. - Understanding religious delusion

[MARAB0D]

This sounds like reaffirmation through denial, arguing on faith(blue sky) something is true. Presupposing a concept is fact for no other reason, then choosing to.

Methinks this is not as much a conscious presupposing of anything, as a simple fear of the terrible words. In Bronze Age such words were "God's anger", while today they are something like "wave-function collapse". Who in a sane state of mind wants their wave function to collapse? I can see many churches secretly worship Schroedinger's Cat, being probably a fresh incarnation of the old Egyptian Bastet, which at least demonstrates that for many modern believers Science is also a Word of God.

[+Sherapy]

Methinks this is not as much a conscious presupposing of anything, as a simple fear of the terrible words. In Bronze Age such words were "God's anger", while today they are something like "wave-function collapse". Who in a sane state of mind wants their wave function to collapse? I can see many churches secretly worship Schroedinger's Cat, being probably a fresh incarnation of the old Egyptian Bastet, which at least demonstrates that for many modern believers Science is also a Word of God.

You know Ant that is an excellent call.

I'd add that in order to for religion compete; therefore, being able to move on to the next generation of sheep.

Religion had/has to come up with alternate ideas that 'appear' science like; otherwise, they have no hope of keeping the business afloat.

IMO anyways.

Delusion is a big business, to be honest I wish I'd of come up with the idea. I'd be a billionaire.

[Jor-el]

Yeh, but by extension it also negates your postulate.

Then please tell me in what way it negates my "postulate"?

As I see it I've argued two points that are intertwined. The 1st is that we are living in a virtual reality where what seems real is only a shadow of an actual reality. The 2nd is that without an observer there is no such thing as reality or as I put it "nothing exists". As such any act of cognition by an observer will immediately influence the outcome of what we are observing.

Thus truly nothing can be objective not even the existence of matter, which again brings us to my 1st point, we are living in a virtual reality.

So please, go ahead and tell me how Brother Cornelius' post negates my postualate.... it IS my postualate as you put it.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Jor-el

[questionmark]

Then please tell me in what way it negates my "postulate"?

As I see it I've argued two points that are intertwined. The 1st is that we are living in a virtual reality where what seems real is only a shadow of an actual reality. The 2nd is that without an observer there is no such thing as reality or as I put it "nothing exists". As such any act of cognition by an observer will immediately influence the outcome of what we are observing.

Thus truly nothing can be objective not even the existence of matter, which again brings us to my 1st point, we are living in a virtual reality.

So please, go ahead and tell me how Brother Cornelius' post negates my postualate.... it IS my postualate as you put it.

It shows that if it is not observable you don't know its state and/or existence. I would like to talk to anybody who ever observed God.

So, there goes your postulate.

[Jor-el]

For the further understanding of what it is I'm trying to say, here are some vids on this subject.

Link for those who don't feel like watching the vids...

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality

Edited September 16, 2010 by Jor-el

[+Sherapy]

My goodness Br. C!!!!!!

You've hit the nail on the head, this is what all my posts have been about on this very thread... finally someone else is saying it as well.

Jor el, Br C is expanding on the understanding of subjective reality ( via discernment) not agreeing with you. IMO

[Jor-el]

It shows that if it is not observable you don't know its state and/or existence. I would like to talk to anybody who ever observed God.

So, there goes your postulate.

There are a number of us, on this forum right now... there goes your argument.

[Jor-el]

Jor el, Br C is expanding on the understanding of subjective reality ( via discernment) not agreeing with you. IMO

Maybe not intentionally, but it falls quite nicely with what I've said... take the time and watch the vids...

[+Sherapy]

For the further understanding of what it is I'm trying to say, here are some vids on this subject.

Link for those who don't feel like watching the vids...

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality

Jor el, you are getting confused like MW and not drawing a distinction between sub and obj reality. IMO

Jorel, let me ask you this , if you agree with what you posted, what does this say about your G-d?

Doesn't It put him/it/?/her into the delusion /illusion reality ?

