ProgrammingGodJordan

(1) Belief involves trust. You don't need to trust that tomorrow shall arrive. You may instead observe the probability that tomorrow shall come. (2) The sequences you have observed thus far shows that: (i) Belief is non-scientific. (belief may refer to science, but there is no reason to keep beliefs that are observed to be likely non-scientific, when science already exists) (ii) Belief is redundant. (we may observe probabilities without trusting or accepting them) (iii) Belief yields delusions. (iv) Beliefs/faiths tend to occur in beings of less intellect. (source from the top level domain introduced) There is no reason to keep beliefs.

(1) Typo removed. I had taken a response of mine from somewhere else (as your criticism was/is typical) I modified that old response, without removing all the non-necessary components. (as it relates to this thread) (2) Anyways, here is a source to start with: Delusions and the Role of Beliefs in Perceptual Inference http://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/34/13701 etc etc (3) Thanks for indicating that I hadn't any signature. I had forgotten to update it, prior to your notification.

Typo purged. What my collapse does was represented by the green segment, in my prior comment: dx/dθ * dx.

As I said before, I provide evidence linking strong beliefs to poorer performance in logical tasks. Also, neuroscience parlance shows that beliefs construe delusions.

The paradigm described is not u-substitution. /////DIFFERENCE - i: Fundamentally, u-substitution applies for functions of the form ∫ f(x) f'(x) dx. (that is, when integrals contains some function and its derivative) EXPLANATION_EXPERIMENT: (A) INITIAL_FUNCTION(a) = ∫ sinx cosxdx. Let u =sinx, and du=4cosxdx. Here we see that the INITIAL_FUNCTION(a) yields the form ∫ udu. In (A) u-substitution nicely applies. (B) INITIAL_FUNCTION(b) = ∫ √16 - x^2 Let u = 4sinθ, and du = 4cosθdθ. Here we see that the INITIAL_FUNCTION(b) does not yield the form ∫ udu. In (B) u-substitution does not apply, such that "dx/dθ * dx" absorbs the solution. /////DIFFERENCE - ii: EXPLANATION_EXPERIMENT: U-substitution when applied to trig integral forms that don't satisfy the fundamental requirement in DIFFERENCE - i, don't engender via my equation "dx/dθ * dx".

(1)The top level domain is mentioned in my signature. (2) The evidence being referred to is not the quotes, but instead include studies concerning strong belief systems, religion. Atheism merely concerns lack of belief in god or gods. (See google) Non beliefism concerns lack of the concept of belief. (ie lack of belief entirely)

(A) Let us break things down. Original statement: See nonbeliefism in the top level domain. (1) Top level domains exist in a particular dns root zone. (2) Following from (1) nonbeliefism exists in the dns root zone. (3) No specification was given (in the original post), and so nonbeliefism exists in a common tld regime. (Though this common regime is specified in my signature) (B) Evidence is provided in sources via (A.3).

(a) Top Level Domains have a particular format, where anyone may register. Such is merely what I shall express regarding that topic. (b) In contacting a paradigm, you may approach that paradigm.

You don't need to believe in top level domains, neither do you need to formulate some (tld) theory. A quick google reveals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains As for the other portion of your responses, they are ignorable/irrelevant. I edited in something in the original post, after you made your comment. It may apply: I express: "One need not contact a paradigm, observed to likely express non-science (i.e. belief), when already, science persists."

Not so popular quotes: Quote by Neil deGrasse Tyson: Quote by Robert A. Wilson: Quote by Jim Walker I express: One need not contact a paradigm, observed to likely express non-science (i.e. belief), when already, science persists. So, what are your thoughts, do you think beliefs are necessary? Footnote: Snippet from "non-beliefism". (Sig) Non beliefism (invented in 2016) is probably atheism's successor. For more information, see "nonbeliefism", in the top level domain (TLD).

This is the first time hearing such data. I had searched for 4 years, without finding the collapse regime. Could you direct us to where the collapse bit exists, in standard texts?

