Live data from Hacker News

Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

prospectmagazine.co.uk

41–50 of 376 posts

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#41
post #26

I've been thinking a lot of god and have come up with the following, please be kind: --- The Right Way, The Trivium, The Path Towards Illumination. TRUTH - The all knowing all seeing omnipotent natural universe which we have a special connection and natural understanding of. Nature. God. The Universe. In binary this would be 1. The Unified Field. Father. FREEDOM - Sun. The Child Spirit To Play and Create. Son. LOVE -…

> The only time Fear is more powerful than Love

I think I get what you're saying but above sentence is not correct. Evolution favored fear over love on short term gains and fear very much assisted survival skills for billions of years and love is only new (a few million years?). Not saying that love doesn't have a chance against fear but it is true that negativity (hate, fear, etc) spreads faster than positivity (love, hope, etc). No idea what the solution might be to this fundamental feature(bug?) of our existence.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#42

Every moment of our existence brings about a certain amount of suffering, and a certain amount of joy. Depending on our choices and intentions, the amounts of joy and suffering for both us and other viewpoints varies. I believe that Universe is continuously solving for the maximum sum amount of joy from all the viewpoints combined. Of course, a certain amount of suffering is required to bring about the joy, whether b…

I'm wondering whether there is a metaphysical law of conservation of valence - where positive qualia have to be balanced by negative ones in some way > When I set my intentions for maximum joy and follow through on them, the Universe "likes" and "assists" this in amazing and miraculous ways, which bring about even more joy, and so on. > I believe that Universe is continuously solving for the maximum sum amount of joy…

I once sketched a story in which God is frantically working to reorder the possible configurations of the universe, so that no consciousness experiences too much torture or terror in a single timeline. And (maybe) He needs the Crucifixion as some kind of torture-sink to make it feasible.

I never actually wrote it because I couldn’t get it past my bar for logical coherence. I’d be so prolific if I had a practical writer’s tolerance for plot holes.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#43
post #37
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who created god That is why whatever that "thing" is, that's full-stop. That's why we refer to it as god. It requires no explanation, it must be. It's sort of like asking "why do we have something instead of nothing?". Because apparently that's the way it must be. That sounds crazy to scientifically-minded people, myself included, because we want answers to everything. But the turtles will go all the way down until…

>Because apparently that's the way it must be. Bullshit, please. Prove it or GFTO with that nonsense. Science is found on evidence, not on "what if...s" . If you told me that an ARM Cortex A9 is faster than a current i7, and then you put the excuse of "God made it" argument over the table you would look like a lunatic. With the Universe origins is the same. Replace "God" with "Santa" and the argument gets equally rid…

Had a little too much of human religion? Me too.

I went through this same phase, at one point I declared myself an atheist, mostly because it was an easy way to give the middle finger to my Catholic childhood indoctrination.

But then I decided to dig a little deeper, and there is more to it than thinking "god" is the same as "the Easter bunny".

Good luck trying to figure out why something exists and not nothing (and we're not talking about quantum particles popping into existence in a vacuum, those are "things" ... that's not nothing).

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it Hell of a leap. I subscribe to the notion the consciousness is a illusion via chemical whatever and the universe doesn't give a damn anyway.

What does it mean for consciousness to be an illusion?

We as a species may lack the mental faculties to truly understand the mechanisms by which life evolved the ability to analyze and reason about its surroundings and itself.

We lack the scientific tools to properly differentiate or falsify "consciousness" from any other sufficiently complex phenomenon. We can't tell whether it's an emergent phenomenon arising out of a particular arrangement of energy and matter, or whether it requires some input that we cannot currently observe/measure, or something else entirely. We don't know whether we can create consciousness from its constituent parts, or if it even has constituent parts. We don't know if there's a finite supply of it in the universe, we don't know if it's a dimensional thing, we don't know how it interacts with other forces.

We do know that it appears as though we have much more agency than a rock, yes, but it's a matter of degree how much more when we compare ourselves to other lifeforms, primates, dolphins, elephants, ravens... or other people. We don't know if certain members of our species are "more" or "less" conscious. We don't fully know what happens to consciousness during comas or brain death or dream states or sleep.

It's just an ambiguous term that we apply to the "state of human information processing that we can't really explain". Substitute "ambiguous" for "illusion" if you prefer, but it could also very well be an illusion the same way centrifugal force is a pseudo-force, i.e. the measurement of consciousness depends on some reference frame that we don't know how to use yet.

