A Very Unusual Proof for the Existence of God

[Choobus]

jfraatz wrote

Psi(x) = Ae^(k)x and Phi(t) = e^(iE/h)t

One would then get a pair of functionals like this:

X(ln|psi|) = (1/k)(ln|psi| - ln|A|) and T(ln|phi|) = (h/iE)(ln|phi|)

fuck off you amateur doofus.

[Kate]

[Sternwallow]

jfraatz wrote

Well any system that has energy content has an associated wave-function. You can have sets of wave-functions of particles stacking up to produce larger wave-functions.

Then it is quite simple. The universe has no energy content so it has no associated wave function and not even a hypothetical mind.

[Sternwallow]

jfraatz wrote

@Jahrta

(face palm) You are missing the point entirely. The point is that there is nothing "super"natural about it:

1.) A self-collapsing wave-function is a mind.
2.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing.

Therefore the wave-function of the universe is a mind.

However if you hadn't notice[sic] this mind is explained in entirely scientific terms and is not said to be supernatural. And there is nothing difficult to understand about that argument either. It's "see spot run" in simplicity.

That was the whole point of trying to prove this through scientific means in the first place.

Processes that operate outside of the natural rules are properly known as "supernatural". That is the case with Penrose quantum gravity and its postulated random effect on computation.

1. You haven't shown that only a mind can self-collapse a wave function. Wave functions are collapsed by any interaction with things, not just by "observation".

Neither has Penrose. It has been pointed out in this thread that a fuzzy wave function cannot collapse a wave function. The mind that you postulate cannot cause the collapse of the universal wave function (itself), presumably by self observation, unless it is already collapsed, itself.

2. You have not shown that the wave function of the universe is collapsed by anything, much less by itself if it, in fact, does not have a wave function.

As I wrote (somewhere around post 800?), Penrose only speculates (incorrectly) that a fundamental randomization effect enabled by hypothetical quantum gravity, might make it possible to know the truth of statements which cannot be proven. He leverages that non-algorithmic process into influences on an otherwise deterministic computer brain to produce a guesswork consciousness.

Right out of the box, he fails to identify a single statement that we know is true but which cannot be proven true (Godel's principle). He does not detail how adding a random component to a mental deliberation can yield either valid knowledge of the truth of something that cannot in principle be proven or, the much more problematical "free will".

Given that an instance of free will will, by definiton, deviate from the deterministic (Penrose would say "algorithmic") outcome, if that deviation is random, then it is not intentional and is unrelated to the will, free or otherwise.

You can't give a car engine free will by randomizing its ignition firing sequence.

It is only a colorful (invalid) expression to refer to a machine that doesn't perform as it was designed as "having a mind of its own".

[Jahrta]

jfraatz wrote

Ah see you have me all wrong. That wasn't my end game. My end game was to give you something that most conventional theists would find blasphemous -a non-supernatural god that can be probed with science.

Really? Ok - didn't pick up on that. But why try to present a case for a god at all? The ones they've chosen to buy into are sufficiently ridiculous and self-contradictory.

[Sternwallow]

jfraatz wrote

Ah see you have me all wrong. That wasn't my end game. My end game was to give you something that most conventional theists would find blasphemous -a non-supernatural god that can be probed with science.

Probing a god, sounds like nearly infinite fun!

[Sternwallow]

"The other premise is Penrose's Orch-OR. It's controversial to be sure, but if it's true my argument follows directly from it. In which case is Orch-OR pseudo-scientific? I mean someone like Roger Penrose would probably know better than to engage in pseudoscience right?"
Roger Penrose, in my opinion, has attempted to modify the definition of science to fit his hypothesis and he apparently thinks the result is scientific.

Some of the theists are trying much the same thing. They contend that science should include information sources such as faith and revelation and sacred texts. Then they can bypass the uncomfortable word "supernatural" and call all of their magic and woo-woo "scientific".

[a different tim]

Hello.

Faulty syllogism. Even if the assertions were true, or indeed meaningful, the conclusion does not follow.

Consider: The argument takes the form

a is a subset of b
c is also a subset of b
therefore c is a subset of a.

by that logic:

whales are a subset of mammals
humans also are a subset of mammals
therefore, humans are a subset of whales.