[Guest]

Jor el, Br C is expanding on the understanding of subjective reality ( via discernment) not agreeing with you. IMO

Indeed

As I see it I've argued two points that are intertwined. The 1st is that we are living in a virtual reality where what seems real is only a shadow of an actual reality. The 2nd is that without an observer there is no such thing as reality or as I put it "nothing exists". As such any act of cognition by an observer will immediately influence the outcome of what we are observing.

Thus truly nothing can be objective not even the existence of matter, which again brings us to my 1st point, we are living in a virtual reality.

The first point seems reasonable enough, but the second doesn't follow from it and seems to be wishful thinking on your part. It allows for a tenuous existence of an objective/subjective God of the any flavour you choose to believe in. I am not buying that pony and I don't think you should either as it rather demotes his status.

If the Divine exists, then I think it deserves the status of been truly objective. My objection all along is the belief that someone can have an exclusive definition of what that means (as is implicit in monoathiestic faiths) when the very fact of the Divines objective existence specifically exludes the possibility of human comprehension. It boils down to an objection to the concept of a Big Guy in the sky, which faiths promote, with all the baggage that comes with that flawed thought form and which we project onto the Divines objective existence.

The Divine is truly beyond comprehension, and that fact deserves respect.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 16, 2010 by Guest

[questionmark]

There are a number of us, on this forum right now... there goes your argument.

Yep, where we are right back at the starting, or better said the OP, of this thread.

[Jor-el]

Let me put this in terms that we can all understand...

The question of an observer lies in the fact that what he intends to observe is what is given to him

The classic question, is a photon a wave or a particle?

The wave particle duality principle of quantum physics holds that matter and light exhibit the behaviors of both waves and particles, depending upon the circumstances of the experiment. It is a complex topic, but among the most intriguing in physics.

The best explanation is found in the example of the Double Slit Experiment.

Basically, it means that if you try to observe it as a wave, that is what you will get, if you try to observe it as a particle, that is also what you will get, this is called particle-wave duality. The observer will determine the outcome.

Now we extend the principle to God, if you look for him, you will find him, and you will determine that he exists, if what you are looking for is confirmation of his non-existence, that too is what you'll get.

[Jor-el]

Indeed

The first point seems reasonable enough, but the second doesn't follow from it and seems to be wishful thinking on your part. It allows for a tenuous existence of an objective/subjective God of the any flavour you choose to believe in. I am not buying that pony and I don't think you should either as it rather demotes his status.

If the Divine exists, then I think it deserves the status of been truly objective. My objection all along is the belief that someone can have an exclusive definition of what that means (as is implicit in monoathiestic faiths) when the very fact of the Divines objective existence specifically exludes the possibility of human comprehension. It boils down to an objection to the concept of a Big Guy in the sky, which faiths promote, with all the baggage that comes with that flawed thought form and which we project onto the Divines objective existence.

The Divine is truly beyond comprehension, and that fact deserves respect.

Br Cornelius

The only problem with your argument is that both points are well accepted within the scientific community... there is a link in the post with the vids, check it out...

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality

[+Sherapy]

Let me put this in terms that we can all understand...

The question of an observer lies in the fact that what he intends to observe is what is given to him

The classic question, is a photon a wave or a particle?

The wave particle duality principle of quantum physics holds that matter and light exhibit the behaviors of both waves and particles, depending upon the circumstances of the experiment. It is a complex topic, but among the most intriguing in physics.

The best explanation is found in the example of the Double Slit Experiment.

Basically, it means that if you try to observe it as a wave, that is what you will get, if you try to observe it as a particle, that is also what you will get, this is called particle-wave duality. The observer will determine the outcome.

Now we extend the principle to God, if you look for him, you will find him, and you will determine that he exists, if what you are looking for is confirmation of his non-existence, that too is what you'll get.

Jor el your argument is getting more and more flawed.

As Bro C said, for g-d to be sound/ valid it 'has' to be evidenced in objective reality.

