Is god conscious of the entire universe?

[Malkom]

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Read above, I explained it, it's extremely simple

That's not an answer. I could answer that way too. It's clear that it simply exists.

Okay, a couple more lines. So, is life random or not? I'll say right away, it's an open question. BUT. Take the number "pi". It contains absolutely any combination, any numerology, even your birthday. If you don't believe me... Find a website—I don't remember where it is, but I think it's not hard to find—and just enter any combination, like your birthday, and it will show you which trillion trillion trillionth line contains your birthday. And also, if you're a fan of numerology (hahaha), enter some mystical combination that supposedly opens the gates to hell hahahaha and you'll find that too.
Can we conclude from this that no one created anything, it's just randomness in infinity? BUT. It's not that simple, really. Okay, I'm off to bed.

Edited 18 hours ago by Malkom

[Malkom]

49 minutes ago, Someone here said:

The hard proplem of consciousness simply means that materialism claims the universe is fundamentally unconscious and consciousness is only an emergent phenomenon which comes about from unconscious matter. Science has no clue how is this even possible.

Sorry, I'm probably just sleeping.
So. This phrase about something or someone asserting something, who asserts it? It seems taken out of context. Some blogger asserting it? Or a school teacher? What materialism? Or is it asserted in feature films? Or is it simply someone's personal experience that asserts it?

Does "emergence" mean anything? Emergence is the emergence of completely new properties that "things," so to speak, didn't have before they began interacting. The concept of emergence can be applied to anything. For example, a crowd of people, a society of some kind, develops completely new properties that are not inherent to individuals, even properties of certain computing programs. That's emergence.
And the idea that we're just a bunch of unconscious matter gathering to form emergent consciousness—well, that's an extremely oversimplified answer...
I'm off to bed.

Edited 17 hours ago by Malkom

[Malkom]

So, I'll answer the author's question . Is God self-aware? He is, in essence, the Most Self-Aware, and that includes through you.
I'm going to bed.

[Someone here]

12 minutes ago, Malkom said:

Sorry, I'm probably just sleeping.
So. This phrase about something or someone asserting something, who asserts it? It seems taken out of context. Some blogger asserting it? Or a school teacher? What materialism? Or is it asserted in feature films? Or is it simply someone's personal experience that asserts it?

Does "emergence" mean anything? Emergence is the emergence of completely new properties that "things," so to speak, didn't have before they began interacting. The concept of emergence can be applied to anything. For example, a crowd of people, a society of some kind, develops completely new properties that are not inherent to individuals, even properties of certain computing programs. That's emergence.
And the idea that we're just a bunch of unconscious matter gathering to form emergent consciousness—well, that's an extremely oversimplified answer...
I'm off to bed.

Dude ..don't get cocky ..we get it ..you know a thing or two about physics..doesn't mean you should talk down on us  with your nose higher than Eiffel tower. You have no idea what consciousness is .

Edited 17 hours ago by Someone here

[zazen]

3 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Conscious acts I approve of

 

Type shit

Just not progressive cats

Type sheeet

[TheSelf]

22 hours ago, Schahin said:

So lets talk about this insane subject.

The Universe is billions and billions of lightyears big, if not even more, it expands in an accelerating speed faster than the speed of light.

Just imagine, galaxies, suns lot of times bigger than our sun in billions of lightyears away from us, gazillions of them. The mind is absolutely too weak to even slightly comprehend the vastness of our universe.

Our sun and our planet are just a single grain of sand in all the sands on earth, if not even on other planets.

Light travels 7,5 times in a second around the eart, now imagine travelling billions of years with that speed, its ridiculously vast and never will anybody ever understand the slightest bits of it.

 

So is god/consciousness seriously consciouss of absolutely every possible thing in the universe for all the billions and billions of lightyears, planets, stars, elements, minerals and so on and so forth?

 

Well, if we think of consciousness being conscious of every single ant and every on of their cells and all types of minerals and plants and animals on earth and more than that, and that consciousness if infinite, the answer should actually be yes, which is just mindblowing, what do you think?

Two things are happening here, first imagining a universe that exist outside of your sensory experience in the NOW!

Second imagining a God separate from you that is conscious of an objective world and you are also included that's why you have an experience!

These are work of the mind! These are pure imaginations! These are not true because they cannot ever be verified directly by you! 

