Zone1 Is There Really A Personal God?

[TruthNotBS]

No, I'm not. I am telling you that these "things" (which are no things in reality) exist independent of man. Just as music or science or mathematics do. And in fact, these are the only "things" that can be eternal because material things are not unchanging.

You're doubling down on a misunderstanding. Music, science, and mathematics don't exist independently of human minds; they are constructs we've developed to describe, organize, and understand the world around us. Music is a pattern of sounds perceived by a listener; science is a method for discovering truths about the natural world; and mathematics is a symbolic language we use to describe patterns, quantities, and relationships. These "things" have no existence outside of human cognition—they are tools and abstractions, not entities with independent reality.

To say that these constructs are "eternal" because material things change is a category error. Abstract concepts like mathematics exist only as long as there are minds to think them. They aren't "things" in the way physical objects are; they don't exist in any tangible form, and they rely entirely on human cognition for their expression and understanding.

Claiming that these abstractions can exist independently of material reality ignores the fact that they are inherently tied to the way humans process and understand the world. Without minds to interpret and utilize them, these concepts would have no expression or meaning. So, your assertion that these are the "only things that can be eternal" is not only unsupported but also fundamentally flawed in its reasoning.

In short, abstract concepts do not exist independently of human thought, and they certainly aren’t "eternal" in any meaningful sense. They are products of the mind, and without minds, they would cease to have any form of existence.

 

[ding]

Many physicists propose that the universe emerged from a quantum field, a state of energy that pervades all of space.

Which is saying a probability wave. Everything existing and not existing at the same time. Potential.

 

[ding]

You're doubling down on a misunderstanding. Music, science, and mathematics don't exist independently of human minds; they are constructs we've developed to describe, organize, and understand the world around us. Music is a pattern of sounds perceived by a listener; science is a method for discovering truths about the natural world; and mathematics is a symbolic language we use to describe patterns, quantities, and relationships. These "things" have no existence outside of human cognition—they are tools and abstractions, not entities with independent reality.

To say that these constructs are "eternal" because material things change is a category error. Abstract concepts like mathematics exist only as long as there are minds to think them. They aren't "things" in the way physical objects are; they don't exist in any tangible form, and they rely entirely on human cognition for their expression and understanding.

Claiming that these abstractions can exist independently of material reality ignores the fact that they are inherently tied to the way humans process and understand the world. Without minds to interpret and utilize them, these concepts would have no expression or meaning. So, your assertion that these are the "only things that can be eternal" is not only unsupported but also fundamentally flawed in its reasoning.

In short, abstract concepts do not exist independently of human thought, and they certainly aren’t "eternal" in any meaningful sense. They are products of the mind, and without minds, they would cease to have any form of existence.

What do you think Arthur Eddington meant when in 1928 he wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time."

 

[ding]

It is primarily physicists who have expressed the relationship between mind and matter, and the primacy of mind; Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker, Wolfgang Pauli and George Wald, all contemplated it.

 

[TruthNotBS]

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You're conflating speculative theories with established facts. The idea that the universe "popped into existence" from "nothing" is a misunderstanding of what physicists mean by "nothing." In quantum mechanics, "nothing" refers to a quantum vacuum—a state that's far from empty but full of energy and governed by quantum laws. This isn't the same as the absolute nothingness you're suggesting.

The claim that the universe's total energy is zero because the positive energy of matter balances the negative energy of gravity is an interesting hypothesis, but it's not definitive. Even if this balance holds, it doesn't mean the universe spontaneously created itself without any cause. The conservation of energy in this context is speculative, and extending quantum mechanical principles to the entire universe involves unproven assumptions.

As for the laws of nature existing "before" the universe, that's a philosophical assertion, not a scientific fact. In physics, laws describe how things behave within the universe—they don't exist independently of it. Claiming they were in place before the universe itself is speculative and lacks empirical support.

Your argument is based on theoretical models that are far from universally accepted and should be recognized as speculative, not conclusive evidence of how the universe came into existence.

 

[ding]

"...In 1928 Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

...If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious..."

George Wald

 

[ding]

You're conflating speculative theories with established facts. The idea that the universe "popped into existence" from "nothing" is a misunderstanding of what physicists mean by "nothing." In quantum mechanics, "nothing" refers to a quantum vacuum—a state that's far from empty but full of energy and governed by quantum laws. This isn't the same as the absolute nothingness you're suggesting.

