Is god conscious of the entire universe?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Vibes said:

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

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

Edited 44 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Malkom]

2 minutes ago, Vibes said:

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

meow means nonsense

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Malkom said:

meow means nonsense

How racist!

[Malkom]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

How racist!

I am as merciless as truth itself. I am so finite that infinity itself is contained within me, and everything finite that is separate from me is as infinite as I am. Ahaha. Joke 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Meow

Conscious acts I approve of

 

Type shit

Edited 1 hour ago by NewKidOnTheBlock

[Someone here]

3 hours ago, Malkom said:

You're writing to someone who does this professionally

You are a physics Professor..a physicist..a scientist etc for real ? Interested to know .your writing is very technical. 

[Malkom]

3 minutes ago, Someone here said:

You are a physics Professor..a physicist..a scientist etc for real ? Interested to know .your writing is very technical.

Yes, I'm working on quantum physics and the theory of relativity. I don't have any open projects at the moment, just a little tutoring. My writing style is quite specific, so what's the reason for that? Hmm. Maybe it's because of the translator.

[Malkom]

10 minutes ago, Someone here said:

You are a physics Professor..a physicist..a scientist etc for real ? Interested to know .your writing is very technical.

If you ask me about something else, like "solid state physics," I can't give you a reasonable answer. There are processes there that resemble magic. Two colleagues who study this very physics are trying to explain a phenomenon and say, "Let's call extrasense psychics." I say, "What are you laughing at?" and they say, "Well, what difference does it make? This thing is really weird." They're going on about something else.

Everything you see on YouTube, for example, about science, is basically fairy tales for kids in short pants.

[Someone here]

@Malkom I'm not sure what your answer is . You said "you do physics professionally ". That only means your job is something related to physics..a teacher..a tutor..a professor..a physicist etc

Is that true or not ?(if you don't mind saying ofc).

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Someone here

[Malkom]

5 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Malkom I'm not sure what your answer is . You said "you do physics professionally ". That only means your job is something related to physics..a teacher..a tutor..a professor..a physicist etc

Is that true or not ?(if you don't mind saying ofc).

 

 

I'm a scientist, a real one. If I do this professionally, then it's logical that yes.

Edited 1 hour ago by Malkom

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Malkom said:

I'm a scientist, a real one.

Interesting.  What do you think of spirituality? Nonduality ? Idealism ? The hard proplem of consciousness? The origin of the universe? The existence of God or spiritual realms ?

Edited 1 hour ago by Someone here

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Malkom said:

They talk about spontaneous symmetry breaking before the Big Bang, which resulted in an explosion." "I tell them, 'Wait, guys! If there was no time before the Big Bang, and time is a shift in symmetry (not a violation), then how do you even have the concept of BEFORE?

Because any effect comes from a cause. Even if there is no time within a system, there is time from the perspective of an observer who is subject to time; there is a chain of events from my temporal viewpoint. Furthermore, perhaps there was time before the Big Bang because the Big Bang is the fracturing of the void created by something like a black hole from another dimension.

In an unlimited framework, no Big Bang is the first; there is never a beginning, there is always a prior cause without limit.

1 hour ago, Malkom said:

Although Max Tegmark says that the Universe is mathematics.

Mathematics=coherent relationship. Then anything that appears is mathematical, any form is done by mathematical possibilities, but the unlimited itself is not relational, it's absolute, then it's not mathematical, it's what inevitably takes place to mathematical contrast. 

 

[Malkom]

14 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Interesting. What do you think of spirituality? Nonduality ? Idealism ? The hard proplem of consciousness? The origin of the universe? The existence of God or spiritual realms ?

Teaching and tutoring are secondary. The first thing is doing research, for example, if there's a project—not just a few phrases, but a specific task. The second thing is, for example, writing articles, but I don't really like that because it's mostly about money. That is, some people publish without even fully researching something, just to get funding, and there are even cases of fraud. I don't like that kind of thing.
What do I think about the hard problem of consciousness? This isn't a question for physicists, but for neuroscientists, of course, but I'll answer. There are various problems of consciousness, they're mostly described, they're solvable problems of consciousness, BUT, one thing stands out—the so-called hard problem of consciousness (qualia). And this problem really exists, it's not just some "I'll have it this way" idea. In my opinion, this problem isn't hard, as many believe, but insoluble, fundamentally insoluble, not because it can't be solved, but simply because it's impossible, no matter how powerful one's intellect and knowledge. You could say this is a question outside of our universe.
What do I think about spirituality? What kind? I don't think anything at all; it doesn't interest me.
What do I think about God? Well, let me put it this way: if I suddenly imagined that I only knew the words Universe, Reality, Being, Existence, Truth, Consciousness, God. Knowing only these seven names and nothing else, I would call it God. And of course, that's if I limited myself to just these seven words; it's not. It's neither one nor the other.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Malkom said:

P&NP It's clear that everything can be infinitely complicated

I think it's quite simple: in absence of limitations unlimited mathematical relationship happen. Those that are coherent and and synchronous mesh, and inevitably organize themselves into patterns of increasing complexity if perfect coherence allows it, which in the absence of limits is a potential equivalent to a reality.

The cosmos is an unlimited set of coherent relationships upon coherent relationships without end. They are only contrast, change of state, fluctuation, vibration between possibilities. An infinite hologram that inevitably unfolds because nothing limits it.

