Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote:If God is an AI result of entropy Would it not provide great DOUBT in its existence?

Surely you can comprehend its reason.

Attofishpi, you repeatedly asserted that 'God' has no needs.

But it does.

Proof:

Attofishpi: 'God' has no needs.
Attofishpi: 'God' has a reason to provide.
Hajrafradi: God has a reason to act if and only if it wants to act.
Hajrafradi: The process of acting is part of a process of fulfilling motivation.
Hajrafradi: Having motivation (such as to provide) can ONLY result from having an unfulfilled need.

ERGO, QED, God or god or 'God' is an entity with needs, according to Attofishpi's given attributes of 'God'.

attofishpi wrote: The Solar system is by and very large a closed entropic system.

No it isn't, it emits energy, in the form of light, out into the rest of the universe and it receives energy, in the form of light, from the rest of the universe. Whatever the net balance, the solar system is not a closed entropy system. As far as science knows the whole Universe is the only closed entropy system, and that can't be know for sure.

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote: The Solar system is by and very large a closed entropic system.

No it isn't, it emits energy, in the form of light, out into the rest of the universe and it receives energy, in the form of light, from the rest of the universe. Whatever the net balance, the solar system is not a closed entropy system. As far as science knows the whole Universe is the only closed entropy system, and that can't be know for sure.

Only recently there have been prominent reports that the Milky Way in receiving cosmic rays because it's travelling through a gas cloud left by a supernova. Meanwhile, Andromeda is due to collide with the Milky Way in about five billion years. The long time scales tend to confuse people; it looks as though things are inert when they are actually unfolding in time scales that are alien to our familiar sense of time passing.

I agree that we can't be sure that the universe is a closed entropy system. Again, the issue may be one of time scales.

Greta wrote:

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote: The Solar system is by and very large a closed entropic system.

No it isn't, it emits energy, in the form of light, out into the rest of the universe and it receives energy, in the form of light, from the rest of the universe. Whatever the net balance, the solar system is not a closed entropy system. As far as science knows the whole Universe is the only closed entropy system, and that can't be know for sure.

Only recently there have been prominent reports that the Milky Way in receiving cosmic rays because it's travelling through a gas cloud left by a supernova. Meanwhile, Andromeda is due to collide with the Milky Way in about five billion years. The long time scales tend to confuse people; it looks as though things are inert when they are actually unfolding in time scales that are alien to our familiar sense of time passing.

I agree that we can't be sure that the universe is a closed entropy system. Again, the issue may be one of time scales.

Yes, time scale might be one of the factors, but science doesn't know if energy is entering or exiting the Universe. Several years ago I speculated that the cause of the expansion of the universe was not due to space stretching, as some scientists have stated, but because there is more space coming into existence. I don't like the idea that space is elastic and can stretch or contract, but space is more like a perfect fluid, in that it can conform to whatever the shape of the container but is incompressible. In the large scale structure of the universe there are large voids, or under dense areas surrounded by sheets of galaxies. In these under dense areas there could be places where new space, matter and energy are coming into existence pushing older space and galaxies out in front of it. This old space and the galaxies contained in it could collect in the cusps between the voids, and this would account for the observed structure of the universe.

thedoc wrote:Yes, time scale might be one of the factors, but science doesn't know if energy is entering or exiting the Universe. Several years ago I speculated that the cause of the expansion of the universe was not due to space stretching, as some scientists have stated, but because there is more space coming into existence. I don't like the idea that space is elastic and can stretch or contract, but space is more like a perfect fluid, in that it can conform to whatever the shape of the container but is incompressible. In the large scale structure of the universe there are large voids, or under dense areas surrounded by sheets of galaxies. In these under dense areas there could be places where new space, matter and energy are coming into existence pushing older space and galaxies out in front of it. This old space and the galaxies contained in it could collect in the cusps between the voids, and this would account for the observed structure of the universe.

Hi Doc,

To be clear, due to energy entering/exiting our universe, are you saying that there is a multiverse or are you saying something else entirely different?

