ProgrammingGodJordan
-
Posts
158 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
-
-
33 minutes ago, Manticore said:
Hypothesis? (Disproof/falsification)
Model? Yes, See paper.
Predictions? Yes, See paper.
Experimental test? See predictions.
So, science? Yes.
I have corrected your quote above.
Are you like "Strange" that merely glanced the thread, and claim to have sufficient data to respond?
Spare an hour to observe the content, lest you proceed to comment emptily.
@Strange
Strange, do you know any actual science?
How can you present advice to me, and not recognize one of the great pillars of science?
Why didn't you observe that science constitutes redefinitions? (Objectivity, falsification)
0 -
6 minutes ago, Strange said:
Hypothesis? (Disproof/Falsification).
Model? Yes.
Predictions? Yes.
Experimental test? See predictions.
So, science? Yes.
I corrected your response.
Take some time to do little more than glance the content, before writing rash comments.
0 -
6 minutes ago, Strange said:
But just redefining something doesn't mean it is science. You haven't used the scientific method therefore it ain't science.
QuoteIt is exactly as if I sad ''I want the word ''box'' to also mean ''glass'' and here is my scientific argument as to why...''. Anything that follows after that is senseless as it has nothing to do with science and is not logical by default. You're doing the same thing. You have some twisted logic why you think the word ''god'' should be redefined, which no one ever agrees with; yet you're hell bent on using your definition. I really want to tell you why this is completely senseless and pointless but you seem to have some mental block which prevents you from understanding this
It is unavoidable that the scientific methodology had been used.
Why don't you spare a little more than a glance, whenever you have the time?
You glancing and quickly writing empty comments does not alter the fact that the scientific methodology had been employed, in the composition of this thread.
0 -
33 minutes ago, Strange said:
"Scientific redefinition" doesn't really mean anything.
You seem to have some sort of fixation or monomania. Are you able to discuss anything else?
QuoteI'm sorry, but it is. You're attempting to redefine a word. This concerns linguistics and not science in any way. Therefore, none of your arguments can be scientifically viable.
Science is such that constantly facilitates that its models are redefined.
This is one of the pillars of science; given new evidence, models are subject to change, redefinition, update or what ever synonym you prefer to employ.
QuoteYou are repeating your ''minimally capable gods'' nonsense just the same as were saying it before.
You can select whichever words you prefer. The thread clearly shows that the terms "minimally and highly capable Gods" are not fixed, novel terms, but instead words that simply describe the incidence of gradation observed in humans, wrt to universe yielding ability.
QuoteIntroducing symbols and silly Venn diagrams doesn't change the fact that you are just derailing a potentially interesting topic by insisting on using the word "god".
See the introduction in the original post.
That diagram isn't devoid of science.
0 -
14 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:
I glanced over it; but I didn't have to read anything as it's what you've talked about several times now. We've had this discussion of redefining the concept of god like a year ago and it was completely senseless
A glance is not sufficient.
QuoteI'm sorry, it's just so obvious that none of this makes sense and it is irrelevant in every way possible. I don't want to call you a delusional person, but you might want to rethink what logical argumentation is.
The updated thread consists of scientific details that were priorly left out.
It now likely satisfies Science Forums requirements.
QuoteI suggest learning science (say, classical physics) and seeing how logical, well tested and well designed those theories are. You will see how unfounded and lacking your ''theories'' are in comparison. How none of what you said is quantifiable, provable or even proven for logic. I give you this advice with good intentions.
It would be false to express that I am absent scientific knowledge of physics.
Here is a brief mathematical description of quantum computing, of mine: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318902160_A_delicious_mathematical_expression_describing_the_basis_of_quantum_computing
Once more, this updated thread constitutes some scientific rigour that had been left out, for I pondered whether the earlier thread would have gotten too large with the details. However, I have managed to condense sufficient details amidst this latest thread, unlike before.