At this juncture at best g-d is subjective; or simply put irrelevant.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Jor-el]

Jor el, you are getting confused like MW and not drawing a distinction between sub and obj reality. IMO

Jorel, let me ask you this , if you agree with what you posted, what does this say about your G-d?

Doesn't It put him/it/?/her into the delusion /illusion reality ?

No, it merely means, as Br. Cornelius just posted that he is far and beyond comprehension, except in the limited way our subjetive reality can handle him.

Since we cannot truly be objective in any concievable way because we are limited by our cognition, then we can only experience him within a limited context, that is available to our understanding.

As has been shown here, the arguments on what is really objective are actually worthless, since the very medium we observe is not actually reality as seen by God, the ultimate observer.

[Jor-el]

Jor el your argument is getting more and more flawed.

As Bro C said, for g-d to be sound/ valid it 'has' to be evidenced in objective reality.

At this juncture at best g-d is subjective; or simply put irrelevant.

Sheri... there is no "objective reality", even Br. C. has stated that... let me show you...

Here is another interesting link, just because of his thoughts on the issue, although he isn't an expert...

Do Your Beliefs Reflect Reality or Create It?

But Quantum mechanics, the most proven of modern scientific theories, tells us that your idea of reality devoid of the observer is impossible. We see, we interpret, but we never actually really exist outside of our complex processing mechanisms.

Saying that reality doesn't behave in that way is simply a statement that within our reality model we only see it in one particular way. Again our reality model is not objective reality - and can never be so.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 16, 2010 by Jor-el

[Mr Walker]

But Quantum mechanics, the most proven of modern scientific theories, tells us that your idea of reality devoid of the observer is impossible. We see, we interpret, but we never actually really exist outside of our complex processing mechanisms.

Saying that reality doesn't behave in that way is simply a statement that within our reality model we only see it in one particular way. Again our reality model is not objective reality - and can never be so.

Br Cornelius

ANd quantum mechanics gave some impetus to this philosophical pov. Yet quantum mechanics does not really say that our observation changes the nature of reality. The cat cannot be both alive and dead when observed, and something cannot be both wave and particle simultaneously.

These theories, like philosophy, are one way of attempting to explain what we observe. It does not actually mean that when i stop seeing something, it ceases to exist.

Again, that is a delusion of our way of thinking, and bears no relationship to reality. Much comes from following descartes faulty axiom that existence comes from our awareness of it. (so tha tall we can be sure of is that WE exist)

Actually our awareness of existence comes because we exist. ANd our existence is a consequence of (and thoroughtly integrated into) a very solid and objective universe.

[+Sherapy]

No, it merely means, as Br. Cornelius just posted that he is far and beyond comprehension, except in the limited way our subjetive reality can handle him.

Since we cannot truly be objective in any conceivable way because we are limited by our cognition, then we can only experience him within a limited context, that is available to our understanding.

As has been shown here, the arguments on what is really objective are actually worthless, since the very medium we observe is not actually reality as seen by God, the ultimate observer.

Jor el, the issue is not Bro C's understanding it is yours. You are limiting your understanding/comprehension to only the aspect of reality that supports your bias.

Your explanation of the material is not scientific at all, it's filtered through a religious bias.

No sale !!!!!

Edited September 16, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Jor-el]

Jor el, the issue is not Bro C's understanding it is yours. You are limiting your understanding/comprehension to only the aspect of reality that supports your bias.

Your explanation of the material is not scientific at all, it's filtered through a religious bias.

No sale !!!!!

If you say so Sheri... who am I to intrude on your subjective reality.

We all live by the paradigms of reality we have created for ourselves, yours is no better or no less worthy than mine, it is simply the one you are comfortable with and the one you accept.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Jor-el

[MARAB0D]

It shows that if it is not observable you don't know its state and/or existence. I would like to talk to anybody who ever observed God.

So, there goes your postulate.

