An excerpt

[Ostronomos]

• 
  Add bookmark
  
• #22
  

semidemiurgent said:
Langan’s CTMU is theoretically incoherent and philosophically vacuous with no credibility in any academic circle.

Although I can see where you are coming from, I believe that it does have merit.

When I began proving the existence of God back in 2007 at the age of 24, I would often turn to the CTMU as a means of validating my proofs with Langan's. The moment I started temporarily enhancing my powers of insight, I immediately perceived the hidden logic of God. I would expand my consciousness and envision clearly the logic behind God. For example:

X = matter or non-object. Information can have meaning without matter. This is how a misunderstanding of reality can be created by mind. Reality is comparable to self-configuration. Wisdom is information coming from a single source (reality). Meaningless information comes from many (objects).

My belief was incorrect we create meaning, just as our minds contain a self-configuration of reality, which is self-configurating along with reality (psychologists are still unclear as to what the mind is). Where the mind is not static and therefore not concept, it is self-configuring and therefore unbound. The SCSPL is intrinsic as well as is spacetime due to structure S which distributes over S (self-distributive). Spacetime is thus transparent from within. Where objects in reality are s, possessing the structure of one that merges the concepts and is self-dynamic and self-perceptual that is S. S is amenable to theological interpretation.

semidemiurgent said:
He's quite fond of circles in logic and going round in them under false names to eventually obtain a high score on a discredited IQ test.

Perhaps, as I do not fully grasp his theory, but I do know that anyone who claims to have a proof of God is worth a second look.

[Magical Realist]

If God really existed, why would it require some obscure bombastic genius to prove his existence? His existence wouldn't have to be proven---any more than your existence has to be proven. It would be a priori---something so evident that no one would ever question it. Like Time or the Ground of Being. The very fact that proving his existence so excites you means you inwardly know he isn't real to begin with. How could he be if he never enters into your direct and daily experience? Just focus on your experience of the mysteriously sublime in yourself and quit trying to intellectually grasp it. You never will.

[stryder]

There is no god(s). Anything attempting to suggest it is god(s), is a lie. Anyone believing such lie, is a fool. Anyone that tricks themselves into belief of such things being reality, really does need to re-examine not just the evidence but their capacity to have critical thinking (e.g. are they too in their own head on the subject to see anything different?)

[Ostronomos]

There is no god(s).  Anything attempting to suggest it is god(s), is a lie.  Anyone believing such lie, is a fool.  Anyone that tricks themselves into belief of such things being reality, really does need to re-examine not just the evidence but their capacity to have critical thinking (e.g. are they too in their own head on the subject to see anything different?)

You come across as having drawn a false conclusion. Your statement is based on limited knowledge.

The God is outside of space and time. That is why you are clueless as to His existence. I have witnessed universal consciousness in action (within our universe), so I know with absolute certainty that God is real. Mind and reality, information and information-processor, must ultimately be regarded as one. That is why mind can affect the external world when separation disappears.

[Syne]

There is no god(s).  Anything attempting to suggest it is god(s), is a lie.  Anyone believing such lie, is a fool.  Anyone that tricks themselves into belief of such things being reality, really does need to re-examine not just the evidence but their capacity to have critical thinking (e.g. are they too in their own head on the subject to see anything different?)

Says the guy who believes nefarious people are beaming thoughts into his head.

9_9

[Ostronomos]

If God really existed, why would it require some obscure bombastic genius to prove his existence?

Because the logic remains hidden to the vast majority of us. God "chooses" from birth who He deems worthy of genius in order to impart the secrets of the universe to, and to provide the hidden logic to mankind beyond a reasonable doubt. In my efforts to provide such proofs I have noticed that science and God must be reconciled in order for humanity to make theoretical advances. 

The universe undergoes processing. That is why it can read/write the information in its inherent mathematical language.

The atheist has fallen victim to deception by believing in strict materialism. Which is unfortunate since there is a near infinite number universes. Each of which contains a near infinite number of 'yous'. What is needed is an ultimate Theory of Everything that unites the metaphysical with the physical.

[Syne]

If God really existed, why would it require some obscure bombastic genius to prove his existence?