0 -
25 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:
Will you quit with your rubbish? You were made aware that these kinds of threads are unwanted, can't you take the hint? You've opened several threads and all are about the same thing. You want to redefine a word for no reason whatsoever. None of what you say makes sense. There is nothing scientific in what you are saying. It's even too vague to be philosophical.
The mods don't appreciate it when you repeatedly open threads on a subject you have been told not to touch again. As I said before, your ban is imminent, trust me. I hope you will make the choice to study science and open sensible threads in the future, on the off chance that you don't get banned.
Did you bother to read the thread?
This thread also differs from prior threads (excluding the one of the same title).
FOOTNOTE:
What may be largely repeated, from thread to thread, is my expression of "the science is true whether or not one believes in it" sequence.
This is not surprising, because that expression is now a part of my scientific thinking.
Likewise, it is likely that you repeat little particular concepts/learnt behaviour from thread to thread.
Note that this updated thread constitutes some scientific rigour that had been left out, for I pondered whether the earlier thread would have gotten too large with the details. However, I have managed to condense sufficient details amidst this latest thread, unlike before.
0 -
NOTE: I had posted the same thread earlier, but absent content from particular pages from an amazon book (that I won't disclose here) of mine containing relevant scientific data.
UPDATED INTRODUCTION
That theism generally holds that ‘God’ exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought, (i.e. outside of science) is demonstrably invalid; contrary to said claim of billions of minds (i.e. theists), God is firstly, amidst archaic science, and subsequently, God is scientifically redefinable/approachable, using - a trivial disproof of said claims, on the regime of scientific inquiry.
Therein, the archaic God concept is not a non-trivial matter; there persists an unavoidable bafflement and neurological concern (especially amidst atheistic minds, such as mine); for empirically, billions of minds, of billions and billions of neurons, select faith in apparently nonsensical entities, such as said Gods.
As such, as science permits that archaic concepts are updatable (i.e. the nature of science – facilitating falsifiability etc… together with the passage of time, entailed that astrology was purged from astronomy); filtered through the rigour of science, on scientific inquiry, the archaic God concept is shown to be quite a different model, contrary to theistic belief.
GOD (AS SCIENTIFICALLY REDEFINED) IS COMPATIBLE WITH ATHEISM
When faced with the rigour of science, on scientific inquiry, the archaic God concept occurs quite contrary to very nature of theism, when the necessitation for faith/belief is purged:
Notably, one need not believe in science, as science is true regardless of belief.
Crucially, one may maintain an atheistic state (be an atheist), while observing the scientific god redefinition in this thread as valid.
This is because one need not belief to observe science, and so one need not believe in God (i.e one then may still lack belief in the scientific re-definition in this thread), as scientifically redefined, while still observing said redefinition as valid.
SCIENTIFIC NOTATION
symbols:
G: Major theistic god concepts
A: Science in antiquity
O: Concepts that are objectively falsifiable...
inquiry:
i. Major theistic God concepts are science in antiquity. (GaA)
ii. Concepts in science in antiquity are objectively falsifiable concepts (AaO)
iii. ∴ Concepts that are objectively falsifiable may be God concepts. (OaG)
(See attached figure)
A POSSIBLE SCIENTIFIC-REDEFINITION OF GOD
Given the scientific notation prior, typical scrutiny reveals:
(1) Omniscience, angels, heaven, etc is scientifically unfounded.
(2) That the universe is "made", let alone by some entity encompassing (1), is scientifically unfounded.
Consequently:
A close approximation persists relatively to the default God model; non-omniscient humans can encode sophisticated universes, that is, simulations of universes.
A possible scientific redefinition (i.e. an operational definition), that absorbs the scientific notation in the prior section faces:
Redefinition: God is any non-omniscient entity with the ability to compute simulation(s) of universes (from crude universes i.e. illustris, to perhaps instance(s) that may contain sophisticated intelligence) and or to engineer non-trivial intelligence (perhaps artificial), that shall probably exceed that of the intellect of its creators.
