Feel free to criticize/critique. — Noah Te Stroete
Wild speculation, undefined terms, conclusions without any presented reasonable support, God bias, hand picked scientific theories - why string theory over others?
Hardly worth taking seriously. — S
why string theory over others? — S
Do you have a specific question or concern? Much of my thought is subconscious and only takes shape through dialogue. — Noah Te Stroete
Quantum mechanics shows that subatomic particles cannot be pinned down to a specific location and momentum until it is observed. — Noah Te Stroete
It takes an observing mind in order for the elements of matter to take shape on its most fundamental scale. Hence, in order for the universe to begin (the Big Bang) something conscious had to observe the singularity in order for it to BECOME something. — Noah Te Stroete
Do you think me a fool? — S
The "observer" doesn't have to be human, let alone God. — S
I think you’re close-minded, hard-headed, unfeeling, unoriginal, and unimaginative. — Noah Te Stroete
No it doesn't. — S
I'm an amateur artist, so I have plenty of creativity. — S
No it doesn't. Do your homework. — S
If you’re talking about machines, then my response would be that it takes a conscious mind to interpret the results. — Noah Te Stroete
There doesn't need to be an observation to begin with. The results don't need to be interpreted. Be honest: you're only pushing this flawed and unoriginal argument (I've seen it plenty of times here before), because you're working backwards from the conclusion that there's a God. This is your predictable God bias, and it hinders your approach to philosophy. You don't actually care about the science. You're just using it. — S
The machines, computers, and sensors are made through human intentionality. They require a conscious mind in design, execution, and interpretation. — Noah Te Stroete
The machines, computers, and sensors are made through human intentionality. They require a conscious mind in design, execution, and interpretation. — Noah Te Stroete
You don't actually care about the science. You're just using it. — S
The world existed long before us and our machines. — S
I am of the persuasion that whatever consciousness really is (I think it’s spirit) is the structuring element or substance of reality. — Noah Te Stroete
Now, if we break down matter down to its most fundamental elements, we get energy (kinetic or potential). Some theoretical physicists think the most fundamental elements are vibrating strings (String Theory). This energy or these strings (if these theoretical physicists are correct that strings are the most fundamental elements of reality) — Noah Te Stroete
Because you believe that God precedes all else, right? — Terrapin Station
What would matter even look like without it being perceived? — Noah Te Stroete
Why would lead you to believe that it would look any different than when perceived (re the way it looks at that particular point of reference)? — Terrapin Station
It would all depend on the power of your argument, so.......have at it, and good luck. — Mww
Do you even know what you’re talking about? I was the biggest atheist there was for half of my life. I even wrote a book about it, and you are free to Google me. A divine consciousness is an elegant way to explain reality. You’re just biased. Your love of scientism shows throughout. — Noah Te Stroete
Yes, I know what I'm talking about enough to correct your basic errors. I don't care about your attempt to boost your reputation. It's not difficult to get a book published. Any old hack can publish through the internet these days. Big publishers like Penguin are a different matter. I won't be googling you. — S
A point of reference assumes an observer. — Noah Te Stroete
You can call it “energy,” “force,” or “potentiality,” — Noah Te Stroete
The idea is simply that there's some way that an existent is, but that's always from some spatio-temporal reference point--basically some location of space and time, because it's incoherent for there to be a way that an existent is from no spatio-temporal reference point. Existents are different from different spatio-temporal reference points (including their own spatio-temporal reference points). This isn't saying anything about conscious observers.
So the question is that why, when you remove a conscious observer from the equation, do you believe that any existent would be different, from that spatio-temporal location, than it is with the conscious observer at that spatio-temporal location? — Terrapin Station
The idea that energy, force or potentiality could be a "basic substance" is incoherent, though. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.