount in the reality in which it is nested (e.g. the quantity of information approaches infinity as you progress repeatedly from Enacted to Enactor).

Again, thank you for your comment: this is exactly the type of thing that I am looking for. I'll get back to you with a heavily revised repost.

M. V. Reeves - "You see, I meant 'information,' (and yes, I realize that that is a very significant mistake)"

Entropy is hidden information, so it isn't as big of a mistake as you suggested. But I suspect this problem is going to linger; a stellar sized black hole contains several orders of magnitude more information than any person (that is why it's entropy is so huge).
---------------------
M. V. Reeves - "So to a consciousness that enacts us, the amount of information held in a galaxy does not need to be memorized"

We are getting into hot water again. All information is physically stored at least in our N=0 reality. You might argue that a copy of this information exists in the N=1 but this violates the no-cloning theorem.
--------------------
M. V. Reeves - "if a small change were to occur in one of our more distal galaxies"

The above quote and other things you have said seem to hint at a violation the conservation of information. While this might seem trivial, this is a nuclear missile fired right at the heart of classical and modern physics. I doubt you are trying to be this bold on purpose.

"We are getting into hot water again. All information is physically stored at least in our N=0 reality. You might argue that a copy of this information exists in the N=1 but this violates the no-cloning theorem." - Nyarlathotep

Well, just as we humans represent information physically (as in our brains) without directly cloning it, so too might the physical minds of the conscious beings in the reality in which ours is nested. Is a representation considered to be a 'copy?'
--------------------
"The above quote and other things you have said seem to hint at a violation the conservation of information. While this might seem trivial, this is a nuclear missile fired right at the heart of classical and modern physics." - Nyarlathotep

I am not sure that what I have said necessarily does violate the law of conservation of information. Since I am here to try to logically induce the existence of a deity of which atheists and many theists alike can be proud, I should ask you, as you seem to be more knowledgeable in physics and information theory than I, about what I can change to avoid needing to rewrite all of physics. The only thing I can think to present in that sense is that just as with the implications I have discussed regarding imperceptibly discontinuous time, other large consistencies held as true by us may be imperceptibly inconsistent, made consistent only when examined as is necessary to preserve computational power in the reality in which ours is probably nested. I'm bridging a gap between rationalism and dualism in the philosophy of science by posing this argument, so I shouldn't be surprised if I find myself facing a large relativistic problem. If I have to rewrite physics to support the existence of a cosmic benefactor, then I can certainly try, but you of course know that I would very much not like to do so.

M. V. Reeves - "what I can change to avoid needing to rewrite all of physics"

That is the \$64,000 question. The laws of physics are said to be very brittle, especially modern physics. For example, there are mathematical proofs for the no cloning theorem (where the postulates are the postulates of quantum mechanics). So the only way to reject it is to reject one of the postulates; which is a direct attack on quantum mechanics itself, the most highly tested theory in the history of science. Furthermore it is an attack on special relativity as well (that is a little harder to see). This why they are often described as brittle; a tiny change and the whole structure collapses. But yet something seems to be missing. The question you asked is a question that physicists have pondered for more than a generation. I have absolutely no answer for you. But keep your ears peeled; there have been rumors from the LHC about a bump in the data...

## Pages

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.