The redefinition sequence can be observed to yield tiers of creators including ‘minimally capable gods’ and ‘highly capable Gods’ of which humans largely already exist smally as highly capable Gods and largely as minimally capable Gods; for large numbers of humans possess human level general intelligence, and by extension, small numbers of humans are creating crude universes, by utilizing the aforesaid general level intelligence.
(Note: The terms "minimally and highly capable" Gods are not fixed, novel terms, but instead words that simply describe the incidence of gradation observed in humans, wrt to universe yielding ability.)
0 -
42 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:
Which is simply not true.
Note that humans are Gods as scientifically redefined; non omniscient entities with the ability to model universes (such as illustris) etc.
QuoteSo what?Do you understand that the example I gave of pointlessly redefining something is silly?
Science is a paradigm that constantly enables that its models are redefined.
Such is typical of science.
QuoteIf you wan to talk about the fact that people can model stuff- that's fine.
Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with Gods.
Archaic god concept is also observed as entities in archaic science, that had supposedly forged the cosmos.
That is the relation that is underlined in the redefinition.
36 minutes ago, Strange said:As far as I know, our universe is the only one that has been simulated.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim above? Recall: that our universe is simulated, is scientifically unfounded, and so the God redefinition does not approach that matter.
QuoteYou could discuss that without using the word god.
That has nothing to do with simulating universes. It is also completely unnecessary to use the word "god" in this context.
It is general intelligence that humans use to simulate universes.
General intelligence is a neurobiological phenomenon that occurs in humans.
However, degrees of general intelligence have already been empirically observed to arise in machines, such as Deepmind's Atari q player or Alpha go, etc.
General intelligence is thusly not limited to humans, and so it is included in the redefinition.
QuoteBut ONCE AGAIN you have failed to demonstrate any science:
- Hypothesis? No.
- Model? No.
- Testable predictions? No.
- Experimental tests? No.
Contrarily, given that you observed the paper, and topics such as scientific inquiry, you would likely come to observe that the God redefinition paper employs typical science.
To begin, take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry
0 -
4 minutes ago, Strange said:
It was a question, not an attack. I assume the hypothesis was based on empirical observation of your behaviour.
It is pretty obvious that your trivial definition of "simulation" as "god" does not follow the scientific method.
You could show this assumption to be wrong simply by stating the hypothesis, then showing us the model, the predictions it makes and the experiments performed to test those predictions. Also, then explaining what would falsify your idea.
As you refuse to do any of these things, it confirms the hypothesis that you are just making crap up.
No, the re-definition expresses that humans are Gods (that simulate universes such as illustris).
That our particular universe is simulated is scientifically unfounded, and the definition does not approach that matter.
The definition also underlines the probability that humans shall, given sufficient time, create cognitive machines that exceed humans in all cognitive tasks.
16 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:The concept of a God is potentially the subject of scientific study. It would be part of psychology.
You do not start a scientific enquiry into something by changing the meaning of the words used to name that thing.
Do you see why this statement doesn't make sense?
I plan to undertake a study into the science of hot air ballooning- and by "hot air ballooning", I mean coarse fishing.Both hot air ballooning, and coarse fishing are evidencable, unlike the archaic God concept.
1 -
6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:
No you didn't.
Which is why what you came out with was silly.To begin, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry
Your observation of link above may then engender that you come to observe that the scientific methodology had been utilized.
0 -
10 minutes ago, bimbo36 said:
Are you nuts ?
What in particular, inspires that ad hominem attack of yours above?
0 -
14 minutes ago, Strange said:
That is the same page. It shows you are bullshitting.
The url you quoted was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Process
This is the url I presented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
They are both the same page, but yours zeroes in on a particular section.
Anyway, the page above describes something called scientific inquiry.
Take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry
QuoteThen please state the hypothesis, then show us the model, the predictions it makes and the experiments performed to test those predictions.
Also, please explain what would falsify your idea.
As you have not done any (and can not do) of these things, it is not science.
Also, science is a lot more cautious in its approach than your arrogant posts. You will find phrases like "it appears that", "the evidence is consistent with", "more work is required" because real scientists know that their results are provisional and could be contradicted by further evidence.
