## New God's Existence Proof: The Paradox of Thought

• 119
• 22

You say the easiest example is when the sensor is another chessboard, so that sensor is what I meant by the second chessboard. If the sensor is not a chessboard, how do you envision the sensor working?
• 185
I dont envision the sensor working. Im just saying that theoretically it is possible to store all information on the chessboard in a finite body hence your argument that says an infinite volume is needed is wrong. Unless you have other axioms about the sensors.
• 119

The only possible explanation is something outside, argued to be God.

Is it the only explanation because it is your idea, or because you couldn‘t find an other one?
• 22

It seems you are taking back your proposal of how storage works, so we are now back to what do you mean by stored, and what is doing the storing?

I don't like the word storing, because I think of it more as reading a physical system state and mapping to a thought. Don't be confused by the infinity of potential physical states in a finite space. Instead, how can these states be interpreted and mapped? Let's take a tiny sphere, square, or some other space and call it a thought machine, with input a physical state and output to a thought. How do we read the physical input?

We need to break the space into smaller units so we can register difference in the space. These are the sensors, which have the properties of measuring physical space, and their sum readings output a thought. Subdivisions of the space, and the subdivisions having properties contributing to the whole, can't be avoided if the object having the thoughts is the same. Why fire a thought at one point, based on one physical state, or why fire another, based on another state?

We need to avoid the infinite regress, so these sensors don't have their own sensors, and are the smallest unit by which the thought machine can interpret space. From these indivisible units of space, however many there are, we can then build our thought machine. This is what I mean when I say from the "bottom up". Start with the sensors and then figure out the machine. Don't take the space the thought machine operates in and keep subdividing (from the "top down") to accommodate any state you wish.

For what I think is frequently missed is that the thought machine has its own properties independent of what is actually in a physical space. First, its sensors don't follow around the objects being measured. We don't redraw the sensors as the chess piece moves, for example. If the chess piece's sensor was in the same place relative to the chess piece, how would it register change?

Also, the machine is always firing and always measuring a state, independent of what is physically there. Take a square in space divided into two equal halves, and that same square also divided into three equal thirds. Let's say enough matter moves into the square so that half is filled. Sensors measuring matter for the halves would work, but the ones for the thirds would not, as we have to account for at least one sensor for one third needing knowledge of smaller intervals. We can't switch the sensors for the third back on if we later have enough matter for a 1/3 or 2/3 of the square, as that means the sensors for the halves would not work. We need to pick one fractional division of the square and stick with it.

Thus, in short, two axioms about sensors are:
1) They are the lowest interval by which a thought machine can measure and interpret distance. They can't process any states that require knowledge of smaller intervals.
2) They always give a reading, and their properties are independent of the item being measured.
• 22

It is a logical argument based on certain assumptions and one potential property of God. You are free to disagree. Just make sure your alternative solution makes more sense.
• 119

The only possible explanation is something outside, argued to be God.

I‘m just simply not sure, if that something has to be outside, thats all. : )
• 185

Thus, in short, two axioms about sensors are:
1) They are the lowest interval by which a thought machine can measure and interpret distance. They can't process any states that require knowledge of smaller intervals.
2) They always give a reading, and their properties are independent of the item being measured.

I don't understand this but formulating the problem is the first step to understanding. I dont know what these concepts mean (a thought machine is like a Turing machine maybe?) .

I can only repeat my previous thought. Only mathematical or physical theories are worth arguing about. If this is a mathematical model then you must be able to express your argument in terms of sets and the membership relation. If your model is a physical one then it uses the classical model hence it does not describe our observed reality.
• 22

Fair enough : ). If there is too much baggage with "outside", we could always define the universe as encompassing everything there is, which can include God. I'm not giving a deus ex machina, but explaining how a potential property of God might help.
• 22

It's been awhile since I've done automata / language theory, but I guess it could like a Turing machine in that it takes the "input tape" of physical reality, instaneously performs any calculations needed, and stops at a thought (assuming it always stops). I like to think of it as a movie projector though, taking film as physical input and transforming into an image at a particular instant. Or perhaps a piano, in that whatever keys are pressed, it transforms into one sound, with the sound dependent on the exact keys pressed.

I still think it's a physical theory, and that it's not bound to classical physics, although I do use classical examples because they are easy to understand. Even what we know now might change in the future, if we ever get a unified theory combining our quantum / relativistic / string models. Even then, we may not know everything, and some stimuli from a parallel universe might upend our model yet again. Better to work out through reason what is fundamental.

Without delving into the full literature of the mind/body problem, we have both physical and mental properties, and I think something like a thought machine is a good way to link physical and mental properties, while letting us experience continuity of thoughts. Whatever is physical can be matter, energy, waves, quantum fluctuations, or whatever. The challenge is how to interpret the input.
• 119

There is an other part of your statment, what makes me wonder,
argued to be God
what could it mean?
Argued by who?
a.) argued by God it self?
b.) argued by You?
c.) argued by me?
d.) argued by everyone?
e.) argued by a group of people?
f.) argued by no one?
g.) argued by no1.?
h.) argued by anyone?
i.) argued by who?
j.) argued, but why?

Or perhaps, it is God arguing to be?
• 185
So your theory is physical. But Physics on low scales doesnt work like your model. There is no definite position of particles until they are observed. Matter is not continuous in the euclidean sense. Now I dont want to pretend that I understand Physics but I think it is fine to say that your model does not describe reality.
• 22

I may get into trouble myself speaking about Physics, but I don't think any of this works against the theory. Our sensors may not be measuring the exact positions of particles, but perhaps the energy of the system in a physical location, or the probabilities for where something might come up in a probability function once observed. What we call physical could theoretically be anything. We can perhaps add a third axiom about sensors in that they measure a physical property, but we won't specify the exact property. The question is how we tie the physical property, the space the property operates in, and mental properties together.
• 22

We could go down the epistemological rabbit hole and ask all of these : ), but in the context of the statement it is the paper (and I guess myself) arguing it.
• 119

So you saying that, I‘m seeing these points because of that ‘‘paper‘‘ you mentioned?
• 185

Well, since nothing (space, matter nor time) at the lowest scale is continuous and the problem with the chessboard doesnt come up I think you have to at least reformulate your claim.
• 22

Matter/energy/whatever our "physical" substance is can be "Medium A". Space or whatever the space Medium A operates in can be "Medium B". The sensors are a property of Medium B. Medium B and Medium A overlap somehow, so the sensors have something to measure. I don't care if medium A is quantized or continuous. Medium B may be quantized or continuous (as I understand this is an open question in Physics with spacetime). Both cases are addressed in the paper. The argument is strongest when medium B is continuous, but even if it was quantized, there are problems. I don't see how you avoid a naturalistic Occasionalism, where medium B arbitrarily determines the placement of instances of medium A in relation to itself. I assume you cannot just negate the independence of both the physical properties of medium A (such as conservation of energy) or properties concerning the relationship of medium A to medium B (such as velocity and acceleration in classical mechanics).
• 22

Sure, assuming we can agree on a definition for "see".
• 119

I can not, not to see them, even when my eyes are closed.

• 119

What is your definition for ‘‘see‘‘?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal