Humans are Gods creating more powerful Gods, that too, shall likely create more powerful Gods, that too shall likely create more powerful Gods... (updated)

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

NOTE: I had posted the same thread earlier, but absent content from particular pages from an amazon book (that I won't disclose here) of mine containing relevant scientific data.

 

 

 

UPDATED INTRODUCTION

That theism generally holds that ‘God’ exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought, (i.e. outside of science) is demonstrably invalid; contrary to said claim of billions of minds (i.e. theists), God is firstly, amidst archaic science, and subsequently, God is scientifically redefinable/approachable, using - a trivial disproof of said claims, on the regime of scientific inquiry.

Therein, the archaic God concept is not a non-trivial matter; there persists an unavoidable bafflement and neurological concern (especially amidst atheistic minds, such as mine); for empirically, billions of minds, of billions and billions of neurons, select faith in apparently nonsensical entities, such as said Gods.

As such, as science permits that archaic concepts are updatable (i.e. the nature of science – facilitating falsifiability etc… together with the passage of time, entailed that astrology was purged from astronomy); filtered through the rigour of science, on scientific inquiry, the archaic God concept is shown to be quite a different model, contrary to theistic belief.

 

 

 

 

 

GOD (AS SCIENTIFICALLY REDEFINED) IS COMPATIBLE WITH ATHEISM

When faced with the rigour of science, on scientific inquiry, the archaic God concept occurs quite contrary to very nature of theism, when the necessitation for faith/belief is purged:

Notably, one need not believe in science, as science is true regardless of belief.

Crucially, one may maintain an atheistic state (be an atheist), while observing the scientific god redefinition in this thread as valid.

This is because one need not belief to observe science, and so one need not believe in God (i.e one then may still lack belief in the scientific re-definition in this thread), as scientifically redefined, while still observing said redefinition as valid.

 

 

 

 

SCIENTIFIC NOTATION

symbols:

G: Major theistic god concepts

A: Science in antiquity  

O: Concepts that are objectively falsifiable...

inquiry:

i. Major theistic God concepts are science in antiquity. (GaA)

ii. Concepts in science in antiquity are objectively falsifiable concepts (AaO)

iii. ∴ Concepts that are objectively falsifiable may be God concepts. (OaG)

(See attached figure)

 

 

 

A POSSIBLE SCIENTIFIC-REDEFINITION OF GOD

Given the scientific notation prior, typical scrutiny reveals:

(1) Omniscience, angels, heaven, etc is scientifically unfounded.

(2) That the universe is "made", let alone by some entity encompassing (1), is scientifically unfounded.

 

Consequently:

A close approximation persists relatively to the default God model; non-omniscient humans can encode sophisticated universes, that is, simulations of universes.

A possible scientific redefinition (i.e. an operational definition), that absorbs the scientific notation in the prior section faces:

Redefinition: God is any non-omniscient entity with the ability to compute simulation(s) of universes (from crude universes i.e. illustris, to perhaps instance(s) that may contain sophisticated intelligence) and or to engineer non-trivial intelligence (perhaps artificial), that shall probably exceed that of the intellect of its creators.

The redefinition sequence can be observed to yield tiers of creators including ‘minimally capable gods’ and ‘highly capable Gods’ of which humans largely already exist smally as highly capable Gods and largely as minimally capable Gods; for large numbers of humans possess human level general intelligence, and by extension, small numbers of humans are creating crude universes, by utilizing the aforesaid general level intelligence.

(Note: The terms "minimally and highly capable" Gods are not fixed, novel terms, but instead words that simply describe the incidence of gradation observed in humans, wrt to universe yielding ability.)

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Lord Antares]

Will you quit with your rubbish? You were made aware that these kinds of threads are unwanted, can't you take the hint? You've opened several threads and all are about the same thing. You want to redefine a word for no reason whatsoever. None of what you say makes sense. There is nothing scientific in what you are saying. It's even too vague to be philosophical.

The mods don't appreciate it when you repeatedly open threads on a subject you have been told not to touch again. As I said before, your ban is imminent, trust me. I hope you will make the choice to study science and open sensible threads in the future, on the off chance that you don't get banned.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

25 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

Will you quit with your rubbish? You were made aware that these kinds of threads are unwanted, can't you take the hint? You've opened several threads and all are about the same thing. You want to redefine a word for no reason whatsoever. None of what you say makes sense. There is nothing scientific in what you are saying. It's even too vague to be philosophical.

The mods don't appreciate it when you repeatedly open threads on a subject you have been told not to touch again. As I said before, your ban is imminent, trust me. I hope you will make the choice to study science and open sensible threads in the future, on the off chance that you don't get banned.

Did you bother to read the thread?

This thread also differs from prior threads (excluding the one of the same title).

 

FOOTNOTE:

What may be largely repeated, from thread to thread, is my expression of "the science is true whether or not one believes in it" sequence.

This is not surprising, because that expression is now a part of my scientific thinking.

Likewise, it is likely that you repeat little particular concepts/learnt behaviour from thread to thread.

Note that this updated thread constitutes some scientific rigour that had been left out, for I pondered whether the earlier thread would have gotten too large with the details.  However, I have managed to condense sufficient details amidst this latest thread, unlike before.

Edited August 19, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Lord Antares]

I glanced over it; but I didn't have to read anything as it's what you've talked about several times now. We've had this discussion of redefining the concept of god like a year ago and it was completely senseless. I'm sorry, it's just so obvious that none of this makes sense and it is irrelevant in every way possible. I don't want to call you a delusional person, but you might want to rethink what logical argumentation is.

I suggest learning science (say, classical physics) and seeing how logical, well tested and well designed those theories are. You will see how unfounded and lacking your ''theories'' are in comparison. How none of what you said is quantifiable, provable or even proven for logic. I give you this advice with good intentions.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

14 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

I glanced over it; but I didn't have to read anything as it's what you've talked about several times now. We've had this discussion of redefining the concept of god like a year ago and it was completely senseless

A glance is not sufficient.

 

Quote

I'm sorry, it's just so obvious that none of this makes sense and it is irrelevant in every way possible. I don't want to call you a delusional person, but you might want to rethink what logical argumentation is.

The updated thread consists of scientific details that were priorly left out. 

It now likely satisfies Science Forums requirements.

 

Quote

I suggest learning science (say, classical physics) and seeing how logical, well tested and well designed those theories are. You will see how unfounded and lacking your ''theories'' are in comparison. How none of what you said is quantifiable, provable or even proven for logic. I give you this advice with good intentions.

It would be false to express that I am absent scientific knowledge of physics.

Here is a brief mathematical description of quantum computing, of mine: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318902160_A_delicious_mathematical_expression_describing_the_basis_of_quantum_computing

Once more, this updated thread constitutes some scientific rigour that had been left out, for I pondered whether the earlier thread would have gotten too large with the details.  However, I have managed to condense sufficient details amidst this latest thread, unlike before.

Edited August 19, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Lord Antares]

7 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

A glance is not sufficient.

I'm sorry, but it is. You're attempting to redefine a word. This concerns linguistics and not science in any way. Therefore, none of your arguments can be scientifically viable. You are repeating your ''minimally capable gods'' nonsense just the same as were saying it before.

It is exactly as if I sad ''I want the word ''box'' to also mean ''glass'' and here is my scientific argument as to why...''. Anything that follows after that is senseless as it has nothing to do with science and is not logical by default. You're doing the same thing. You have some twisted logic why you think the word ''god'' should be redefined, which no one ever agrees with; yet you're hell bent on using your definition. I really want to tell you why this is completely senseless and pointless but you seem to have some mental block which prevents you from understanding this.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

A possible scientific redefinition

"Scientific redefinition" doesn't really mean anything. Introducing symbols and silly Venn diagrams doesn't change the fact that you are just derailing a potentially interesting topic by insisting on using the word "god". 

You seem to have some sort of fixation or monomania. Are you able to discuss anything else?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

33 minutes ago, Strange said:

"Scientific redefinition" doesn't really mean anything.

You seem to have some sort of fixation or monomania. Are you able to discuss anything else?

 

Quote

I'm sorry, but it is. You're attempting to redefine a word. This concerns linguistics and not science in any way. Therefore, none of your arguments can be scientifically viable.

Science is such that constantly facilitates that its models are redefined.

 

This is one of the pillars of science; given new evidence, models are subject to change, redefinition, update or what ever synonym you prefer to employ.

Quote

You are repeating your ''minimally capable gods'' nonsense just the same as were saying it before.

You can select whichever words you prefer. The thread clearly shows that the terms "minimally and highly capable Gods" are not fixed, novel terms, but instead words that simply describe the incidence of gradation observed in humans, wrt to universe yielding ability.

 

Quote

Introducing symbols and silly Venn diagrams doesn't change the fact that you are just derailing a potentially interesting topic by insisting on using the word "god". 

See the introduction in the original post.

That diagram isn't devoid of science.

Edited August 19, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Strange]

Just now, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Science is such that constantly facilitates that its models are redefined.

But just redefining something doesn't mean it is science. You haven't used the scientific method therefore it ain't science. 

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

But just redefining something doesn't mean it is science. You haven't used the scientific method therefore it ain't science. 

 

 

Quote

It is exactly as if I sad ''I want the word ''box'' to also mean ''glass'' and here is my scientific argument as to why...''. Anything that follows after that is senseless as it has nothing to do with science and is not logical by default. You're doing the same thing. You have some twisted logic why you think the word ''god'' should be redefined, which no one ever agrees with; yet you're hell bent on using your definition. I really want to tell you why this is completely senseless and pointless but you seem to have some mental block which prevents you from understanding this

It is unavoidable that the scientific methodology had been used.

Why don't you spare a little more than a glance, whenever you have the time?

You glancing and quickly writing empty comments does not alter the fact that the scientific methodology had been employed, in the composition of this thread.

Edited August 19, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

It is unavoidable that the scientific methodology had been used.

Hypothesis? No

Model? No. 

Predictions?  No. 

Experimental test? No. 

So, science? No. 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Hypothesis? (Disproof/Falsification).

Model? Yes. 

Predictions?  Yes. 

Experimental test? See predictions. 

So, science? Yes. 

I corrected your response.

Take some time to do little more than glance the content, before writing rash comments.

Edited August 19, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Manticore]

Hypothesis? Nowhere to be found.

Model? Nowhere to be found.

Predictions?  Nowhere to be found.

Experimental test? Non existent. 

So, science? Not even close.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

33 minutes ago, Manticore said:

Hypothesis? (Disproof/falsification)

Model? Yes, See paper. 

Predictions?  Yes, See paper.

Experimental test? See predictions.

So, science? Yes. 

I have corrected your quote above.

Are you like "Strange" that merely glanced the thread, and claim to have sufficient data to respond?

Spare an hour to observe the content, lest you proceed to comment emptily.

 

 

@Strange

Strange, do you know any actual science?

How can you present advice to me, and not recognize one of the great pillars of science?

Why didn't you observe that science constitutes redefinitions? (Objectivity, falsification)

Edited August 19, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

I corrected your response.

Take some time to do little more than glance the content, before writing rash comments.

If you could present your hypothesis, model, predictions and experimental results under those headings so we can see what you are talking about. 

[Manticore]

9 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Are you like "Strange" that merely glanced the thread, and claim to have sufficient data to respond?

Spare an hour to observe the content, lest you proceed to comment emptily.

It doesn't take as long as an hour to scan a bunch of endlessly repetitive, content free waffle.

I even downloaded the PDF of your so-called paper & tried to make sense of that piece of gibberish.

You totally mangled my previous post when you "quoted" it.

I said:

Hypothesis? Nowhere to be found.

Model? Nowhere to be found.

Predictions?  Nowhere to be found.

Experimental test? Non existent. 

So, science? Not even close.

You changed it to:

Hypothesis? (Disproof/falsification)

Model? Yes, See paper. 

Predictions?  Yes, See paper.

Experimental test? See predictions.

So, science? Yes. 

This is, to say the least, extremely offensive.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Manticore

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you could present your hypothesis, model, predictions and experimental results under those headings so we can see what you are talking about. 

The paper is a:

(1) Falsification of theologian claim, on the horizon of a model in archaic science.

 

(2) Presentation of results on standard scientific inquiry/notation, where a theologian claim regarding archaic God concept is falsified, while a separate operational definition is presented, given the constraints of the inquiry.

 

..all under those headings.

Edited August 19, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Strange]

So you can't present your hypothesis, model, predictions and experimental results then?

Not a surprise. 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

12 minutes ago, Manticore said:

I even downloaded the PDF of your so-called paper & tried to make sense of that piece of gibberish.

Something I have come to observe:

Scientific data -> (as seen by laymen) -> Garbage, gibberish

Scientific data -> (as seen by scientists) -> Scientific data

[Lord Antares]

53 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

 

Science is such that constantly facilitates that its models are redefined.

 

This is one of the pillars of science; given new evidence, models are subject to change, redefinition, update or what ever synonym you prefer to employ.

 

And? The fact that definitions need to be redefined from time to time does not mean that your redefinition is automatically useful. That is a huge fallacy. Your definition is useless. It doesn't bring anything new. It's doesn't bring anything useful. It has no substance whatsoever.

You should have posted this under philosophy, because it is bad philosophy. Nothing to do with science. Again, I suggest you learn parts of classical physics in depth so that you might understand what scientific theory is.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

8 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

And? The fact that definitions need to be redefined from time to time does not mean that your redefinition is automatically useful. That is a huge fallacy. Your definition is useless. It doesn't bring anything new. It's doesn't bring anything useful. It has no substance whatsoever.

You should have posted this under philosophy, because it is bad philosophy. Nothing to do with science. Again, I suggest you learn parts of classical physics in depth so that you might understand what scientific theory is.

 

Once more, it would be false to express that I am absent scientific knowledge of physics.

Here is a brief mathematical description of quantum computing, of mine: 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318902160_A_delicious_mathematical_expression_describing_the_basis_of_quantum_computing

 

Secondly, could you please provide a summary of the following portion of mine?

Quote

That theism generally holds that ‘God’ exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought, (i.e. outside of science) is demonstrably invalid; contrary to said claim of billions of minds (i.e. theists), God is firstly, amidst archaic science, and subsequently, God is scientifically redefinable/approachable, using - a trivial disproof of said claims, on the regime of scientific inquiry.

Therein, the archaic God concept is not a non-trivial matter; there persists an unavoidable bafflement and neurological concern (especially amidst atheistic minds, such as mine); for empirically, billions of minds, of billions and billions of neurons, select faith in apparently nonsensical entities, such as said Gods.

As such, as science permits that archaic concepts are updatable (i.e. the nature of science – facilitating falsifiability etc… together with the passage of time, entailed that astrology was purged from astronomy); filtered through the rigour of science, on scientific inquiry, the archaic God concept is shown to be quite a different model, contrary to theistic belief.

Your summary may help diagnose the problem here.

Edited August 19, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Manticore]

6 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Something I have come to observe:

Scientific data -> (as seen by laymen) -> Garbage, gibberish

Scientific data -> (as seen by scientists) -> Scientific data

As it happens; I am, by education, an Astrophysicist and by occupation a Computer Consultant. I suspect I know far more about both Physics and Programming than you - who have only so far displayed almost total ignorance in both areas.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

3 minutes ago, Manticore said:

As it happens; I am, by education, an Astrophysicist and by occupation a Computer Consultant. I suspect I know far more about both Physics and Programming than you - who have only so far displayed almost total ignorance in both areas.

I need some assistance with this: https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/God

What do you make of it?

[John Cuthber]

12 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

I need some assistance with this: https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/God

What do you make of it?

I think it reads like bad postmodern poetry.

Is it intended to convey information? If so, it fails.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I think it reads like bad postmodern poetry.

Is it intended to convey information? If so, it fails.

 

A break down:

 

C^∞π(R^nπ) is a 'novel' term, consisting of a novel organization, of pretty standard components. 

"Simply", it consists of manifolds as models for concept representation, in conjunction with some π like policy system - a temporal difference learning paradigm representing distributions over eta.

This means there is an overall model that may learn causal laws of physics (sample), in a reinforcement learning based setting.

 

Some structure like the above is required, because typical deep learning object detectors like uetorch.. include pooling for translation invariance, while reinforcement learners like Atari q exclude pooling layers, as the model needs to be sensitive to the varying changes in object orientation, and it is feasible to combine translation invariance and non invariance in a single model, as by example, young biological brains are observed to do both reinforcement learning and unconscious physics calculations.