I remind you to take a look at the scientific inquiry url I provided earlier.
Regardless of whatever phrases are used in the god redefinition paper, the paper entails largely empirically observed sequences, together with expressions of probability.
QuoteIt was a sarcastic caricature of your "science". It is exactly as scientific (and stupid) as your redefinition of the word "god".
To begin to observe how I had come to reconstitute the archaic God concept, see the scientific inquiry url priorly presented.
Of course, unlike my presentation of the archaic god re-definition, the 'caricature' you provided does not align with the scientific method.
-1 -
18 minutes ago, Strange said:
SF = science fiction.
Bizarrely, that link contradicts your claim. It says:
The overall process involves:
- making conjectures (hypotheses) -- Did you do this? No.
- deriving predictions from them as logical consequences -- Did you do this? No.
- then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct -- Did you do this? No.
See this url (posted/edited several minutes before your response above): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
To begin, you need observe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry
QuoteAll you have done is said: "Humans are attempting to simulate the universe, I will call this 'god'". That is not science. It is just applying a label to something that already exists.
The scientific method was utilized to update the archaic God concept, in modern science terms, as is typical of science.
QuoteAlso, note that current attempts to simulate the universe look only at the large scale structure (galaxies and above). Not very god-like at all.
The redefinition is not constrained to archaic descriptions, and so omniscience, etc is purged.
QuoteHere is my "theory": Humans are attempting to simulate an entire organism; I will call this "satan". There you are, the devil no longer exists. Science proves it!
How is your quote above relevant to the OP?
Remember to see source 1, and source 2, to begin.
-1 -
24 minutes ago, Strange said:
Science is not silly. The stuff you write is very, very silly. You write like a 14 year old. Actually, with all the colours, more like a 9 year old.
Data shows that the scientific method is not silly, and that is merely what I had employed in order to reconstitute the archaic God concept.
0 -
Just now, Strange said:
You are not going to replace the normal definition of god (or get rid of religion) just by inventing a new and very silly definition for the word.
Science may be silly to you, but science is greatly important.
0 -
52 minutes ago, Manticore said:
There is a big difference between science and meaningless gibberish.
What lacks meaning to you in this particular scenario?
Does the fact that humans simulate our cosmos (i.e. illustris) lack meaning to you?
Does the fact that God persisted in archaic science lack meaning to you? (Hint?: Even if you're atheistic, God concept still has meaning in archaic science)
Does the fact that science facilitates updating of its models, (such that myths are purged etc) lack meaning to you?
FOOTNOTE:
What do you mean by meaning? For example, it is valid to express that life has scientific meaning (See wikipedia source). (where said meaning constitutes scientific descriptions on the origin of life, ultimate fate of the universe - heat death, etc)
Why did I ask you about about meaning? Prior conversations with others, have revealed that they possess some pre-conceived notions of "meaning" that may block them from immediately clearly observing facts, like the wikipedia source underlined in the sentence above.
-1 -
1 minute ago, Manticore said:
Because we don't have a toilet?
Why do you garner that scientific expressions should be toileted?
Don't you observe science's great importance?
0 -
24 minutes ago, Strange said:
You can make up any new definition you like for a word. That doesn't cancel out the existing definitions.
You could discuss the potentially interesting subject of simulating universes without the pointless hyperbole.
Recall that God is yet another concept in archaic science.
Like other archaic models that were updated, such that myths were removed (i,e, astronomy) God concept is yet another component that may be subject to scientific change (such that myths are also removed)
So, no hyperbole is necessary.
0 -
DELICIOUS FOOD FOR SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT:
Particularly, just as astronomy was redefined such that mythical components were purged, the archaic God concept (a part of science in antiquity) is yet another component in archaic science, that is subject to updating; it is valid to establish that the archaic concept of God, like other archaic models in science, can be subject to scientific change, such that myths are removed:
Redefinition: God is any non-omniscient entity with the ability to compute simulation(s) of universes (from crude universes i.e. illustris, to perhaps instance(s) that may contain sophisticated intelligence) and or to engineer non-trivial intelligence (perhaps artificial), that shall probably exceed that of the intellect of its creators.