Never! You can only believe that that would be the case! 

Absolute Truth is in the Now! 

Truth is true anytime!

Edited 15 hours ago by TheSelf

[- Adam -]

4 hours ago, Vibes said:

This joke only you understand, others laugh just to feel included in the genius mysterious club with you.

Uhm actually I'm a member of that club, and I'll let you into the secret meaning of Leo's comment:




From Leo's blog post: Strange Loop Cat

It's a psychedelic vision of Leo's putting an image to the situation you find yourself in when you seek ultimate holistic understanding of reality.

I suspect he was secretly eluding to this post as an answer to this thread's inquiry.

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, Malkom said:

What do you mean there's a cause-and-effect relationship and you call it time? That's a bit misleading. Generally speaking, saying that everything is interconnected isn't true. If my "world line" doesn't intersect with the "world line" on the Moon, for example, then we are NOT connected by cause and effect at all.

Cause effect means that there is succession of events. Any change is caused by another movement in reality or by conditions that allow it; this is what time truly is, the measure of change, not something real in itself. Therefore, the Big Bang arises from a prior condition; thus, there is time before the Big Bang. Not linear time, or as we know it in this dimension, but a chain of events. The Big Bang is not the beginning of reality because reality would be limited and that's not possible. 

Your world line is interconnected with the world line of the moon because both started in the big bang, then we could follow a line of events until we would reach a common point, a connection 

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, Malkom said:

is life random or not?

Life is nothing special, it's just phase of coherence superior to that of self-replicating complex molecules. Reality self-organizes into increasingly complex patterns, if possible, jumping between phases without limit.

From a ultradense state of maximum symmetry at the beginning of the Big Bang to stable particles that form atoms, which form molecules that increase in complexity until they begin to self-replicate mechanically. They jump again when isolated from the outside by a membrane. Another phase jump occurs when the critical level of coherence allows metabolism to emerge, followed by junctions between cells, complex organisms, brains, qualia, symbolic mind, the union of life and machine, etc., without limit, if possible. It is the inevitable tendency of reality because it is not contained, not limited. It is obvious and inevitable.

About consciousness, i think it's not so mysterious . Consciousness is just the reality organized in a particular form, This arises from the inherent duality in life between exterior and interior, creating a relational interface between them, a representation or model of external reality that appears in internal reality. Added to this is a node of energetic tensions that creates a center that needs to remain, the self. This self is a perspective that makes appears something called consciousness, when it is simply reality limited by a temporary center in a dual structure 

Edited 13 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Anonymous_2727]

@Schahin Yes, God has omniscience

[Ramasta9]

Meow means one thing and one thing only: Human, Feed me now.

[Jehovah increases]

God is the entire Universe, and for me to say that, I would have to be conscious—alien infinite Purrs for forever.

Edited 3 hours ago by Jehovah increases

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

15 hours ago, zazen said:

Just not progressive cats

Type sheeet

Dagestan seems pretty progressive to me, we all saw those bathtub pics

[Vibes]

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Imagine saying that to your neighbor's cat when she meows at you 

Sorry, I was frustrated with you.

[Vibes]

14 hours ago, - Adam - said:

Uhm actually I'm a member of that club, and I'll let you into the secret meaning of Leo's comment:


From Leo's blog post: Strange Loop Cat

It's a psychedelic vision of Leo's putting an image to the situation you find yourself in when you seek ultimate holistic understanding of reality.

I suspect he was secretly eluding to this post as an answer to this thread's inquiry.

Maybe...

[Malkom]

13 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Cause effect means that there is succession of events. Any change is caused by another movement in reality or by conditions that allow it; this is what time truly is, the measure of change, not something real in itself. Therefore, the Big Bang arises from a prior condition; thus, there is time before the Big Bang. Not linear time, or as we know it in this dimension, but a chain of events. The Big Bang is not the beginning of reality because reality would be limited and that's not possible.

Your world line is interconnected with the world line of the moon because both started in the big bang, then we could follow a line of events until we would reach a common point, a connection

NO, you and I have no causal connection to the Moon. If we consider the beginning of the Big Bang as everyone's shared past, that doesn't mean we have a connection to everything. The Big Bang, on a four-dimensional cone, lies in the "absolute past," and my world line will never, ever intersect with the Moon, meaning I have no connection to it.