The claim that the universe's total energy is zero because the positive energy of matter balances the negative energy of gravity is an interesting hypothesis, but it's not definitive. Even if this balance holds, it doesn't mean the universe spontaneously created itself without any cause. The conservation of energy in this context is speculative, and extending quantum mechanical principles to the entire universe involves unproven assumptions.

As for the laws of nature existing "before" the universe, that's a philosophical assertion, not a scientific fact. In physics, laws describe how things behave within the universe—they don't exist independently of it. Claiming they were in place before the universe itself is speculative and lacks empirical support.

Your argument is based on theoretical models that are far from universally accepted and should be recognized as speculative, not conclusive evidence of how the universe came into existence.

I'm not. I'm explaining to you the relationship between mind and matter, and the primacy of mind. Everything is information. Information is mind stuff. Probability waves are mind stuff. The material world is made up of mind stuff. Rather than being a late outgrowth of the physical world, mind has always existed as the source or matrix of the physical world. This is a life breeding, intelligence creating universe because the constant presence of mind made it so. Every extant attribute of reality are the attributes of that mind. It's not an accident that math, music, art, science exist and people are born with those talents. It's perfectly natural.

 

[TruthNotBS]

What do you think Arthur Eddington meant when in 1928 he wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time."

Arthur Eddington's quote reflects his philosophical perspective, influenced by the early 20th-century developments in quantum mechanics and relativity, which challenged the classical, materialistic view of reality. When he says "the stuff of the world is mind-stuff," he's pointing to the idea that consciousness or mental phenomena might be fundamental to the fabric of reality, rather than physical matter alone.

However, this does not provide evidence for the existence of a personal God, let alone the specific God of the Bible or Christianity. Eddington’s ideas were speculative and philosophical, not scientific proof of any deity. His statement doesn't bridge the gap between the concept of a conscious universe and the existence of a personal, interventionist God as described in religious texts. Eddington's thoughts on "mind stuff" are interesting from a philosophical standpoint, but they don't equate to evidence or justification for the existence of a personal deity or any specific religious doctrine.

 

[TruthNotBS]

It is primarily physicists who have expressed the relationship between mind and matter, and the primacy of mind; Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker, Wolfgang Pauli and George Wald, all contemplated it.

While some physicists like Eddington, Pauli, and others have explored the relationship between mind and matter, these contemplations are philosophical, not scientific conclusions. They express personal interpretations of how consciousness might relate to the physical world, but they don't provide empirical evidence or a consensus view in science. The "primacy of mind" is an interesting idea, but it's speculative and doesn't prove any religious or theological claims.

 

[ding]

Arthur Eddington's quote reflects his philosophical perspective, influenced by the early 20th-century developments in quantum mechanics and relativity, which challenged the classical, materialistic view of reality. When he says "the stuff of the world is mind-stuff," he's pointing to the idea that consciousness or mental phenomena might be fundamental to the fabric of reality, rather than physical matter alone.

However, this does not provide evidence for the existence of a personal God, let alone the specific God of the Bible or Christianity. Eddington’s ideas were speculative and philosophical, not scientific proof of any deity. His statement doesn't bridge the gap between the concept of a conscious universe and the existence of a personal, interventionist God as described in religious texts. Eddington's thoughts on "mind stuff" are interesting from a philosophical standpoint, but they don't equate to evidence or justification for the existence of a personal deity or any specific religious doctrine.

The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness.

 

[ding]

While some physicists like Eddington, Pauli, and others have explored the relationship between mind and matter, these contemplations are philosophical, not scientific conclusions. They express personal interpretations of how consciousness might relate to the physical world, but they don't provide empirical evidence or a consensus view in science. The "primacy of mind" is an interesting idea, but it's speculative and doesn't prove any religious or theological claims.

Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I'm not. I'm explaining to you the relationship between mind and matter, and the primacy of mind. Everything is information. Information is mind stuff. Probability waves are mind stuff. The material world is made up of mind stuff. Rather than being a late outgrowth of the physical world, mind has always existed as the source or matrix of the physical world. This is a life breeding, intelligence creating universe because the constant presence of mind made it so. Every extant attribute of reality are the attributes of that mind. It's not an accident that math, music, art, science exist and people are born with those talents. It's perfectly natural.

