Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

prospectmagazine.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 376 posts

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

#51

Post by keithnz »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #3

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…

Universe solving for the maximum sum amount of joy?

Universe is setup such that many things will form, then ultimately be annihilated.

suffering is such that it can instantly end joy. Joy has to do a lot of work to end suffering.

Entropy generally brings about suffering, joy requires a lot of energy to create situations that relieve / protect from suffering temporarily. So the universe seems more optimized for suffering. The universe itself is indifferent.

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

#52

Post by [deleted] »

burkaman wrote: post #22
mynameisash wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it This seems like quite a leap. Parts of the earth are conscious, so is the earth conscious? Parts of the universe are alive, so is the universe alive? Every member of my family is conscious*, but I wouldn't say that "my family" is conscious. *Solipsism notwithstanding

I've never heard this before but I think it's reasonable. Imagine if you were simulating the universe in a computer and a creature within your simulation achieved consciousness. I think it would be fair to say your simulation had achieved consciousness, even if 99.999...% of the processing power was spent simulating the rest of the universe "unrelated" to the conscious part.

[deleted]

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

#53

Post by badinfo »

EMM_386 wrote: post #17
seiferteric wrote: post #6

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…

> It requires no explanation, it must be. It's sort of like asking "why do we have something instead of nothing?".

You can substitute "universe" for "god" and still get the same level of meaning (or lack thereof). Why do we have a universe instead of no universe?

Sometimes the more accurate, if less precise, answer is simply "I don't know" rather than "therefore it must've always been and always will be".

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

#54

Post by darkerside »

toolz wrote: post #30
darkerside wrote: post #18

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.

Yes. Only one small part of your brain finds that idea ridiculous.

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

#55

Post by toolz »

darkerside wrote: post #54
toolz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. Only one small part of your brain finds that idea ridiculous.

Do you have intimate relationships with rocks? and if so can you describe what that relationship is like? Does your conscious self acknowledge this relationship or are you just speaking in some metaphysical sense that is completely intangible?

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

#56

Post by oogabooga123 »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #35
ImprobableTruth wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because, thinking the existing of subjective experience that is any way special is just societal programming that claims that humans are special and important in the universe. If you step away from the bias, there is no reason to think our consciousness is anything special. Who cares about subjective experience, it all disappears into the void when those chemical reactions stop.

All he’s saying is that as a subset of the universe, whatever words you want to apply to describe your subjective experience, apply equally to the universe, since you are part of the universe. Not sure what “special” has to do with it

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

#57

Post by badinfo »

anthk wrote: post #32

I'm tired of these anti-scientific threads pushing superstituous nonsense as science.

Spinoza's God is interesting not because it's a competitor to the Christian God or Thor or whatever, but because it's a rarely-explored aspect of Einstein's belief system (and confusion) about the origins of, well, everything.

Questions of religion vs science plague proper scientists too, Einstein among them, and nobody really has a clear answer about how to proceed. It's the sort of inquiry that is itself perhaps a precursor to eventual discoveries -- what is now "What happened before the Big Bang? Did someone create it?" may one day, if we're lucky, be answered by something like "It depends. Which big bang are you talking about?" But there's no harm in asking the questions... just jumping to conclusions.

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

#58

Post by lhorie »

EMM_386 wrote: post #4

I am extremely scientific and I believe in god. Not quite Spinoza's, more of a pantheistic view. If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it. And it's learning about itself.

> the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it

Getting some GEB vibes here (Is the anthill conscious?) but I do think that characterization is a bit off.

I tend to think of it from a different angle, considering philosophies about identity; namely, the laws of physics that make the universe tick outside of us are the same laws of physics that govern how we behave individually. There's undoubtedly some fuzzy boundary between what we consider "me" vs "not me", so it's not necessarily wrong to say that consciousness is a product of the universal laws and governed by them, while also simultaneously being something that isn't an inherent property of the entire universe.

In other words, it seems weird to say the universe is conscious (similar to how it might seem like a stretch of imagination to be talking to an anthill), but it seems perfectly reasonable to say that the mechanisms that make universe what it is give rise to consciousness, individuality and relative perspectives, despite all of these things being governed by fundamentally absolute laws.

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

#59

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

I'll try to state the thought more simply.

"God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to be.

It's pretty neutral and sensible to call "everything" the creator, as Spinoza apparently did, cuz "nothing" sure didn't make the universe. And as a matter of definition, that would be God. What's so fascinating is where this thought exercise may lead. We are talking about everything, acting by law unknown, generating an impossible, unexplainable result. What then don't we know of everything and what possibilities does that raise, relative to its consciousness and intelligence on unimaginable scales of time and of space. I mean, are we gnats on God's ... I'd say eyeball but everything clearly is not human so ... presence?

I'm not sure how a serious person who considered the question openly could avoid these conclusions.

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

#60

Post by murat124 »

foxhop wrote: post #46
murat124 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That would be a great EPIC: Follow Truth, Love, And Freedom, if only we had a consensus of what they mean.
Post reply on HN