InspiringPhilosophy
To help support this ministry click here: http://www.patreon.com/inspiringphilosophy
Given that quantum mechanics reveals the mind plays an integrated role in the collapse of the wave function. Early thinkers like Eugine Wigner put forward an argument for God’s existence from this piece of data. Building on his argument, I have helped to formalize this argument.
Sources:
Physics of the Impossible – Michio Kaku
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner
Blackwell’s Companion to Natural Theology – William Lane Craig & JP Moreland
The Principle of Psychology – William James
A History of Philosophical Systems – Charles Hartshorne
The Fabric of Reality – David Deutsch
The Quantum Enigma – Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner
Source
On what basis do you claim that God is timeless, and always sees all moments of created time?
Pantheism and animism destroyed
IP, the modern era Christian apologetic. Brilliant. ✝💞 JESUS bless you.✌🙏✝
THIS IS THE BEST!!!!!!!!
I believe that we go into the space we have between us all when our body dies, goes into energy again and then comes back to material, just what Einstein said, the same amount of energy and matter, and it just goes round in circles it goes on forever so whatever we do we will always be part of the force
why i found so much in Palamite-Panentheism….
While I agree consciousness is a primary property of the Universe, I logically believe it leads to Pantheism not Theism, great video though.
The double slit experiment does NOT prove matter doesn't exist without observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) "Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[4][5][6]" – Wikipedia.
Physicist here. I have a request to make. Laymen, please stop using garbled misconstrued statements about quantum mechanics to justify your philosophical arguments. Most of the "real" physics mentioned in this video would take a decade of study for most people to sort of understand. That being said, at least 50% of the stuff mentioned isn't even real science. It is pure speculation and, in my opinion, at least partially drug-fueled fantasy. Frankly, the first 15 minutes of this video was almost entirely gibberish. As someone who HAS spent a decade studying this stuff, it is actually pretty upsetting. I mean, I can't even say Jones is lying because I am about 99% sure he has no clue what he is even talking about. /sigh
I believe that all religions should work against atheism
p1: You state that naturalism is breaking the behavior of a thing down the behavior of more simple base components, while personal explanations don't break it down at all. This is just an admission that personal explanations don't explain anything at all. We explain things we don't understand by breaking them into pieces we can't understand. To say that an explanation is personal, is another way of saying we can't explain it. Then when you offer an explanation it is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. If you can't break a complicated thing into more simple terms that is the limit of your knowledge. What is an example of a "personal" explanation? How can it grant any predictive capability without referencing something we are familiar with? What does being not being able to be broken down have to do with people/personhood? Why not call it basic? You're smuggling in assumptions with that word choice allowing you to equivocate between the basic definition and the definition relating to people/personhood. Even if I were to grant that we cannot break consciousness down into smaller components, it would be a huge non-sequitur to say that therefore it come from a source which is personal (related to persons) and an even greater non-sequitur to say that the basic thing creates other basic things.
P2: I'm not a quantum scientist so I'm not really qualified to evaluate this, but I do know 2 things. 1, if consciousness was required for collapse then if god existed then everything would always be collapsed because god would be omnipresent and omniscient. 2, consciousness is not what collapses it because cameras and other similar non conscious quantum systems collapse it through interaction. Ok so your solution is that god isn't omniscient and not conscious (or at least not any way that we would be familiar with or measure in any way making it totally useless). The function of consciousness is so that we can make decisions in time. For a consciousness to be outside of time would not be consciousness; What good would this information be for? How could it use information to make decisions when decisions occur in time?
C1: argument from ignorance
P3: potentially false dichotomy depending on if you have also equivocated the basic definition with the personal definition. Which you are considering how if you were using the basic definition it would be apparent how not related to god this is.
P4: This is just a set up for a equivocation later.
C2: If I were to call a tree god and prove the tree exists that wouldn't mean I proved god exists because when we talk about god we are talking about how something which is conscious, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. So its a way of smuggling in more assumptions. You've got to define god before you set out to prove it exists. Otherwise you doing the same thing as the person labeling the tree. While I can see this situation has more in common with god it is a bit like calling the higgs boson the "god particle" because it grants us our mass metaphorically.
Your analysis of the solipsist's perspective is ironic because the criticism you read exposed how it is realism with extra assumptions that you need to add more assumptions to in order to maintain functionality and your solution was to add even more assumptions… SMH..
