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

331–340 of 376 posts

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

#331

Post by DennisP »

3pt14159 wrote: post #276
kmmlng wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, this line of thought seems compatible with the description of God in the bible to me. If you put aside all your preconceived notions of some dude in the sky and simply read the bible for what it is, you'll find things like "I am what I am", "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end", etc. The Cristian God is called the Father. And what is a father but a source? The first link in a causal…

I generally don't like discussing religion on HN, so apologies if I decline to respond to a reply, but the description of God in the Bible doesn't really fit with Spinoza's God for the mere fact that evil is wholly set apart. It exists within demons and humans but it does not exist within God. The logic of an entity with infinite attributes being God is true, but just as the natural numbers are infinite but do not co…

> A man cannot turn 20 years old and 120 years old at the same time

Interesting example, because he could get in a spaceship at age 19, travel out and back at very high speeds, and arrive back at Earth 101 years later having aged just one year. He turned 20 and 120 at the same time.

I realize I've turned myself into a prime example of the pedantry you mentioned, but what I mean to say is that strict logic can be misleading if we don't have the whole picture, which we probably don't.

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

#332

Post by tapas73 »

beebmam wrote: post #183
nassimsoftware wrote: post #176

In math there is the concept of having a first element of a series and no one questions what was the element before the first element because if you can find an element before the first element then by definition that element you thought was first is not the first. In light of this when people try to disprove God by saying then who created God. God is the first element so if you find out that who you think your God i…

What if there isn't? Isn't just the belief in a God going to affect the way you think and act? We know for a fact that particles can come into existence spontaneously from a vacuum; it is happening literally all the time.

are you referencing to virtual particles? If so, are those real or just mathematical device used for quantum calculations?

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

#333

Post by tapas73 »

slothtrop wrote: post #303
titzer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it. And it's learning about itself. Yes, thank you for stating what some might consider a tautology or frivolous fact, but is actually, utterly profound. Generally, people have no trouble believing that they, themselves are conscious. But what part of them is conscious? All of it? Their toes and fingers? Clearly not...they are mechanical, I/O device…

The lit I've come across on the subject of consciousness broadly likens it to something illusory (much like identity), not a thing in itself. I don't imagine a machine is capable of experiencing what could be described as being "thrown into the world". The high self-awareness bringing up the question, "why am I in this body, rather than some place else? How is this special unique experience of now-ness selected for w…

regading conciousness being an illusion. Does it not imply a spectator? (illusion has to trick somebody)

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

#334

Post by simondotau »

bytelines wrote: post #204
simondotau wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am 110% in support of those community principles when it comes to criticism of people. We must always assume mutual respect, practice kindness and argue in good faith. It's never not the right thing to do, whether you're motivated by persuasion or simple humanity. But can we at least recognise that there's an enormous distinction between criticism of people and criticism of ideas? In my estimation, when someone is…

Ideas shouldn't be beyond criticism, sure. But if you can't criticize an idea without being unkind, resorting to name calling, and misrepresenting someones view -- at best you aren't haven't a dialog, at worst you don't have any valid criticism to contribute.

How do you suppose that being unkind to an idea is not “dialog” and not “valid”? You are casting ethical judgements upon rhetorical devices. That is nonsense.

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

#335

Post by simondotau »

tomrod wrote: post #282
achillesheels wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An unfalsifiable one at that. Unless it is possible to perceive a world independent of light?

Close your eyes. Touch the ground. You have now perceived a world independent of light.

False. The memory of light aided your perception.

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

#336

Post by simondotau »

EMM_386 wrote: post #43
anthk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Good luck trying to figure out why something exists and not nothing

I don’t see how assigning a (culturally loaded) label to an unprovable hypotheses could possibly be useful for figuring out anything objectively true.

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

#337

Post by simondotau »

badinfo wrote: post #310
Bobylonian wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> Questions of religion vs science plague proper scientists too, Einstein among them This is something you are making up, because in his own words Einstein clealry states opposite of your claim: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far a…

You can't just take one quote out of context and use it to paint Einstein as altogether disinterested in religion -- he wasn't. To him, there was a difference between believing in Your Own Personal Jesus™, or some variation of Abraham's fickle, meddling god (as in Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism, Islam), vs contemplating religion as a social/moral force and a line of philosophical inquiry about the origins of stru…

You wrote a lot of words to argue an unrelated point. Whether someone is interested in religion is not the same as whether they find truth in religion.

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

#338

Post by anthk »

throw3434053 wrote: post #295
anthk wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fallace of authority.

It just means it's time to outgrow your reddit atheist phase, no great scientist has adhered to your surface level beliefs on god

"reddit atheism phase".

I am European. You are like 250 years late.

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

#339

Post by robbiep »

seigando wrote: post #309
robbiep wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn’t an answer to the question and doesn’t in anyway nullify the broader concept of nature as indifferent - animals are merely part of nature and my experience from truly being in raw primal nature is that, of course things react to you, as you are also in nature, but in those circumstances the forces of survival outweigh any anthropomorphism that humans would normally attribute to the interactions we more norm…

My point is that when you pair a certain perception with a certain experience, it's possible for things to seem one way or the other. Some people are very stuck in their perceptions.

That’s not the point you’re making, in fact you’ve really failed to make any point except a poor attempt to anthropomorphise nature and not provide any examples of how nature ‘caring’ is a universal phenomenon

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

#340

Post by toolz »

darkerside wrote: post #161
toolz wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Intimate” may not be a great word Intimate was the centerpiece of my curiosity. Sure I can have feelings about the universe and the rocks that exist within this universe, but there is no intimacy. > isn’t that as close to “intimate” as it can get No, intimacy isn't a feeling that just happens to you or a circumstance you happen to be in, it's an active relationship where both parties involved do something to foste…

I see why you're offended now. It was not my intention. I don't think I can describe it in words. Like I said, our egos stop us from taking the idea too seriously, perhaps out of a survival instinct. There are some drugs that will cause "ego death". The part of your brain that distinguishes between the self and the other literally ceases to function. It sounds metaphysical and silly, but when it happens, you understa…

I've tried basically every ego-death drug that exists (or that I'm aware of) and I've still not felt the need to assert to people that they have a non-functioning part of their brain they aren't using to understand "intimacy" with inanimate objects.

I've had intimacy with a lover because the lover is participating in the intimacy. I've never had it with an instrument, I have felt it with a musician. Again, intimacy requires two participating entities. An instrument is dull and lifeless and only a tool used by the musician to facilitate in intimacy. Without the musician the instrument is effectively a curiously shaped rock.

I've also had intimate moments, where again there was an entity participating in the intimacy. The very roots of the word mean to impress or make familiar, which requires two participants. A rock can't be impressed it cannot feel familiar. Likewise a rock cannot impress itself upon you even if you feel impressed by the rock, it also cannot make itself familiar to you even if you feel familiar with it.

Again though, it's not about the incorrect usage of the word, which people do all the time to _improve_ communication. It's about the assertion that I, or anyone else who feels like me, is wrong and just isn't using part of their brain. Has it occurred to you that maybe you're wrong? Maybe you're misusing a part of your brain to imagine something that has never existed.

I'm fully aware that I may be wrong and there may be something beyond my natural senses that would allow this intimacy on a spiritual level that maybe can be revealed only by taking drugs that unveil a part of our psyche that sees this more clearly. Are you aware that you may be entirely wrong? I suspect not since you've asserted your position comes from a greater understanding, although I suspect you've had no experience that was vastly different from my own, you've just chosen to believe that experience imparted a superior understanding to you than I might have.

Post reply on HN