Quantum mechanics and information theory describe how systems behave, but they don't imply that everything is fundamentally "mind." Probability waves in quantum mechanics represent mathematical abstractions, not conscious entities or "mind stuff." These waves describe potential outcomes of quantum events, not a thinking mind.

Moreover, claiming that the universe is "life breeding" and "intelligence creating" because of a constant presence of mind is an unfounded leap. Evolution and the development of intelligence are explained by natural processes, not by a universal consciousness. Talents like math, music, or art are the result of complex neural and genetic factors, not evidence of a pre-existing cosmic mind.

Your assertion that mind has always existed as the source of the physical world is speculative at best, with no empirical backing. It’s a philosophical stance that doesn’t hold up against the scientific understanding of how the universe operates. You’re confusing poetic ideas with scientific truth, and there’s a significant difference between the two.

 

[ding]

Quantum mechanics and information theory describe how systems behave, but they don't imply that everything is fundamentally "mind." Probability waves in quantum mechanics represent mathematical abstractions, not conscious entities or "mind stuff." These waves describe potential outcomes of quantum events, not a thinking mind.

Moreover, claiming that the universe is "life breeding" and "intelligence creating" because of a constant presence of mind is an unfounded leap. Evolution and the development of intelligence are explained by natural processes, not by a universal consciousness. Talents like math, music, or art are the result of complex neural and genetic factors, not evidence of a pre-existing cosmic mind.

Your assertion that mind has always existed as the source of the physical world is speculative at best, with no empirical backing. It’s a philosophical stance that doesn’t hold up against the scientific understanding of how the universe operates. You’re confusing poetic ideas with scientific truth, and there’s a significant difference between the two.

In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality."

 

[TruthNotBS]

The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness.

Your claim that the physical world is "entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness" is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one. The physical world exists independently of our perception of it—planets orbit stars, stars undergo nuclear fusion, and gravity operates regardless of whether a conscious being is observing it. This is well-established by countless empirical observations and experiments.

Consciousness is likely an emergent property of complex neural networks in the brain, as supported by neuroscience. While we don't yet fully understand the mechanisms of consciousness, there's no evidence to suggest that the physical world requires consciousness to exist. The idea that consciousness is a prerequisite for the physical world is speculative and doesn't align with the overwhelming evidence that the universe operates according to physical laws, independent of human perception or consciousness. Your argument is more metaphysical conjecture than a reflection of scientific reality.


4o

 

[TruthNotBS]

In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality."

Pauli's statement reflects a philosophical viewpoint that seeks to integrate mind and matter as complementary aspects of reality. However, this perspective doesn't serve as evidence for the existence of a personal God or validate any religious doctrine like Christianity. Even if mind and matter are intertwined in some way, it doesn't automatically mean that all energy, matter, and the laws of physics arose from an intelligence.

Pauli's idea is speculative and philosophical, not a scientific conclusion. It explores the possibility of a deeper connection between consciousness and the physical world, but it doesn’t provide empirical proof of any deity or suggest that psychic phenomena necessitate a divine source. The existence of mind and matter as complementary aspects of reality is an intriguing idea, but it remains just that—an idea, not definitive evidence of a cosmic intelligence or the truth of any particular religion.

 

[ding]

Your claim that the physical world is "entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness" is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one. The physical world exists independently of our perception of it—planets orbit stars, stars undergo nuclear fusion, and gravity operates regardless of whether a conscious being is observing it. This is well-established by countless empirical observations and experiments.

Consciousness is likely an emergent property of complex neural networks in the brain, as supported by neuroscience. While we don't yet fully understand the mechanisms of consciousness, there's no evidence to suggest that the physical world requires consciousness to exist. The idea that consciousness is a prerequisite for the physical world is speculative and doesn't align with the overwhelming evidence that the universe operates according to physical laws, independent of human perception or consciousness. Your argument is more metaphysical conjecture than a reflection of scientific reality.


4o

George Wald responds:

"...Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective..."

 

[ding]

Pauli's statement reflects a philosophical viewpoint that seeks to integrate mind and matter as complementary aspects of reality. However, this perspective doesn't serve as evidence for the existence of a personal God or validate any religious doctrine like Christianity. Even if mind and matter are intertwined in some way, it doesn't automatically mean that all energy, matter, and the laws of physics arose from an intelligence.