('A') It took billions of years of evolution on planet earth, for a phenomenon called 'non beliefism' to emerge, and I am its inventor. ('B') 'Non beliefism' is a framework that may enhance thought, while underlining that belief is non necessary, for belief opposes science. ('C') Here is one of non beliefism's premise sequences: Belief [/size]may constitute non-science.[/size] Science in contrast, shan’t encode non-science. Thereafter, it is non-scientific to believe.…ie scientific evidence shan’t contain non-scientific-evidence. ★★★★★★★★★★ In simpler words: It is non-scientific to believe, as the concept of belief allows non-science, whereas science allows not non-science. ('D') Small guideline: url deleted (E) Criticism is welcome.

Keep in mind that I am atheistic. (One need not believe in science) Furthermore, I have zero beliefs, especially as the inventor of a phenomenon called "non-beliefism". NOTE: In my prior post, I had introduced that humans were "minimally capable gods" (not the religious omniscient type), using science, without actually first stating why gods were scientifically redefinable. ~~~~~~~~~~~ HEADING A ~~~~~~~~~~~ Why is the archaic mythical god concept scientifically redefinable? In segment A, here, I list a few steps describing why the archaic mythical god concept is scientifically redefinable: (1) One shall recall that humanity had not always had rigorous modern science. (2) One shall recall that the root guess that the universe perhaps began/had an origin-source (the typical archaic claimed God, See Sumerian cosmology; via the creator god An) had been established prior to modern science. (Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis, Penrose/Hawking singularity theorems ...) (3.i) One shall recall that science updates itself. It appears science "forgot" to update the archaic science of Gods, in modern science terms. (3.ii) Recall 'gravity'. We are aware that science updated from archaic gravity (De Caelo), to Newtonian gravity, then to Einsteinian description. The word 'gravity' maintained regardless. Thusly, betwixt my accord, science shall remember to update the archaic concept "God", similar to how components from antiquity were purged from "astronomy" or "gravity". ~~~~~~~~~~~ HEADING B ~~~~~~~~~~~ How had the 'minimally capable god' classification occurred? (1) Observing the theories/materials referenced (in original post source) in one context, one may observe a compatible sequence of theories/materials (eg: where adinkra representations [adinkras reveal computer like codes in the theoretic fundamental descriptions of the cosmos] etc and big bang are compatible) In simpler words, our cosmos may be computable. (2) As time passed, we better created informational, computational representations of our own cosmos. (See illustris) There is no reason to ignore the above capacity/time progression. (3) Combining (1) and (2), our cosmos is perhaps creatable, rather than not, by some form of creator (perhaps like ourselves, or some other form of intelligence with at least human level intelligence) (4) The ability to yield sufficiently detailed universe(s) (like our own) includes, the ability to yield human level intelligence. (Humans encompass the universe) On that note, humans have the ability to generate human level intelligence, by learning tasks. So, humans already encompass a non trivial portion of the larger universe yielding ability, where human intelligence is observed as the universe's prominent complex machine, that may engender universe(s).

What of universal basic income?

//__self contradictory If you spotted the self contradiction, it is odd that you expressed those contradictory items. I begin statements as headers with //, if an expression exceeds one sentence. //__I can refer to the scientific process of redefining god while maintaining my athletic state I am the inventor of a phenomenon called 'non beliefism'. As such I have zero beliefs. Furthermore one need not belief to observe science. As I lack belief in all quantities, I am atheistic.

//__you are contradicting yourself Science existed in antiquity. You ironically agreed that aether existed (however briefly you claimed) and so aether (including other nonsense such as alchemy) existed. So your statement science did not exist in antiquity was nonsense.

//__god was an early part of scienceAnd like others have concurred on this forum, and as is known via public data, god was an early part of science. //__gravity did not always mean attractive force The word gravity existed before newton. It was simply hijacked and adopted. Gravity did not always mean attractive force. //_no cherry picking here You are confusing cherry picking with the fact that things are ignorable.(while such ignored things don't perturb the original post to invalidation) I don't to respond to every single silly non issue. //__keep in mind I am an atheist, and skeptic, so I came here to uncover errors in the process. Thus far there has been failure. ///__science was some nonsense in antiquity Science included things like aether, alchemy together with other nonsensical components. See 'age of enlightenment'. ///__what is represented was also updated You are giving weak, dishonest responses, perhaps due to emotional bias betwixt the the word god. Gravity did not mean attractive force in early science. See work before Newton in the history of gravitation. //__simply the original post updates god Science updates things. Science updated "gravity" from antiquity to modern account. Science "forgot" to update gods. There are modern probable causes of our cosmos. But, god was established as cause in early science. Now science remembers to update gods, with my intervention. Please read the original post.