It would take a very long time to explain, really. I'd have to take your word for it and then check, but that's as far as I'm concerned. I'd have to delve into the theory of relativity in more detail; there are 10 gigantic equations, plus every single point would have to be explained. It's very tedious, time-consuming, and boring, and we'd probably die. Moreover, I'd have to delve a little deeper into the history of how it all came to be. Briefly. Very crudely and simplified. Maxwell worked on electrodynamics. Lorentz, together with Poincaré (separately from Maxwell), developed the so-called "Lorentz transformations." These are actually Poincaré's transformations, but Poincaré claimed in his report that they were Lorentz's, and that's how it went. Okay. Einstein refined them, also using Riemannian geometry, but he worked with Minkowski spacetimes. There's such a terrifying interconnection there that it's hard to believe, although it's simple if you really think about it. Then, after working with Lorentz, Maxwell's equations formed the basis of electrodynamics, and everything—from particle accelerators to color TV tubes of the 1980s—operates under the special theory of relativity, which is consistent with quantum mechanics. If you deny this, then you can throw everything away, including your phone and TV. Just kidding. General Relativity isn't completely complete, even though it's accurate, and quantum mechanics isn't completely complete either, even though it's accurate, and individually, they work perfectly well in everyday life. And yet, they don't work well enough, and it's not just a matter of "what happened before the Big Bang or what's inside black holes"—that's the most obvious question, and probably one that fascinates everyone without exception. It goes much deeper and deeper.

Before the Big Bang, there was no time, meaning it had no beginning, and there wasn't even a flow in our sense. Linear time, time in our three-dimensional world, is not the same as "time" in four-dimensionality. It's NOT time at all (that's why there's no such thing as "FROM" or "TO"). And what's there? Well, it's like imagining it—drawing a three-dimensional picture on a plane and trying to depict volume on it, but it won't become three-dimensional. Flat-earthers will come up with a name to explain "what volume is" from their flat perspective. It's supposedly the same as flatness, only much flatter. Similarly, when we talk about four-dimensional "volume," it's like volume, but even more voluminous. And this is fundamentally wrong. Understand, we all think in three dimensions. You simply won't cross that barrier. Even if you do, no one will know, because such words don't exist in our world.

 

Although you most likely meant quantum entanglement, quantum entanglement and causality are NOT the same thing (you even arrived at this yourself when you said that time arises as an emergent entity in quantum foam). If this suddenly became ONE and the same, then congratulations – you've discovered teleportation, mind reading, a time machine, and many much more interesting things... putting them into practice remains a matter of technology.

Do you know what functions are? They're when you work with variables, the value of the derivative changes the variable, and operators (or commands) work with functions, when a function changes a function, not with variables. There's an evolution operator, there's a divergence operator (nabla), there's a self-adjoint operator (an operator acting on itself), and this operator is the "real" "force" manifested, so to speak, that you see—these are self-adjoint operators. Operators are generally universal. For example, you take the mapping of one set of objects of any kind onto the mapping of a set of other objects of any kind, simultaneously in space. And for operators, you can write a new algebra that works not with numbers, not with functions, but with commands; this is a completely new mathematics.

And all modern physics works with operator theory. It seems she doesn't need more for now. But operators aren't the limit; there are also superoperators, and, as I already wrote, "topos" used in the string hypothesis (which is not a theory).

And anyway... Understand this simple thing: no one sets out to imagine four-dimensional space. The purpose of its introduction is entirely different. It's just that many mathematical operations with the components of what used to be called projections of three-dimensional vectors and what used to be called scalar quantities are in many ways logically (not even exactly mathematically identical, but only logically) reminiscent of what cartographers once did when transferring the image of the round ("curved") Earth to flat maps and back. Therefore, for the "initiated" (for those who can write mathematical calculations meaningfully, that is, from their heads, and not as a result of empty memorization of meaningless strings of symbols), it turns out to be very simple to explain how to perform some rather labor-intensive operations in the theory of gravity. They don't need to write long formulas; it's enough to tell them that they need to do everything the same way as it was done when transferring the image from a globe to a flat map and back. Only with completely different objects. But for those who KNOW how to do such things, this is quite sufficient: it's enough to tell them that they need to transition from pseudo-Euclidean, uncurved four-dimensional space to correspondingly curved ones, and they'll do everything according to a rather clever monologue that's understandable to them. Between this and a somewhat similar transition from a globe to a plane, they can easily do it themselves, without handing over dozens of pages of paper with mathematical formulas, since it's all very simple for them. And qualified people communicate among themselves not with armfuls of papers with formulas, but with short, figurative words, which for them mean quite sufficient instructions on what to do to obtain correct results—that is, results consistent with experimental observations. Around all this, crowds of preoccupied people run around, too lazy to learn the mathematical methods for the transition from flat to curved space, even in two dimensions, but desperately want to juggle "beautiful words" in order to at least thereby resemble those who actually know how to do it. At the same time, such juggling is practically meaningless for those juggling, while observing their activity is mildly entertaining for those who perform the corresponding actions based on these words. Despite all this, it must be acknowledged that if "word jugglers" take the time to learn the simple rules of action that require the use of these words, then they too can begin to do something useful. The only problem is that for 99% of "jugglers," learning such rules lies far beyond the level limited by their own laziness. Just laziness, and nothing more...