Pauli's idea is speculative and philosophical, not a scientific conclusion. It explores the possibility of a deeper connection between consciousness and the physical world, but it doesn’t provide empirical proof of any deity or suggest that psychic phenomena necessitate a divine source. The existence of mind and matter as complementary aspects of reality is an intriguing idea, but it remains just that—an idea, not definitive evidence of a cosmic intelligence or the truth of any particular religion.

Philosophically speaking the only thing that can be eternal is something that is unchanging. Scientifically matter and energy cannot be unchanging. So philosophically matter and energy cannot be an eternal source of creating universes. Which logically means whatever the eternal unchanging source is it can't be energy or matter. Hence the only thing left would be consciousness. Everything can be represented by information. Information isn't a material thing. Information is mind stuff and for that reason it is deeply mysterious.

 

[TruthNotBS]

George Wald responds:

"...Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective..."

Wald's observation about the role of consciousness in quantum experiments highlights the interplay between observer and observed, a well-known feature in quantum mechanics. However, it doesn't imply the existence of a personal God or support any specific religious belief. The fact that the outcome of an experiment can be influenced by the type of measurement does not mean that consciousness creates or fundamentally alters reality; it simply shows that the quantum world behaves differently depending on how we interact with it.

This phenomenon—known as the observer effect—doesn't lead to the conclusion that consciousness is the fundamental substance of the universe or that it proves a divine intelligence. It's a specific feature of quantum mechanics that deals with probabilities and measurement, not an indication of a personal God or the truth of any religious doctrine. Wald's point, while fascinating, remains within the domain of physics and does not extend to proving any metaphysical or theological claims.

 

[ding]

Wald's observation about the role of consciousness in quantum experiments highlights the interplay between observer and observed, a well-known feature in quantum mechanics. However, it doesn't imply the existence of a personal God or support any specific religious belief. The fact that the outcome of an experiment can be influenced by the type of measurement does not mean that consciousness creates or fundamentally alters reality; it simply shows that the quantum world behaves differently depending on how we interact with it.

This phenomenon—known as the observer effect—doesn't lead to the conclusion that consciousness is the fundamental substance of the universe or that it proves a divine intelligence. It's a specific feature of quantum mechanics that deals with probabilities and measurement, not an indication of a personal God or the truth of any religious doctrine. Wald's point, while fascinating, remains within the domain of physics and does not extend to proving any metaphysical or theological claims.

I think you need to reconsider your belief that you are agnostic. You are making the arguments of an atheist.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Philosophically speaking the only thing that can be eternal is something that is unchanging. Scientifically matter and energy cannot be unchanging. So philosophically matter and energy cannot be an eternal source of creating universes. Which logically means whatever the eternal unchanging source is it can't be energy or matter. Hence the only thing left would be consciousness. Everything can be represented by information. Information isn't a material thing. Information is mind stuff and for that reason it is deeply mysterious.

Your argument is based on a series of philosophical assumptions that don't hold up under scrutiny. Let’s break them down:

1. Eternality and Change: The claim that only something unchanging can be eternal is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one. In physics, time and change are inherent properties of the universe, and there's no requirement that something must be unchanging to be eternal. For example, the laws of physics themselves might be considered "eternal" in the sense that they apply universally across time, even though the universe is constantly evolving.
2. Matter and Energy: Scientifically, matter and energy are conserved—they can change forms, but they are not created or destroyed. This principle of conservation means that in some sense, matter and energy could be considered "eternal" within the context of our universe. Your assertion that they can't be eternal is not supported by current scientific understanding.
3. Consciousness as the Eternal Source: You jump from the philosophical idea that something unchanging must be eternal to the conclusion that this something must be consciousness. This is a non-sequitur; it doesn't logically follow that consciousness is the only possible unchanging source. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that consciousness exists independently of physical processes or that it is eternal.
4. Information as "Mind Stuff": Information is indeed not a material thing, but that doesn't make it "mind stuff" or inherently linked to consciousness. Information, in a scientific context, is a measure of entropy or a way to describe the state of a system. It's a concept used to describe data and processes, not a substance or entity. The idea that information is mysterious "mind stuff" is a leap from the definition of information in physics or computer science to a metaphysical claim that lacks evidence.

Your argument hinges on philosophical interpretations that are speculative at best and not grounded in scientific evidence. The leap from abstract concepts like information to the conclusion that consciousness is the eternal source of reality is unsupported and doesn't stand up to logical or empirical scrutiny.