You should have merged these two points into one thread. |
|
If through the use of the scientific method humankind could, given enough time, come to understand, and therefore control all aspects of physical reality, and if modern physics is correct in that there is no inherent physical limitations for backwards (in time) causality, then it stands to reason that humankind or another sentient race will eventually control all of physical existence and when they do they already have done it at all points in history from end to end or throughout however time is structured, therefore god. |
|
Art
The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles
You should have merged these two points into one thread. |
|
Given enough technology and resources you could control the way in which the earth revolves around the sun. There is still plenty that we do not understand about the universe. If we had the ability to go back to the birth of the physical universe before physical laws formed (before being only an approximate term since time itself did not yet exist) then we could influence the way those laws formed and thus control them. |
|
Art
The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles
Where would we obtain the ability to go back in time before the laws of physics formed? To me, the idea of existing BEFORE the laws of physics existed, would result in the person ceasing to exist. The laws of the physical universe are what hold us together, and being in a place where they don't exist would dismantle all that makes us what we are. |
|
Last edited by DreiHundert; 04-22-2012 at 09:31 PM.
Okay so you've come to one of the arguments against this that I have been able to come up with; that science (and therefore technology) has a limit. I personally don't believe this is true but I have no way to refute that claim. I will ask though, how could technology "have nothing left to do" and still not be able to do everything (controlling physical laws being encompassed by the set "everything to do")? |
|
Art
The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles
Because when technology reaches its limit, it will have nothing left to do? Persuming that the laws of the universe are completly concrete, this is a valid conclusion because then you could potentially map all possible technology by applying these laws if you had a ridiculously powerful computer. I personally believe that the "laws" of the universe aren't as rigid as DreiHundert believes they are but this is just a conjuncture on my part. I've read your other "logical proof" and have a few bits of friendly advice for you: |
|
Last edited by RationalMystic; 04-22-2012 at 10:33 PM.
Thanks for the input but I'll call it what I want. Perhaps my threads don't follow the particular format that you are used to but the general definition of a logical proof is an argument that uses inductive or deductive reasoning which I have done here. If the only problem you can come up with in regards to my threads is that I didn't use the particular words that you would prefer then I think I've done a pretty good job. I am not presenting to a peer reviewed scientific journal so rigour is not that high on the list of priorities, this is a discussion on an internet forum. |
|
Last edited by Xaqaria; 04-22-2012 at 10:44 PM.
Art
The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles
Ok how about this: If the laws of physics are completely concerte, then there will come a point when technology will have nothing possible left to so. Thats obvious enough for you? Where exactly did I say I have a problem with your thinking? I was actually trying to help you but it seems that you're so arrogant that simple advice offends you. You're correct that this is an internet forum and not a peer review journal but calling something a proof when its not is no minor error. If you want us to take you seriously, you're going to have to at least get the basic terminology right. If you're not interested in being taken seriously, what are you doing in this section of the forum? |
|
RationalMystic, I think you might have slightly misunderstood what I'm saying. I believe that the laws of physics are concrete. By that I mean that it is impossible to change them. I don't believe that the current understanding of physics is absolutely concrete. It is not. I believe humans don't even come close to full understanding of the universe. |
|
Man I could debate all day on the laws of the unverse DreiHuntert but I don't want to bolster this thread with more content then it deserves. Plus this guy's ego so inflated, he might report us for hijacking his thread. We'll do that battle on another thread I think. |
|
Idk about thread hi-jacking... This is all relevant to discussion. But I could report him back for double-posting! . |
|
Don't know if you understood my explanation of what a logical proof is so let me try it again. It does not claim to prove anything and can be falsified, it is merely a type of argument that uses deductive or inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion. A logical proof essentially says if the premise is true then the conclusion logically follows. If the premise can be shown to be false then the conclusion does not logically follow. Both threads that I posted are logical proofs in that they follow this sort of deductive framework. It was suggested that the premise may be invalid; I.e. that technology may be limited, but no evidence has yet been presented to support that assertion. |
|
Last edited by Xaqaria; 04-23-2012 at 03:03 AM.
Art
The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles
Ok I may have over reacted a little. I was in a bad mood when I sent those two posts so apologies if I was being a dick (which in hindsight I was). If you want discussion, i'll provide some. |
|
I think we will probably be progressing technologically for the rest of the time we exist, and we might find a way to travel to other universes and keep our species going endlessly. But reaching omnipotence would take eternity to achieve. If we exist for eternity and keep progressing, do we ever become omnipotent? I think the answer has something to do with Zeno's Paradox and an asymptote. |
|
How do you know you are not dreaming right now?
Technological progress is gradual, as is the increase in humanity's power that comes with it. Such progress increases as time goes on, and omnipotence is an infinite level of such progress. So, it would take an infinite amount of time to reach it. |
|
How do you know you are not dreaming right now?
How about the ability to do anything that doesn't lead to a logical contradiction? |
|
Well first of all technological progress is most definatly NOT gradual or even strictly linear. Its subject to leaps and hops and even falls. |
|
Last edited by RationalMystic; 04-25-2012 at 09:53 AM.
Seems to me God in the traditional sense could do more than control just physical reality. I also don't believe that we or any other race has enough time for this to occur. Even 10 million years doesn't seem long enough to control every aspect of physical reality, but I don't know what really would be involved in that. |
|
157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.
Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious
I wasn't really making a very wholehearted foray. It just seems to me that 'a rock so big God couldn't lift it' is a contradiction in terms... one might as well argue that God couldn't create a cube that was simultaneously one and two meters wide. So for a definition of 'all powerful' to make any sense, we should rule out anything contradictory. |
|
Good point. However maybe "God" could create a universal split where he can't pick up a rock on one and the rock never even exists to not pick up on the other. The annoying limitation with this though is that If you count all of his incarnations across all universes, he still can't be called all powerful! Maybe the key to Goddom is being breaking free of the constraints of language, and by extension, logic? |
|
It's profoundly far fetched, but I don't rule any of it out. |
|
How do you know you are not dreaming right now?
The most pressing reason why I have to disagree with you is because your opinion is contradicted by essentially every major discovery in physics from the last 100(+) years. A lot more than your word that there are contradictions that "prove" it is impossible is needed to invalidate 100 years of research. I will admit that it is nearly impossible to conceptualize in common terms since we are yet still linear creatures capable of traveling in but one direction in time, however I am told it makes perfect sense mathematically speaking. What is it that Richard Feynman said? Something along the lines of "a positron is actually an electron traveling backwards in time". |
|
Art
The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles
Every major physics discovery of the past 100 years suggests that backward time travel is possible? I majorly disagree with that. Such a thing would be big news, and I know a lot of the theories. They don't indicate it. |
|
How do you know you are not dreaming right now?
Bookmarks