Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

anything with an -ism is a set of beliefs and values.

Embolism.  Volcanism.  Alcoholism.  Chromaticism.  Criticism.

Well, s'not really saying much. Everything period is a set of beliefs and values, because that's the only lens humans have to interpret the world around them. Concept system, away!

Seriously though, Re: The title question, it'd depend on what you call a god. Some definitions of god would be implied by materialistic pantheism. Some wouldn't. Certainly standard monotheist divinities are largely excluded by it, but if one considers all of physical existence to be the totality of god or to comprise the essence or foundation of god, well, then god is implied. Because you've defined "god" as the totality of physical reality or whathaveyou. You could easily refer to the same concept as "nature" or "existence" or... whatever, really. Reality is what exists (It is the "I am the I am", so to speak), you've just decided to call that "god".

As the aside, my philosophy teachers probably would have shot me if I tried to turn something like the text earlier in the thread to them Conciseness and clarity are the two fundamental virtues of philosophic writing, yeah. Sad thing is I've seen basically all of that much better put, I've just... forgot where. I am a terrible student

Though... as for actual comments, I would say that the only reason we can't full describe human behavior and everything related and stemming from it via mathematics is that we haven't finished the work for that, yet. Give it time, and we'll manage to quantify everything. Emergent phenomena is less a thing in itself than it is a perception of a thing whose actual existence is that which creates it, yes. Human perception is just a not-yet fully defined chemical/neurological system. Nothing particularly non-physical about that

[dei]

anything with an -ism is a set of beliefs and values.

Embolism.  Volcanism.  Alcoholism.  Chromaticism.  Criticism.

Facedesk. Maximum autism. Epic fail. Saged, hidden, filtered, reported, called the cops.

Maybe if someone could put a damn synopsis instead of posting two huge walls of texts we could get to the bottom of this and reach some kind of conclusion.

The text contained a synopsis of itself:

Sleep? Nope... up all night, nauseous and cold. At least I'm having a lovely conversation with Ashton about the mechanics of macro-cosmic physics, the pattern through which alternate universes form in a fractal multiverse, the concept that all matter and energy is aware at the level where it can describe itself and thus create a physical manifestation of itself. The notion that this awareness is present within any given entity whether that be a rock or an atom, comparable to snippets of data which mean something by themselves yet still blend to create a more complete entity.

Funnily enough this all coincides with my pantheistic beliefs, though no new ideas arose from the initial conversation it quickly spurred debate on the implication those concepts had on divinity or god: dubbed "Origin" for the sake of neutrality, we eventually decided that within an infinitely massive fractal pattern encompassing each possible reality Origin exists: though due to the nature of infinity it's meaning becomes lost. Then is it feasible for the physical world, as created by Origin, or God, to be capable of free will and vice versa? Or is all just a computational matrix relying on self-propagating stimuli?

The twist is the concept of Origin becomes meaningless as does the difference between Awareness and Origin because what we understand as God is the self-aware aspect of the universe which creates a physical manifestation of itself. Origin is a shape, an equation or a point cloud that describes itself, and through describing itself it leads to the recreation of itself in the same manner as a fractal pattern or an infinite loop.

This process of recreation has no foreseeable beginning or end, like an equation has a value of negative infinity and one of positive infinity, thus Origin whilst it exists is also pointless. It is impossible to fall below negative infinity or above positive infinity, thus a full cycle is never complete. You can never reach Origin because it's removed by an infinite amount of iterations, where each iteration is a generation of new universes, neither can the last generation be reached. Whilst the end and the beginning are identical one never becomes the other which is where the idea of a loop falls apart.

At its heart, our perception of the realities progression is akin to the Russian doll effect in which there is always a smaller doll hidden within, yet also a larger doll encompassing. That implies we are looking in on a single abstract point of reference within infinity, a point of origin that is meaningless in reference to its entirety.

Nobody except Cerpa has given a response to the content.

So you're saying life is like a matroyshka? I'm probably misunderstanding but I think I understand. I can see how life and the pursuit of truth is like that in general. However, could you please clarify in simpler terms?

[ashton1993]

So you're saying life is like a matroyshka? I'm probably misunderstanding but I think I understand. I can see how life and the pursuit of truth is like that in general. However, could you please clarify in simpler terms?

Our conclusion is that the beginning of our multiverse, God and self-awareness are all functionally the same.

The process through which recreation is propagated on a macro-cosmic is similar to a matryoshka.