QED.

Do we have a *facepalm* smiley? It's been a while since I posted and I forget.

[nkb]

Nice to see you again, adt.

[a different tim]

Thankyou.

[Davin]

jfraatz wrote

@Davin:

"So the wave function of the universe is really a wave function of every particle in the universe stacked up?"

Yes,

Just making sure, so that means (under your definition), that the mind of the universe is made up of more minds than anyone can possibly type out the number for and that our own minds are made up of billions of minds and that every rock has at least a few thousand minds and that a grain of dirt has several minds... etc..

jfraatz wrote

"Can you just lay out exactly what you mean by "wave function of the universe?" So far it's just wibbly, wobbly, timey, whimy bits."

Ok, there's this thing called the Schrodinger equation in quantum mechanics and it's a differential equation that relates energy values in a physical system to something called a "wave-function" over space and time. When you solve this equation it gives you the wave-function for the particular system you are looking for.

Now this equation is universal so it works for any system imaginable. (the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is the variation on the Schrodinger equation that lets one solve for the wave-function of the universe.) All you need to make it work are the values of total kinetic and total potential energy in a system. So since the universe has kinetic and potential energy you can just plug in these values into the Schrodinger equation and pop out of the wave-function for the universe.

Which means what? What is this wave-function for the universe used for?

jfraatz wrote

"I'd appreciate a clear answer. You said it's used in a different sort of way and for different purposes, what sort of way is it used and for what purposes is it used for?"

All right these questions are related let me explain what's going on here:

Ok, this is why they reverse the order of variable and function when they solve for the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Such values would be meaningless for the universe but the mathematical relationship still holds.

So instead what they do is they reverse the order to get useful information out of the wave-function a different way. Instead of looking for "location" or "position in time" they use the wave-function to see how it corresponds to a unit of space or a unit of time. Space and time only make sense if one defines them in terms of relationships between separate locations or separate points in time. Thus if the wave-function defines locations or points in time the wave-function would actually have to be defining space and time itself. Which is odd because then it would be more fundamental than space and time! (which is of course just what we are looking for if we want to do quantum gravity -since gravity is bent space-time and we need to explain bent spacetime in terms of something more fundamental than itself)

Basically one could then think of the wave-function as "programming" behind space-time that generates space-time and space-time and the world it contains as sort of the world generated by the program.

So you can't answer how the purpose of using a wave function on the universe, just a bunch of word vomit that means hardly anything to the questions I asked.

jfraatz wrote

"What is the purpose of abstracting wave functions into variables and why must they abstract them into variables? How are the wave functions being converted into variables?"

Well you just reverse the order really. (And the reason for this is what I explained above)

So instead of having say for the free particle solution:

Psi(x) = Ae^(k)x and Phi(t) = e^(iE/h)t

One would then get a pair of functionals like this:

X(ln|psi|) = (1/k)(ln|psi| - ln|A|) and T(ln|phi|) = (h/iE)(ln|phi|)

Ok, so even though I'm having major problems your use of functions (almost made me puke in my mouth), this would only answer at most the third question leaving two unanswered.

[Calvinist]

jfraatz wrote

Tell me if anyone has seen this argument before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8

It's all based on science actually which I thought was nice break from the philosophic arguments that always invariably end up going either way. The argument is basically that:

Premise 1.) Minds are self-collapsing wave-functions. (Penrose's Orch-OR thesis)
Premise 2.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing. (Because there is by definition no physical objects outside of it that can measure it)

Conclusion: Therefore the wave-function of the universe is a mind.

What do you all think?

I haven't heard that argument, specifically, but the TAG argument is certainly a good one that uses the existence of logic as a proof for God's existence. I have yet to see a decent argument against it.

http://carm.org/transcendental-argument

[ghoulslime]

Calvinist wrote

I haven't heard that argument, specifically, but the TAG argument is certainly a good one that uses the existence of logic as a proof for God's existence. I have yet to see a decent argument against it.

http://carm.org/transcendental-argument

Well, we stand in utter admiration of your testimony, blood drinker! Thanks for the elucidation!

[Irreligious]

I like how he thinks that all takes to win an argument is to deliver it in a snide tone.

[psychodiva]

probably always works in his church