Well, QM, on Marx we may differ, but on God... Talk to me! I am the one who observed God! I saw him with these my own eyes (almost as I see you!). He ("he" he was, and very-very "he", that's why he could not run away fast, the he-parts were too heavy!) met me near a church building. He had huge ears to hear, huge eyes to see, pink nose to smell the sins, grey hair all over his divine body, and a long pink tail. He was a size of just under the one of a lean squirrel, and his eyes were very-very clever, showing he was Omniscient, and knew upfront what would I do if get too close to him... So, he escaped me, finding me unworthy of the direct contact. I only remember his last message, before he disappeared in the skies (or rather under ground) - he said "curse on you all who worships Scroedinger's Cat or her Kittens till 7th generation!"... At this moment I realised he had blessed me - as I never saw any cat of Schroedinger's descent, and always thought this cat was an outright lie.

[Mr Walker]

ANd quantum mechanics gave some impetus to this philosophical pov. Yet quantum mechanics does not really say that our observation changes the nature of reality. The cat cannot be both alive and dead when observed, and something cannot be both wave and particle simultaneously.

These theories, like philosophy, are one way of attempting to explain what we observe. It does not actually mean that when i stop seeing something, it ceases to exist.

Again, that is a delusion of our way of thinking, and bears no relationship to reality. Much comes from following descartes faulty axiom that existence comes from our awareness of it. (so tha tall we can be sure of is that WE exist)

Actually our awareness of existence comes because we exist. ANd our existence is a consequence of (and thoroughtly integrated into) a very solid and objective universe.

I watched a very interesting doco the other night which expanded on this for me.

At the moment scientists have transmitted a photon over a distance of 600 metres, but they see no physical limit to the transmission distance possible.

Within a decade they will transmit a single physical molecule and then complex molecules. By the end of this century (and probably sooner given the exponential advance of science) theyt will be able to destroy /record and transmit things(perhaps even living things like humans )

The origial is destroyed, a " 'template" made and transmitted , then reformed somewhere else.

Congruent withthis technology is the invention of a personal "creator" which can make anything you want using a template and basic raw material s.

I missed a few minutes of the doco, as we had visitors, but basically both these inventions work on the premise that EVERYTHING thing can have a wave particle duality

Ie, while i am a particle being now, i can be transmitted in wave form and recreated as a new particle form. This is NOT science fiction. It is a work in progress around the world. The first steps have been taken, the scientific principles proven, and only the " engineering" really needs to be worked out.

I wonder what philosphers will make of the nature of existence/reality of a human who has been totally destroyed in the original form and recreated in identical form some distance away.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Mr Walker

[MARAB0D]

I watched a very interesting doco the other night which expanded on this for me.

At the moment scientists have transmitted a photon over a distance of 600 metres, but they see no physical limit to the transmission distance possible.

Within a decade they will transmit a single physical molecule and then complex molecules. By the end of this century (and probably sooner given the exponential advance of science) theyt will be able to destroy /record and transmit things(perhaps even living things like humans )

The origial is destroyed, a " 'template" made and transmitted , then reformed somewhere else.

Congruent withthis technology is the invention of a personal "creator" which can make anything you want using a template and basic raw material s.

I missed a few minutes of the doco, as we had visitors, but basically both these inventions work on the premise that EVERYTHING thing can have a wave particle duality

Ie, while i am a particle being now, i can be transmitted in wave form and recreated as a new particle form. This is NOT science fiction. It is a work in progress around the world. The first steps have been taken, the scientific principles proven, and only the " engineering" really needs to be worked out.

I wonder what philosphers will make of the nature of existence/reality of a human who has been totally destroyed in the original form and recreated in identical form some distance away.

MW, I bow to your scientific expertise! Could you please elaborate, what exactly is done in your subjective form of Objective Reality to "destroy the original"? How exactly do you destroy a photon (or any other form of matter)? Thank you!

[Mr Walker]

MW, I bow to your scientific expertise! Could you please elaborate, what exactly is done in your subjective form of Objective Reality to "destroy the original"? How exactly do you destroy a photon (or any other form of matter)? Thank you!

Not my area of expertise either.