///__you wrote redundant thingsYou wrote something redundant; that science updates with reason (this has been a part of my post's initial theme). It is merely recently in human history that there are reasons to update/incorporate "god" as it relates to causes of cosmos. //__why not redefine computers Gods were proposed as cause of cosmos, before computers. So, god is still updatable by science, as 'gravity' was. //__frail in antiquity Gravity was frail in antiquity. Gravity did not always mean attractive force. //__please research before commenting. I would still prefer solid objections that actually hold water(if possible). PS: If I had detected an error in the redefinition, based on any responses to my original post, I would have long acknowledged such. .

(1)God was a word in archaic science. See the cosmological argument. (Aristotle...) (2) PS: "Gravity" (the word) was not invented by newton. It meant different things to different cultures/people. It was hijacked and adapted. Redundant. The point is, gravity was updated. Please refrain from redundant sentences.

Let's break things down:(1) God was a proposed cause (absent evidence) long before modern scientific theories that also propose causes. (2) Gravity did not always mean attractive force. In antiquity, gravity and other things, such as alchemy and aether were nonsensical components, a part of science. (3) Gravity moved from antiquity to modern science's account, but gravity the word was kept. (4) There are modern probable causes established in science, but the word "god" was not kept. So it appears science "forgot" to update god in modern scientific terms. But now, with me, science "remembers" to update "god" concept. There was a time when there was not any experimental confirmation of gravitational waves. As I had said before,things are being tested for digital physics. ..and don't forget about Hawkins' Penrose theorems.

Yes, that's pretty obvious. The point is "gravity" (the concept/word) was not born in modern science. Digital physics is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is different from mere speculation. Speculation is statements. Theories test speculations. Digital physics is now being rigouorsly tested. Such is science's nature.

////// Wrong. Early gravity (in antiquity) was disparate from modern science. The meaning "attractive force" was not the earliest meaning. Also, modern science has not dispensed with the notion of god. (See simulation hypothesis, and or digital physics) Keep in mind that early descriptions of gravity did not mean "attractive force". Anyway, things have fallen down, but recall that people have long observed reality, that is, like how persons observed falling things (without modern scientific description), persons also discussed that things exist/began (Also previously without modern scientific description, ie: "God did it" typed arguments) Wrong, modern science describes probable causes. See the simulation hypothesis, and or digital physics. //__please research before commenting I would prefer solid objections to the original post, that actually hold water (if possible).

You should probably recall that 'gravity' had humble beginnings, and was essentially nonsense before it became sensible. I see now that the prior sequence was not clear. Here is a simplified sequence displaying why god is scientifically redefinable: (a) One shall recall that humanity had not always had rigorous modern science. (b) One shall recall that a cause for the universe (the typical archaic claimed God) had been established before modern science (Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis, Penrose/Hawkins' singularity theorems etc) (c.i) One shall recall that science updates itself. It appears science "forgot" to update the archaic science of Gods, in modern science terms. (c.ii) Recall 'gravity'. We are aware that science updated from archaic gravity (De Caelo), to Newtonian gravity, then to Einsteinian description. The word 'gravity' maintained regardless.

Of course, the sample part is a standard example. The 'collapse' bit in contrast, is my invention/input.

I posted particularly to establish a connection. Anyway, looking at the image above, specifically the parts in red titled 'Sample' and 'Collapse' , what are your thoughts? @Mathematic: The sample is standard, of course. The 'collapse' portion is non-standard. The "sample" is there to show the difference between the default way of doing things and my way, as seen in the "collapse" portion. Please comment on the non-standard portion.