At a mystical level, things change. Given the limitlessness, reality is, and it is total. It's absolute being, absolutely alive. It's the essence, what is called "God"

[Malkom]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Because any effect comes from a cause. Even if there is no time within a system, there is time from the perspective of an observer who is subject to time; there is a chain of events from my temporal viewpoint. Furthermore, perhaps there was time before the Big Bang because the Big Bang is the fracturing of the void created by something like a black hole from another dimension.

In an unlimited framework, no Big Bang is the first; there is never a beginning, there is always a prior cause without limit.

There's no BEFORE there; it simply can't exist. Because time requires a shift in symmetry, a translation in symmetry. This is one of the reasons why neither quantum physics nor the theory of relativity alone can explain what happened there, because there was NO THERE; the concept of THERE is a three-dimensional concept. Yes, in physics, there's no such thing as "time"; there's an interval from point to point, and that's what "time" is supposedly. Also, in the theory of relativity, there's no such thing as "simultaneity." My NOW is a completely different NOW, let's say, in another country. And "time" is always energy; there's no such thing as energy being separate from time being separate. In this case, it's more correct to use the term energy, not time. Moreover, there's no such thing as something separate like space; this essence is one energy-time-space, only at the moment they're not united, but that's 100% true. Forget what they taught you in school, everything is written clumsily there, hahaha.
I drink tea with honey and go to bed, it's already late.

[Breakingthewall]

31 minutes ago, Malkom said:

What do I think about the hard problem of consciousness?

Consciousness is something very simple (call me arrogant if you want). Within a system, a universe organized by laws, a self-preserving and self-organizing system arises that operates within the laws of that universe but creates its own particular and unique laws.

This system is life. It is just another system, only a leap in complexity. Life creates systems of perception to operate more efficiently, chemical stimuli, etc. At a certain point, operational centers, brains, emerge, which create a representation of the external world to continue leaping to the next phase. This representation of the world is a virtual reality that serves as a link between the living system and external reality, and it is what we call consciousness. In a further leap, symbolic communication arises between individuals, and this gives rise to the mind and the self, a new reality that abstracts and has no physical limits. Consciousness is just the reality in a dual mode.

Edited 25 minutes ago by Breakingthewall

[Someone here]

20 minutes ago, Malkom said:

Teaching and tutoring are secondary. The first thing is doing research, for example, if there's a project—not just a few phrases, but a specific task. The second thing is, for example, writing articles, but I don't really like that because it's mostly about money. That is, some people publish without even fully researching something, just to get funding, and there are even cases of fraud. I don't like that kind of thing.
What do I think about the hard problem of consciousness? This isn't a question for physicists, but for neuroscientists, of course, but I'll answer. There are various problems of consciousness, they're mostly described, they're solvable problems of consciousness, BUT, one thing stands out—the so-called hard problem of consciousness (qualia). And this problem really exists, it's not just some "I'll have it this way" idea. In my opinion, this problem isn't hard, as many believe, but insoluble, fundamentally insoluble, not because it can't be solved, but simply because it's impossible, no matter how powerful one's intellect and knowledge. You could say this is a question outside of our universe.
What do I think about spirituality? What kind? I don't think anything at all; it doesn't interest me.
What do I think about God? Well, let me put it this way: if I suddenly imagined that I only knew the words Universe, Reality, Being, Existence, Truth, Consciousness, God. Knowing only these seven names and nothing else, I would call it God. And of course, that's if I limited myself to just these seven words; it's not. It's neither one nor the other.

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. 

[Breakingthewall]

14 minutes ago, Malkom said:

There's no BEFORE there; it simply can't exist. Because time requires a shift in symmetry, a translation in symmetry. This is one of the reasons why neither quantum physics nor the theory of relativity alone can explain what happened there, because there was NO THERE; the concept of THERE is a three-dimensional concept.

Don't call it time, call it causality. Everything that happens is caused. Anyway, seems that your goal is not sharing but showing condescension. Well, if you are happy doing it, I'm happy also. 

Edited 25 minutes ago by Breakingthewall

[Malkom]

14 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Don't call it time, call it causality . Anyway, seems that your goal is not sharing but showing condescension. Well, if you are happy doing it, I'm happy also.

Well, I'm not writing about consciousness. I wrote specifically about a separate category, the Hard Problem of Consciousness, as the experience of subjective experience itself. No one has an answer to it, and no one ever will. Because it's unsolvable, not not difficult, meaning it's an even more difficult problem, in the category of impossible. It could probably be solved if you had a hypothetical supercomputing Turing machine, but it would involve something completely unimaginable, and that machine would be a perpetual motion machine. It might be feasible, but not in our Universe. What you just wrote is closer to information theory; it doesn't apply to the Hard Problem of Consciousness, it's more about the problems of consciousness. There are different problems, and it's not just one.
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. This is just an example. And if you hear fortune tellers claiming they can detect things from a distance, that's nonsense, ahahaha, they're trying to fool you.

And the question of how life emerges from unconscious matter? Well, there's a factor involved, a gigantic, unimaginable precision—if I'm not mistaken, 10 to the 1000th power. It's like 500 people shooting at you point-blank and every single one of them missing, something like that. Is that a lot? Your brain would actually explode—that's many, many, many times more...more than there are atoms in the universe, that's the kind of precision you need. And anyway, where is the line between the living and the nonliving? For example, when the Earth, the primordial soup, first appeared, life had already arisen many times over, and it always has been and always will be. This is a property of the Universe itself, but I'm getting a little philosophical now.

I'm off to bed.

Edited 16 minutes ago by Malkom

[Breakingthewall]

10 minutes ago, Malkom said:

xperience of subjective experience itself. No one has an answer to it, and no one ever will

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