I was distracted by visitors but the report was on an ABC (australia) science programme on Thursday night, hosted by a japanese /american scientist. It was part of a 3 part series looking at science in the present and ramifications for the future.

Starting with conected photons, scientists in switzerland? have transported photons up to 600 metres. The process involves the destruction, (they said it will cease to exist, but how that occurs i dont know)of the original photon and its reproduction at a distance.

The rest of my info is from that doco.

A photon is one thing, and the theory of linked photons has been known for some years, but they claim, and have the science to support their claims, that, within a decade they will transmit a single molecule using the same technology, and from then, there is no theoretical scientific limitation on what is possible.

Human transference is theoretically possible, but technically more complex. Interesting the original would be desrtroyed in the process and the new "simulcra" would appear at a remote distance.

This would redefine individual reality in an entirely new way. While you would be physically "identical",including memories etc, you would(from my understanding) be constructed of entirely new "material" using a template/pattern /recipe, deconstructed from your original, and transmitted in wave form.

The quoted site below may explain the underlying conceptual principles simply and succinctly (or not)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-Structure-Matter.htm

This is peripherally related http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100804133358.htmted.

heres a quote from another site

http://vulcanis.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/matter-transportation-and-the-implications-for-personal-identity/

Teleportation is no longer banished to the realm of science fiction. It is widely accepted that what was once considered a physical impossibility is now directly achievable through quantum manipulations of individual particles. While the methods involved are still in their infancy (single electrons are the heaviest particle to be teleported), we can at least begin to appreciate and think about the possibilities on the basis of plausibility. Specifically, what are the implications for personal identity if this method of transportation is possible on a human scale? Atomically destructing and reconstructing an individual at an alternate location could introduce problems with consciousness. Is this the same person or simply an identical twin with its own thoughts, feelings and desires? These are the questions I would like to discuss in this article.

Followed by this.

Quantum teleportation works by initially scanning the quantum state of a particle at A, with care taken not to cause too much disruption (measurement distorts the original, the harder you look the more uncertain the result). This partial scan is then transmitted at relativistic speeds to the receiver at B. A pair of entangled particles is then dispatched to both teleportation stations. Entangled particle 1 at A interacts with the remainder of A (minus the scanned out information sent to . Entanglement then assures that this information will be instantaneously available at B (via entangled particle 2). Utilising the principles of the EPR effect and Bell’s statistical correlations, it is then possible to reconstruct the state of the original particle A at the distant location, B. While the exact mechanism is beyond the technical capacity of philosophy, it is prudent to say that the process works by taking the entangled information from EP2 and combining it with the classically transmitted information that was scanned out of the original particle, A.

In particular this last has engaged my consciousness for nearly 60 years now.

Quantum teleportation on conscious beings also raises serious moral implications. Is it considered murder to deconstruct the individual at point A, or is this initial crime nullified once the reassembly is completed? Is it still considered immoral if someone else appears at the receiver due to error or quantum fluctuation? Others may argue that it is no different to conventional modes of transport; human error should be dealt as such (necessary condition for the label of crime/immorality) and naturally occurring disasters interpreted as nothing more than random events.

This last site speaks in more accesible language of boththe transmission and its possible philosophical ramifications.

http://technovate.org/web/articles/quantumthought.html

As with all modern science many things are interconnected. This research first grew out of the requirements for quantum computers of almos t instantaneous data transmission, but is beginning to far surpass that requirement.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

If you say so Sheri... who am I to intrude on your subjective reality.

We all live by the paradigms of reality we have created for ourselves, yours is no better or no less worthy than mine, it is simply the one you are comfortable with and the one you accept.

Jorel, I am trying to ask/establish: The difference between objective reality and subjective reality.?

Edited September 17, 2010 by Sherizzle

[+Sherapy]

MW, I bow to your scientific expertise! Could you please elaborate, what exactly is done in your subjective form of Objective Reality to "destroy the original"? How exactly do you destroy a photon (or any other form of matter)? Thank you!

This is really a great question.