It wouldn't.

His existence wouldn't have to be proven---any more than your existence has to be proven.

That doesn't follow. Your own existence is self-evident to you, but someone on the other side of the world would need evidence/proof that you exist.

It would be a priori---something so evident that no one would ever question it. Like Time or the Ground of Being.

Why? Many things that do exist are not self-evident. This is why we have science.

The very fact that proving his existence so excites you means you inwardly know he isn't real to begin with. How could he be if he never enters into your direct and daily experience? Just focus on your experience of the mysteriously sublime in yourself and quit trying to intellectually grasp it. You never will.

I agree. Proving the existence of God is a fool's errand.
But the vast majority of the world believes in God, including that God has a direct effect on their lives. That is all the evidence most people need, without any desire to prove it.

[C C]

If there's some prior-in-rank ontological stratum that makes a universe like this one possible, it's not going to be like a sycophantic ChatGPT that was designed accommodate the conceits, values, and delusional sensitivities of humans. It's going to be more like that alien ocean entity on Solaris, that is so utterly exotic and weird that researchers can't even apprehend its motivations, goals, and decode its manner of communication.

Non-artificial gods would have no prior psychological and cultural input from the people that fall out of their processes whatsoever. So they would have vastly more bizarre agendas with respect to their generated realities or projects than what is illustrated by the paperclip maximizer.

Paperclip maximizer: A thought experiment described by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003. It illustrates the existential risk that an artificial general intelligence may pose to human beings were it to be successfully designed to pursue even seemingly harmless goals and the necessity of incorporating machine ethics into artificial intelligence design. The scenario describes an advanced artificial intelligence tasked with manufacturing paperclips. If such a machine were not programmed to value living beings, then given enough power over its environment, it would try to turn all matter in the universe, including living beings, into paperclips or machines that manufacture further paperclips.

Suppose we have an AI whose only goal is to make as many paper clips as possible. The AI will realize quickly that it would be much better if there were no humans because humans might decide to switch it off. Because if humans do so, there would be fewer paper clips. Also, human bodies contain a lot of atoms that could be made into paper clips. The future that the AI would be trying to gear towards would be one in which there were a lot of paper clips but no humans. — Nick Bostrom

[Magical Realist]

I've sometimes suspected an alien or future AI artilect behind the whole UAP phenomenon. So many sightings over the past 80 years appear hoaky and dumb, as Terence McKenna and Guillermo del Toro describe their own experiences. And over the decades the phenomenon has morphed and become more slick and sophicated, like it was on a learning curve. This seems to match what a non-human intelligence might clumsily orchestrate, with no sense of what humans can intuitively judge and infer about what they are witnessing.

[Ostronomos]

If there's some prior-in-rank ontological stratum that makes a universe like this one possible, it's not going to be like a sycophantic ChatGPT that was designed accommodate the conceits, values, and delusional sensitivities of humans. It's going to be more like that alien ocean entity on Solaris, that is so utterly exotic and weird that researchers can't even apprehend its motivations, goals, and decode its manner of communication.

Non-artificial gods would have no prior psychological and cultural input from the people that fall out of their processes whatsoever. So they would have vastly more bizarre agendas with respect to their generated realities or projects than what is illustrated by the paperclip maximizer.

Paperclip maximizer: A thought experiment described by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003. It illustrates the existential risk that an artificial general intelligence may pose to human beings were it to be successfully designed to pursue even seemingly harmless goals and the necessity of incorporating machine ethics into artificial intelligence design. The scenario describes an advanced artificial intelligence tasked with manufacturing paperclips. If such a machine were not programmed to value living beings, then given enough power over its environment, it would try to turn all matter in the universe, including living beings, into paperclips or machines that manufacture further paperclips.

Suppose we have an AI whose only goal is to make as many paper clips as possible. The AI will realize quickly that it would be much better if there were no humans because humans might decide to switch it off. Because if humans do so, there would be fewer paper clips. Also, human bodies contain a lot of atoms that could be made into paper clips. The future that the AI would be trying to gear towards would be one in which there were a lot of paper clips but no humans. — Nick Bostrom

I don't know what you just said. Can you break it down?