It's entirely possible that consciousness is NOT an illusion, that it is indeed a special "thing" in the universe, but we can't prove that with the science, language, philosophy, and possibly mental capacity that we currently have. Maybe one day we will. Maybe not. But it's premature to assume we understand anything about consciousness in the philosophical sense.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#45
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe in any particular god but I do think that the universe and our experience is ultimately unexplainable. So science can never have these answers therefore I am open to theistic arguments but ultimately even these arguments are unsatisfying because it just moves the level of unexplainability up one more level... who created god?

> who created god That is why whatever that "thing" is, that's full-stop. That's why we refer to it as god. It requires no explanation, it must be. It's sort of like asking "why do we have something instead of nothing?". Because apparently that's the way it must be. That sounds crazy to scientifically-minded people, myself included, because we want answers to everything. But the turtles will go all the way down until…

Who created God? Good question. I did some digging and found this article, that reasons using references from a Christian point of view:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20140801/who-made-...

Is is clear in the Bible that God does not exist in physical form. In the heavens, according to the Bible, he does not even exist in the same form as angels. At one time, Jesus was described in his human form, as "a little lesser than angels". Just a little? I guess it doesn't make sense for Angels to be in God's same plane of existence, then.

I think that 'time' is a part of this universe and that God is an observer that exists outside of it all. This makes sense, because of his ability to accurately tell the future in specific detail. But in the Bible, we see that Angels are restricted and bound by time. God is not. Probably God created time. Therefore to ask 'Who made God?' in his plane of existence, would require us to understand what existence is like without time.

How do you feel about this?

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#46
post #26

I've been thinking a lot of god and have come up with the following, please be kind: --- The Right Way, The Trivium, The Path Towards Illumination. TRUTH - The all knowing all seeing omnipotent natural universe which we have a special connection and natural understanding of. Nature. God. The Universe. In binary this would be 1. The Unified Field. Father. FREEDOM - Sun. The Child Spirit To Play and Create. Son. LOVE -…

> The only time Fear is more powerful than Love I think I get what you're saying but above sentence is not correct. Evolution favored fear over love on short term gains and fear very much assisted survival skills for billions of years and love is only new (a few million years?). Not saying that love doesn't have a chance against fear but it is true that negativity (hate, fear, etc) spreads faster than positivity (lov…

Your body wouldn't function without the loving cooperative cells, all parts, all working to make you, a perfect for this current space time human! Same is true about society, we will rebuild and pivot into a stronger more distributed form, if we follow Truth, Love, And Freedom in our mandates.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#47
post #9

>For one thing, it manages to create a profound metaphysical intimacy with God without denying His transcendence. this kind of thinking which I often see when people express pantheistic views is exactly what turns me away from it. It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. I guess you can think that the universe is in some vague sense conscious, although I d…

[deleted]

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it Hell of a leap. I subscribe to the notion the consciousness is a illusion via chemical whatever and the universe doesn't give a damn anyway.

How could you possibly deny the existence of your subjective experience? This is just utterly incomprehensible to me.

Eg. by the power of the Boltzmann Brain argument.

In short, if Universe will exist forever (no matter its heat death, the Boltzmann Brain also works under those conditions), then all configurations of matter (locally) will appear over its "lifetime" infinitely many times.

Consequently, you with your subjective experience and memories could have been created a picosecond ago by "random" motions of matter, without the need for them (ie activities leading to memories) to occur, and without thoughts being previously processed.

As strange, as it sounds, the argument is actually solid, though hard to grasp in the first moment for those who haven't encountered it yet :).

PS: This also means that 'cogito ergo sum' is too strong of a statement. Just saying "something exists" (as in, "why there's something rather than nothing") seems sufficient.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#49
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a tiny part of your brain called the Ego that thinks it is human and special. The rest of your brain knows you are just part of the universe. Inextricably so, from before birth to after death. One and the same, like a drop of water returning to the ocean. What could be more intimate than that?

To follow this line of thinking, are you suggesting I can have an intimate relationship with a rock? If you're not speaking to the point about intimacy, what point are you speaking to, because your post isn't very clear what point, if any, you were trying to make.

Why the fuck not, people have intimate relationships with human sized dolls

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it Hell of a leap. I subscribe to the notion the consciousness is a illusion via chemical whatever and the universe doesn't give a damn anyway.

How could you possibly deny the existence of your subjective experience? This is just utterly incomprehensible to me.

It's not a denial of the existence of subjective experience. It's a denial that it "means anything" or has any influence on events.
Post reply on HN