My objection is that "knowledge" of something is not the same thing as "measurement" of that something. I mean, quantum objects can be thought as being in a superposition of quantum states, each one having a given probability to result, untill a measurement is made, but this doesn't drive to the preposition "then WE create reality", and if we weren't there to measure, 'that reality DOES NOT EXIST". We (and for we I mean photons that we send , a photoreceptor screen …etc.) just make the wave function of that system to collapse on one of the many possible results.
you don't know what you are talking about. Doing the experiment with entangled pairs proves the observer effect is not caused by interference.
(There’s no such thing as the collapse of the wave function in either David Bohm’s causal interpretation of QM or Hugh Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation, which is why they are now the favored interpretations by those who care. But the latter substitutes a splitting of worlds for the wave function collapse, and although it handles the basic version of my thought experiment elegantly, I think the second version make hash of it. You lose the supposed simplicity of the interpretation, because now you need a set of quite low-level and complex rules to define under what circumstances the worlds split. That’s just one of half a dozen arguments for why Bohm is correct.)
From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device… Our bodies and brains thus become … parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation…
You just playing with the definition of “consciousness” and making an analogy.. your argument is a joke
The act of “measuring” occurs naturally when particles interacts in The quantum realm
Michiu kaku 🤣🤣🤣🤣,
At this point, anything can be "god". One would still have to explain idealist panpsychicists, like schopenhaur, who was an atheist. One would also have to explain how one could ever possibly falsify such a view. Which is a problem. If one can't falsify it, then any other un-falsifiable worldview would be equally valid. Such as super determinism. Last, but not least, the idea of god isn't needed to support practical philosophies, or even buddism, making the topic irrelevant to them.
Asking the question of what it would take to disprove a theory makes it science. The question of logical consistancy is just philosophy, while mere belief itself is religion, you can choose between unfalsifiable, innconsistant , and 'eternal truths' that always seem to have a habbit of finding 'new interpretations'.
God bless you, what kind of Christian are you?
The solipsist position, if true, would imply that God does not exist.
P1: Your are conscious, and you are not God
P2: God, in concept, is a conscious being.
C1: If God exists, you are not the only mind.
P4: If solipsism is true, you are the only mind.
P5: If God exists, solipsism is false.
C2: If solipsism is true, God does not exist.
(Probably a better way to write this, but I like to be extremely explicit).
I agree that there's no reason to assume solipsism is true, but it doesn't seem so easy to prove it false either. But living as if it's false seems to work better, so I'm not that concerned with it.
What about the experiment conducted by Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic where the wave function was apparently collapsed by and captured on an atom?
All makes perfect sense except for 2 key issues ??? You portray God as human & male ?? & the patreon link >> What can dirty cash do when your theory seems so perfect, excepting farther space exploration ?? Keep up the good work anyhows & question everything >>
I find your video enlightening as a mechanistic materialist atheist. I am finding that evolution and many theories on quantum mechanics make sense, but I believe that universal consicousness/mind make sense and can coexist along theories of evolution. We notice that many different theories of conservation showcase a collection of procedures and mechanics as well as similarities to other forms that showcase reactions and behaviors that reveal a lower form of intelligence and conscienceness than our own. If we are all connected subconsciously to a universal essence of all becoming and being then we are all connected to this abstraction, and are gods ourselves. I agree that perhaps we simply attribute the name "god" in various ways to this universal mind. We even see symmetrical similarities between certain organisms and galaxies which suggests a large explosion of organic life, the big bang. This could suggest that planets and other non biological forms are also sentient. Even molecules avoid each other, and to say it is simply laws governing their interactions seems more incomplete than true. This universal mind may very well be a collection of the consciencenesses that have existed in our universe for millions of years, it may also suggest that our consciousnesses transcend our bodies after physical death and we become part of all life similar to the concept of reincarnation in many religions.
If you go down the rabbit hole and keep going, once everything is stripped away, right at the bottom of the hole there is only ever one thing, the singularity, the source, God.
Just typical of somebody force fitting all theories, ideas or discoveries.. To match his own personal beliefs
Consciousness create reality.
Prespective of quantum mechanics, we are a Quantum Universe which exists everywhere to which no law applies.
Everywhere means everywhere.
We are a form of desire.
Due to experience, people know who he is ?
But to experience is the work of the consciousness.
No law applies to thinking.
That is why a person understands that I am experiencing myself.
Thinking is a state of consciousness.