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Again, so we are likely to be subject to some conditions upon which we can be judged if we wish to further exist.

Wish to further exist than what, your death?

Yes, rebirth-death-rebirth-death-rebirth..etc...

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:The Solar system is by and very large a closed entropic system.

How so?

The energy available to man within the solar system is depleting.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Why? If there is a God, you'd prefer to be ignorant to the true nature of reality? That's not very philosophically minded is it?

If there is a 'God' then fuck 'em and the horse they rode in on, is my philosophy.

Why? Have YOU had an extremely difficult life? You have basically debunked yourself as a philosopher.

You must be getting old, memory slipping a little? 'God' is all conceivable dimensions that make up our reality and has the ability to communicate via all of ones senses.

What does 'it' smell like then? Fishy is my thought.[/quote]
Ah yes, we are all like fish swimming in a sea of light.

hajrafradi wrote:

attofishpi wrote:If God is an AI result of entropy Would it not provide great DOUBT in its existence?

Surely you can comprehend its reason.

Attofishpi, you repeatedly asserted that 'God' has no needs.

But it does.

Sorry you may have to readdress. When i state that a sage told me "God needs nothing." I assume the sage is indicating God needs nothing from us - wo\man.

Since you have omitted my explanation as to the reason for doubt, i assume you now understand the reason for it.

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote: The Solar system is by and very large a closed entropic system.

No it isn't, it emits energy, in the form of light, out into the rest of the universe and it receives energy, in the form of light, from the rest of the universe. Whatever the net balance, the solar system is not a closed entropy system. As far as science knows the whole Universe is the only closed entropy system, and that can't be know for sure.

Yes using the term 'closed' is not particularly accurate.
However, entropy is defined as:-
1. (thermodynamics) a measure of the amount of energy in a system that is available for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity.

The energy available to man within the solar system is decreasing, thus entropy is increasing.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

thedoc wrote:Yes, time scale might be one of the factors, but science doesn't know if energy is entering or exiting the Universe. Several years ago I speculated that the cause of the expansion of the universe was not due to space stretching, as some scientists have stated, but because there is more space coming into existence. I don't like the idea that space is elastic and can stretch or contract, but space is more like a perfect fluid, in that it can conform to whatever the shape of the container but is incompressible. In the large scale structure of the universe there are large voids, or under dense areas surrounded by sheets of galaxies. In these under dense areas there could be places where new space, matter and energy are coming into existence pushing older space and galaxies out in front of it. This old space and the galaxies contained in it could collect in the cusps between the voids, and this would account for the observed structure of the universe.

Hi Doc,

To be clear, due to energy entering/exiting our universe, are you saying that there is a multiverse or are you saying something else entirely different?

PhilX

It could be a multiverse, or it could be something completely different, there is really no way of knowing, that is why I said I was speculating. That is why I said I don't like the idea that space is elastic and can stretch or contract, I prefer the idea that space is inelastic.

thedoc wrote:Yes, time scale might be one of the factors, but science doesn't know if energy is entering or exiting the Universe. Several years ago I speculated that the cause of the expansion of the universe was not due to space stretching, as some scientists have stated, but because there is more space coming into existence. I don't like the idea that space is elastic and can stretch or contract, but space is more like a perfect fluid, in that it can conform to whatever the shape of the container but is incompressible. In the large scale structure of the universe there are large voids, or under dense areas surrounded by sheets of galaxies. In these under dense areas there could be places where new space, matter and energy are coming into existence pushing older space and galaxies out in front of it. This old space and the galaxies contained in it could collect in the cusps between the voids, and this would account for the observed structure of the universe.

I think time scales are worth considering. Photons theoretically coming from 14 billion light years away would not have been noticed yet.

I like the superfluid analogy of space but I would argue that space is thoroughly compressible, as is everything aside from perhaps whatever resides in the centre of supermassive black holes. That near-singularity (I suspect that actual singularities are only theoretic constructs, like infinity), would be even more dense than neutron stars, the most dense objects ever observed, and they probably cannot be further crushed.

