But the idea that the universe is just composed of our imagination, and that if we can imagine it, it is real, is not based on any science or logic. The sheep herders were not a prerequisite to creation, they were a prerequisite to making up the mythology fairy tale about a being we call god. And I think what I just demonstrated is that yes, if you spin fantasies to fit your own beliefs and imaginations, you can make your own fantasies and imaginations be whatever the hell you want them to be. That's not a very big discovery. It also has no bearing on science or the real world.
Weren't those sheep herders also prerequisite to the fairy tale you call "science"?
Nope. That happened centuries later, when some people specifically rejected the ideas of those sheep hearders, and decided to actually do physical experiments in the physical world. Many were even punished or burned for doing this by the sheephearder followers.
Even though some people set themselves on a different path and decided to study the external world instead of looking into one's self, many of them came to the same conclusions:
"The Primacy Of Consciousness" (1:09:07) by Peter Russell (physicist)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUEScience is just one of the many hide-n-seek games in Creation. When you put your "player" in the Universe you created, you want it to not remember how it got there, so that it would begin its journey of exploration, be it science, art or even religion, it's up in the air.
So, if having a logical conclusion is a mere fantasy of my imagination, then it must be as real as what you call science or "real" world. There is no difference.
I doon't follow. No, a logical conclusion is not just whatever fantasy you wish to imagine.
Then my ontological argument still stands. Which is the following:
1) Let's define "God" as "Creator of the Universe(s)", it doesn't imply existence of God at this point, just a label.
2) Let's define "You" as an empirical evidence of your existence, which also allows you to have "Imagination"(basically an axiom, you agreed this Universe has "You" in it, that's good enough).
3) Let's assume that in "Imagination" everything is possible, some people in the beginning of this thread claimed just that in response to some religious discussions, so it shouldn't be a stretch (let it be an axiom too).
4) Now, every Universe "You" create in your "Imagination", where "You" emerge as a product of that Universe's laws, always leads to "God" (as per definition 1) equals "You" (or you would never emerge in any such Universe, because you are already the one imagining it).
5) There is empirical evidence that "You" emerged in this physical real Universe. As all such Universes (where "You" emerged) led to "God" equals "You" in your "Imagination", and that already encompassed all possibilities (according to 3), it necessarily leads to having empirical evidence of "God"'s existence (according to 2). Therefore "God" exists in reality.
So now you have two singularities, one where physical universe emerged out of Big Bang and the other where you as a consciousness emerged out of that physical universe, where there was no prior concept of you. What makes you choose the model with two singularities instead of just one, where you exist unconditionally and the rest is a product (sometimes very elaborate) of your imagination. Shouldn't Occam's razor apply here?
Because a singularity is a physics defined term, that means matter and energy in such a compressed state, that the gravity there overcomes light and time itself, etc. etc. etc.? I'm pretty sure I was never a black hole. Nor was I ever a spontaneous quantum explosion of matter and antimatter. All those things involving the Big Bang actually have some actual physical science behind them, so please don't conflate terms. Occam's razor would make my consciousness much more basic and simpler than some mystical thing that many people try to push here, and likewise would make the idea of the universe spontaneously popping into existence the way we have witnessed particles pop into existence in particle coliders WAY more probable than some omnippootent consciousness popping into existence to create the universe.
I used more generic term for singularity here (instead of a black hole, which indeed has mathematical model).
Singularity is where laws breakdown, it's that part when something comes out of nothing kinda thingy.
In that regard, even if you have a model for Big Bang as a collision of P-branes as per M-theory, the singularity would eventually hide in the explanation, where those branes came from.
So, again why have two singularities, where you can have only one. And if Occam's razor doesn't apply, then things get worse from the mere fact that those singularities are nested, meaning multiplying already infinitely small probabilities of any of them occurring independently.
There is no conclusive evidence, that brain creates consciousness, but there is some evidence (tabooed by "science" by the way), that brain receives consciousness.
We have pretty conclusive evidence that changing or damaging certain parts of the brain severely alters consciousness, that interfeering with brain chemistry alters consciousness, very good evidence on how brains are built and how they send signals, and practically no evidence that they receiive signals from elsewhere. Are you suggesting that brain damage due to physical trauma or disease actually interfeers with brain's "antenna" qualities, instead of actually damaging the consciousness that it works with? Your same Occam's raizor would say that the simplest explanation is that consciousness originates from the brain itself, as opposed to a vastly more complex idea that there is some great, unknown, untestable consciousness that our brain simply received (through what material or means, and why can't it be blocked)?
Yes, there is evidence that brain receives consciousness as demonstrated by scientific research (
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/141298.msg1514618#msg1514618)
If you damage your player's receiver to the point, that it can no longer coherently function, the player would die and you (as a consciousness) would be out of this particular game. But as a living paradox, you can never settle to rest, you always were and you always will be.
Regarding the term omnipotent, I have explained in this thread, that every omnipotent unconstrained consciousness (or God), would eventually end up testing the limits of its power, because everything else would be created in an instant. The only thing that would have any lasting "experience" is constantly creating conditions, where you begin facing limits of your power, because that's how powerful you are. You can think of God as a living paradox, and that's where every omnipotent unconstrained God would eventually end up. That's where we all ended up, here on Earth, playing all the same game, testing the limits of our powers.