No law applies to thinking.
Thinking means, experiencing.work of consciousness.
We are being experienced from the prespective of consciousness.
Death is meaningless.
After death ? We will find overselves in the whole universe as consciousness.
Because, thinking is a state of consciousness.
At the moment we are experiencing through this body.
Creation has no meaning without experience.
Prespective of consciousness whatever is happening is happening in nothingnes.
Past present future running in nothingness.
Because, no law applies to consciousness.
The universe is experiencing itself.
It all exists based on experience.
The root of all problem is that we perceive experience as the identity of overselves.
Experience is not our identity.
We have to see from the prespective of the consciousness.
Because, we are a Quantum Universe which exists everywhere to which no law applies.
Whatever happens in the world is at the will of humans.
Our prayer are fulfilled through God, this too is the thinking of humans.
Because, prayer is a form of think, state of consciousness.
Please recognize your thinking ability, identity too
I am the Father of Creation. Seriously!
God is everywhere means, infinite universe.
God is one means, infinite universe is one.
No law applies to God.
If we are separated from God then we become another God, but we know that God is present everywhere.
God is one, we are none other.
___________________________
God ? Quantum Universe (no law applies to God.
____________________________
Prespective of quantum particle, we are a Quantum Universe which exists everywhere to which no law applies.
We can also say this, parallel universe. Because, parallel means parallel.
_______________________________
Thinking is a state of consciousness.
No law applies to thinking.
Thinking means, experiencing.work of consciousness.
We are being experienced from the prespective of consciousness.
Death is no such thing, meaningless event.
After death ? We will find overselves in the whole universe as consciousness.
Because, thinking is a state of consciousness.
At the moment we are experiencing through this body.
Creation has no meaning without experience.
Prespective of consciousness whatever is happening is happening in nothingnes.
Past present future running in nothingness.
Because, no law applies to consciousness.
The universe (form of quantum creation) is experiencing itself.
____________________________
Whatever happens in the world is at the will of humans.
Our prayer are fulfilled through God,this too is the thinking of humans.
Prayer=form of think,state of universe.
__________________________
Those species which are not in the stage of advance intellect, their desires come out in the form of energy, so their desires are fulfilled.
Hunger,sex extra extra…….
Thinking is a state of consciousness.
Please recognize your thinking ability.
I am an agnostic but I like your videos, keep it up
Michio is pronounced ”mi-chi-o" not "mikio"
And we are going back to that
I wonder if early humanity could have had a hive mind
I agree completely. I don't even really like to entertain solipsism, it's a bit of a stretch and to self centered to consider. But I have always thought that consciousness is primary to the cosmos and we are individuals with free will.
Why do so many think that a quantum physics argument for "God" confirms their religion as true? Even if there is a cosmic consciousness that doesn't mean that "God" has anything to do with the religions man has made.
"Without the brain you couldn't have consciousness, but without consciousness you wouldn't know you had a brain"
Bullshit! Matter is emergent from the collisions of dark energy(negative electrons) and conciousness is emergent from the duality of biological matter.
There is no valid arguement! There are no gods, just human fear and ignorance.
All arguments are presuppositional. Celestial elements have no conscious thought 💭 (mind) and therefore have no ability to reason or make a choice. Anything else is special pleading 🥺
Evil was a conscience at that point of time and distance when were did not have the knowledge of salvation and still is because many still don't understand a fair means of self defence.
The difference between God and the Devil is that he or she does not know that they are suffering similar to Christians for others mistakes and multiply per wrong doing and are both physical slaves for the sake of entertainment and the act of divorce is to entertain the act of Death; to be able to deceive another; But what they have in common is that Gods suffer for material pleasures other than that the act of having sex with who he or she is sincerely attracted to because of the beliefs in shame but do not feel trust for who chooses to pleasure themselves more than they do others nor do they rescue them physically witch is the self defense of evil and those whom are victimized. Female Gods physically Love themselves but act as if they love others equally to themselves but males feel love and are attracted to the the challenges of falling truly in love with both sexes and believe it is possible but in the bible and Jehovah who wrote it feels angered at Adam and Eve for understanding but not confessing to bi-curiosity and choosing to conceive only in evil heterosexuality=.the confession to Greed=G.O.D.
To me consciousness is to believe that whom offended you never meant to and is just confessing fear for God.;or who neglected you was just confused and needed attention for itself in order to make sense of emotional challenges.