[Malkom]

17 hours ago, Someone here said:

Dude ..don't get cocky ..we get it ..you know a thing or two about physics..doesn't mean you should talk down on us with your nose higher than Eiffel tower. You have no idea what consciousness is .

Is this some kind of attack, dude???? I never even thought of putting myself above others, it's something in you talking, these are some of your bad stories, it's all your imagination, maybe you're sick, I don't know.

[Leo Gura]

31 minutes ago, Vibes said:

Sorry, I was frustrated with you.

No worries.

[Breakingthewall]

29 minutes ago, Malkom said:

Linear time, time in our three-dimensional world, is not the same as "time" in four-dimensionality. It's NOT time at all

Perhaps you don't understand what time really is? Time isn't a thing; it's the appearance that arises from the structural concatenation of events. Before the Big Bang, there was no linear time, only structural time. That is to say, the structure of reality creates the necessary condition for the Big Bang to occur.

How? We don't know. Many possibilities: bouncing universes, interconnected multiverses, and so on. Then, once the Big Bang occurs, a gigantic number of structural relationships, propagations, and phase changes occur in parallel, creating the appearance of fluid, linear time. But time is only the perception of change; what is real is change itself, and change existed before the Big Bang for a possible external observer, unless, for you, reality has an absolute limit, the Big Bang, before which there was no reality.

29 minutes ago, Malkom said:

NO, you and I have no causal connection to the Moon. If we consider the beginning of the Big Bang as everyone's shared past, that doesn't mean we have a connection to everything.

There is a connection on different levels. First, you and the moon share the same structural coherence that emerged from the Big Bang. 

You are both excited modes of the same fields, and the frequency of those modes is given by the causal relationship that goes back to the beginning of this universe, and beyond this universe, to the coherent totality of reality

second, every minimal vibration that occurs never disappears, changes, and came from another movement of reality; information never disappears, it is absorbed, transformed. Your breath creates a quantum flow that lasts eternally, not in the same state but in the cause effect flow and affects, however minimally, all of reality, and therefore the moon. A quantum micro-fluctuation will inevitably occur on the moon, or whatever the moon may be at another time. 

Because you and the moon are not separate things, are the same flow, and separation is something that ocurrs from a point of view, there is not difference from the birth and death of a star except from a observer who quantifies the events. Without it is just flow of relationship 

Edited 8 minutes ago by Breakingthewall

[Malkom]

Just now, Breakingthewall said:

Perhaps you don't understand what time really is? Time isn't a thing; it's the appearance that arises from the structural concatenation of events. Before the Big Bang, there was no linear time, only structural time. That is to say, the structure of reality creates the necessary condition for the Big Bang to occur.

How? We don't know. Many possibilities: bouncing universes, interconnected multiverses, and so on. Then, once the Big Bang occurs, a gigantic number of structural relationships, propagations, and phase changes occur in parallel, creating the appearance of fluid, linear time. But time is only the perception of change; what is real is change itself, and change existed before the Big Bang for a possible external observer, unless, for you, reality has an absolute limit, the Big Bang, before which there was no reality.

Structural time? That's a three-dimensional word, bro. Everything you've written is a retelling of the "comics" of popular science shows. I have nothing against them; I think very highly of them, even incredibly highly. But we shouldn't forget that their main purpose is to convey at least something to the average person. That's not a deep understanding.