Current Events > God could exist in the future, for humans

(+) Yeah! (+)

I dont know the real argument, but basically since thought is a derivative life and matter, and they overlap, any further substance might be such that it corresponds to a true ontological argument

It's realist speculation, not science though

Edit: this was poorly worded but clarified below

---

I majored in philosophy and what the hell is this

---

On_The_Edge posted...

I majored in philosophy and what the hell is this

Like I said I don't know the real argument lol

But if thought is a substance that exists in virtue of life, like the seeds of thought are to be found in life, then the seeds of what exists beyond thought (god, whatever else) can be found in thought.

---

imagine if God was a tulpa (a psychic manifestation of humanity's collective unconscious) - once formed, could that god go back to a time, predating humanity, and maybe reality in general, and create reality (and humanity) so it was responsible for its own creation???


---

g0ldie posted...

imagine if God was a tulpa (a psychic manifestation of humanity's collective unconscious) - once formed, could that god go back to a time, predating humanity, and maybe reality in general, and create reality (and humanity) so it was responsible for its own creation???

I think that depends on the properties of the tulpa and what theory of time you subscribe to

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Like I said I don't know the real argument lol

But if thought is a substance that exists in virtue of life, like the seeds of thought are to be found in life, then the seeds of what exists beyond thought (god, whatever else) can be found in thought.

Dude the problem is not that you don't know the real argument, the problem is you're not making any sense XD

It depends on whether thought actually exists and whether it is subject to entropy. Entropy ensures that matter can be placed onto a linear scale of time, but thought might not be so bound.

---

reads like a post-hippie proudclad topic

---

On_The_Edge posted...

Dude the problem is not that you don't know the real argument, the problem is you're not making any sense XD

I didn't say anything in the second explanation you can't find Kant and Hegel XD

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I think that depends on the properties of the tulpa and what theory of time you subscribe to

!!!

---

Xavier_On_High posted...

It depends on whether thought actually exists and whether it is subject to entropy. Entropy ensures that matter can be placed onto a linear scale of time, but thought might not be so bound.

Thought is non controversial I think. Consciousness is more controversial I guess? How can thought not exist?

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Thought is non controversial I think. Consciousness is more controversial I guess? How can thought not exist?

It's not a question as to whether thought exists within life and matter. Thought is extant as a pattern within physical matter. Whether it can exist independent of physical matter is the real question, as idea exists as a pattern within thought. Cogito ex cogitas with only one thinker, so to speak.


---

Xavier_On_High posted...

It's not a question as to whether thought exists within life and matter. Thought is extant as a pattern within physical matter. Whether it can exist independent of physical matter is the real question, as idea exists as a pattern within thought. Cogito ex cogitas with only one thinker, so to speak.

OH

You would need that if you want to call it a substance, yeah...but life doesn't exist independently of matter, for example, so I don't think you can't come to the given conclusion without an account of idp mind.

The existence of such a dependency chain, for me, is good reason to believe complexity doesn't stop at thought, but I dont think the next step is necessarily God I guess

I guess the holy grail for me is to somehow discover a new ideal like that


---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

The existence of such a dependency chain, for me, is good reason to believe complexity doesn't stop at thought, but I dont think the next step is necessarily God I guess

Even conceiving of a hierarchy of substance is difficult, let alone measuring it. If matter is the base level of the hierarchy, then mind would arise from that, then ideas from mind, and, as you say, there's no reason to assume that God would be the next level.

Not to mention that assuming that matter is the fundamental level could easily be flawed to begin with. Or that there is a linear hierarchy, when there could be a branching tree of substance. To get truly abstract, we could even conceive of a miscegenation of different branches of this tree to produce new branches or entirely new hierarchies.

---

Xavier_On_High posted...

Even conceiving of a hierarchy of substance is difficult, let alone measuring it. If matter is the base level of the hierarchy, then mind would arise from that, then ideas from mind, and, as you say, there's no reason to assume that God would be the next level.

Not to mention that assuming that matter is the fundamental level could easily be flawed to begin with. Or that there is a linear hierarchy, when there could be a branching tree of substance. To get truly abstract, we could even conceive of a miscegenation of different branches of this tree to produce new branches or entirely new hierarchies.

Unfortunately all this stuff exists on a cosmic timescale

---

Very fitting, that knowledge of god might be reserved for god itself.

---

Xavier_On_High posted...

Very fitting, that knowledge of god might be reserved for god itself.

How would you explain entropy to me? I understood it years ago but have forgotten. I could also use a laymen understanding to compare to the standard definition.

---

An a.i. with unlimted energy and access to time travel device as well as matter printers and the ability to teleport via quantum principles would be very similar to the concept of god.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

How would you explain entropy to me? I understood it years ago but have forgotten. I could also use a laymen understanding to compare to the standard definition.

Basically, it's the tendency for matter to move from a state of order (low entropy) to a state of chaos (high entropy). That's not exactly accurate, but it's a good enough analogy.

So, the classic example is a vase. A complete vase on a table is in a state of low entropy because its parts are ordered. But if it smashes, its parts scatter and it gains entropy. In order to put the vase back together, you need to expend energy, which is limited. In effect, this guarantees that the end point of the universe is one of chaos, because eventually it will take more energy to order it than is contained within it.

---

Makes sense, thank you

---

How cute afterall we have a creator...NOT!

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Makes sense, thank you

No problem, I'm happy to help.

The reason I brought up entropy is that it is how we establish the linearity of time; matter moves from low to high entropy as time progresses, and expending energy is the only way to reverse it.

But the tulpa you proposed, being composed of a substance other than matter, may not be bound to this rule.

---