ONE MAY BE STILL ATHEISTIC, WHILE OBSERVING THE GOD REDEFINITION ABOVE AS VALID:
Notably, one need not believe in science, as science is true regardless of belief.
Crucially, one need not believe in God as scientifically redefined, and so one may still lack belief in God as redefined scientifically, while observing such a redefinition as valid.
FOOTNOTE:
So, humans are Gods, however not the omniscient, omnipotent mythical things typically found in religion.
Highly capable gods are those humans that simulate detailed universes (i.e. illustris) while any other human with general intelligence (i.e. not brain damaged, that possess the ability to create smarter instances of themselves, through task learning, are minimally capable Gods... that is, most humans are minimally capable Gods).
So, humans are Gods creating more powerful Gods, that too, shall likely create more powerful Gods, that too shall likely create more powerful Gods...
0 -
8 minutes ago, Area54 said:
Not at all. The scientific investigation of religion is a distinct susbset of scientific investigation and so is arguably entitled to its own section. Personally, I would place such discussions in Biology, or introduce a Social Sciences section
Yes, the above is appropriate.
As I mentioned before your above response, studies into religious behaviour falls under science, so a section for that would be okay, while a section that permits science opposing religious blather, would not be (is not) suitable.
QuoteYou seem hell bent on objecting to the very existence of the section that you are blind to rational proposals. That looks awfully like something prompted by a belief.
Anyway, I've answered your question. I suggest you wait till a mod or admin gives you the "real" reason there is a Religious sub-forum and then you can argue the case with them. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
Not blind, but rather, I had pointed out that some of your earlier proposals were irrelevant/inapt, as they did not validate why these forums would need permit religious blather.
0 -
12 minutes ago, Area54 said:
Scientific investigation of geology (for example, a study of the chemical changes in a rock undergoing metasomatism) would still fall appropriately under chemistry. And yet we have a section on Earth Science.
An irrelevant point, as unlike nonsensical religious talk, both of the scientific things you mention, not surprisingly, already fall under science.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Area54 said:
My second, third and fourth list items have nothing to do with "the religious unravelling their worries". It appears that you believe they do.
I need not faith.
Scientific investigation of religion (for example, a study into the neurological behaviours of the religious) would still fall appropriately under science).
Science does not require religion. (So your other points are irrelevant)
0 -
10 minutes ago, Area54 said:
Thank you for your links. You will be aware that I could post similar ones on the relationship between belief and
cherry pickingof research.Why is there a religious section on these Forums?
I don't know. I don't work here.
I suspect it may be for one of several reasons.
- Somewhere to isolate the religious fundamentalists
- Somewhere to discuss the conflicts between science and religion
- Somewhere to discuss the common ground between science and religion
- Somewhere to discuss the scientific investigation of religion
- Somewhere to discuss religion because a lot of members seem to want to
There are probably more
I haven't consumed cherries in quite some time... I do consume oranges, mangoes etc though.
Anyway, there are several non-science websites where the religious can unravel their worries.
0 -
6 minutes ago, Area54 said:
Your rejection of belief seems
to be based upon a belief.There was no need, because scientific evidence exists;
(1) Belief tends to facilitate that beings ignore evidence, on the boundary of confirmation bias:
(2) ‘Belief memories’ are typically false:
Anyway, why do you garner there is a religious section on ScienceForums.net?
0
Humans are Gods creating more powerful Gods, that too, shall likely create more powerful Gods, that too shall likely create more powerful Gods... (updated)
in Trash Can
Posted · Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan
The paper is a:
(1) Falsification of theologian claim, on the horizon of a model in archaic science.
(2) Presentation of results on standard scientific inquiry/notation, where a theologian claim regarding archaic God concept is falsified, while a separate operational definition is presented, given the constraints of the inquiry.
..all under those headings.