Re: voids, it's been hypothesised that the voids between the strands of the cosmic web could be largely comprised of antimatter. http://phys.org/news/2011-04-antimatter ... nsion.html. Antimatter to itself behaves in what we think of as a gravitationally normal way but, to the perspective of matter, antimatter would seem gravitationally repulsive.

It may even be that there are antimatter galaxies existing in our voids. The possibility also makes the idea of intergalactic travel even more daunting and impossible that it already seems; nothing that is matter could survive contact with antimatter.

For all we know, our idea of ever-increasing entropy may only be a phase of the universe. After all, the rate of inflation has changed before. Further, a significant x-factor regarding the future universe may be the activities of future hyper-intelligent life that are a billion or more years ahead of us. If we can terraform the Earth, hyper advanced civilisations will surely affect much more, especially if they can communicate and coordinate with others.

Most consider the latter idea far-fetched but, when the rate of change is considered, any life that is a billion years more advanced than us would be as different to us as we are from bacteria. It would seem that only the speculative and questionable "hard barrier" hypothesis could suggest that such beings will never exist in the cosmos.

Greta wrote: Most consider the latter idea far-fetched but, when the rate of change is considered, any life that is a billion years more advanced than us would be as different to us as we are from bacteria. It would seem that only the speculative and questionable "hard barrier" hypothesis could suggest that such beings will never exist in the cosmos.

I listened to this talk by Neil Degrasse Tyson and he had a similar comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qikjljlbTQw

attofishpi wrote:

hajrafradi wrote:

attofishpi wrote:If God is an AI result of entropy Would it not provide great DOUBT in its existence?

Surely you can comprehend its reason.

Attofishpi, you repeatedly asserted that 'God' has no needs.

But it does.

Sorry you may have to readdress. When i state that a sage told me "God needs nothing." I assume the sage is indicating God needs nothing from us - wo\man.

Since you have omitted my explanation as to the reason for doubt, i assume you now understand the reason for it.

I don't need to include yoru explanation for the reason to doubt every blasted time I refer to it. Can you remember your own explanation? Then sub it here. Please don't expect me to repeat it every time I refer to it or refer to something involving it.

You just admitted you had made an assumption which you did not communicate.

Also, the "reason" is for humans, men and women. So your assumption is not at all applicable as a counter-argument, since the "reason" is for and about humans. Very women and very men. If it affected tables ,or rocks, or wineglasses only, then it would hold water.

However, whether the "reason" is for humans or not, is not germane to the question. God 'God' god has a need, whether it involves humans or not. Your sage friend, whom you like to quote, categorically denied any need. You just stated that God 'God' god indeed has at least one need, and it does not matter whether it involves wo/men or not. As it happens, it does involve wo/men, but that's, like I said, immaterial to the argument and declaration by you, "god God 'God' has needs".

I am sorry, but according to you, the 'God' God god does have needs.

Your theory contradicts your sage friends' assertion which you have made your own.

I need to readdress nothing. You need to admit that you are contradicting or else proving wrong your sage friend's assertion, if you accept what you verily said unto us.

I'm sorry, the above appears extremely confused, would you mind clarifying exactly what it is that you believe God needs from US?

attofishpi wrote:I'm sorry, the above appears extremely confused, would you mind clarifying exactly what it is that you believe God needs from US?

This is like asking what the Board of Directors might want from the cleaners in a building owned by a multinational company. Closer to home: what does the Earth need from us, if anything?

Greta wrote:

attofishpi wrote:I'm sorry, the above appears extremely confused, would you mind clarifying exactly what it is that you believe God needs from US?

This is like asking what the Board of Directors might want from the cleaners in a building owned by a multinational company.

I'm sure that they would want the cleaners to keep the sanitation to a level that would not bring the company into disrepute.

Greta wrote:Closer to home: what does the Earth need from us, if anything?

What a ridiculous question.