Souls exist. I am one. It is unlikely a soul, as complex as it is, would exist randomly. Many say souls exist outside of time, or always existed. Regardless of that, and ignoring my incorrect use of time-related words (we have few words for describing anything outside of time), how can a soul be built? Since it is unlikely to exist based on random things, there should be some process (regardless of who or what implements that process) to create a soul. There have been a few threads on creating "thought forms". That is a possible answer, but is really just a renaming of the question, if it is relevant. Give me more info. Many will say only "god" can create souls. That imo is dogma, and I am not afraid to "play god" if I think what I'm doing is right.
Okay. I'll say that it is ture that only God can create souls, but not as a matter of dogma. I'll define a soul as a part of God which thinks it has become a separate being.
I feel it might be possible to ensoul something other than a living being-by living I mean animal, plant, human that is.
The only evidence I have for this has been the sensations I pick up from cars, and other vehicles-especially boats. Not saying a soul is created out of nothing-it's potential was there already. My brother can see energy in people and things-he sees it highly individually in vehicles in general. I feel this myself. The more loved a car is-the more I can sense. Ok I'm focussing on the cars example here because that's what I've worked with in the past, also my strongest epiphany states have come from cars also.
If you put enough energy into a construct especially deliberately I have heard it said it can gain it's own consciousness.
Quotehow can a soul be built?
That would need a builder. Which in turn would need its own builder...and so on. You end up with a paradox if you follow this path.
Then you can assume the existence of a prime builder, who need not be created and came into being on its own. But that would contradict your own statement that its a bit too much complex, for that to happen.
Well this (very solid) argument must be a familiar one, as its often stated against the existence of god and creation of lifeforms, by those who support Darwinism. So why not extend the evolution principles to spiritual.
I propose that a very primitive and simple form of consciousness exists in the whole of the being, by the very nature of being. So being is consciousness itself. It is so simple that its not even self-conscious and can't experience anything. Slowly [not in our timeframe] it evolved by a natural quality of self-negation and through Darwinian processes and could express itself in forms of itself (matter, we got).
These multidimensional material forms grew more and more complex and some of them could become self-conscious.....souls, we have here.
The souls continued to evolve and could direct their own evolution, which speeded up the whole thing and the souls could become conscious of higher and higher dimensions, which were of course their own content.
Some of them are so evolved that they could create whole universes (which are they themselves expressing themselves) and mimic the evolution in an accelerated manner by incarnating their own parts.....gods, we arrive at.
The parts are obviously us...the living beings in their various states of evolution. Just like the image formed by a complete hologram is crisp and bright, but the image formed by one of its smaller part is dull and blurry, our consciousness remains of an inferior nature.
There are many-many souls stacked up on this ladder at various levels of evolution. Some of us would become gods and start the process over. Evolving more and more. But there remains a possibility that we are not parts of some greater soul, but evolved out of primordial stuff and are on our way of becoming a god.
Someday we'll create our own universes and souls.
Above goes well with the 'Disc' theory I read here and many other 'spiritual facts'. Or may be its my over-imagination at work. :)
this thread.... the weird things i think of while drunk :P
QuoteIf you put enough energy into a construct especially deliberately I have heard it said it can gain it's own consciousness.
I know what it feels like to do that, but what is really happening? 1 sentence is not enough explanation to be useful.
QuoteThat would need a builder. Which in turn would need its own builder...and so on. You end up with a paradox if you follow this path.
Then you can assume the existence of a prime builder, who need not be created and came into being on its own.
I hate assuming, so I wont assume that dogma. Nevermind how I got here. I am here. Now I want to build things, and none of your theories of my past will affect that.
QuoteBut that would contradict your own statement that its a bit too much complex, for that to happen.
Its too complex to "start" to exist AS IT IS NOW randomly. I put no restriction on how it became as it is, only that it was a gradual process from simple to complex. It could be a random process. Example: evolution is mostly random (until tool building, genetic engineering, etc). But it is extremely unlikely for there to be nothing then this complex universe. Gradual. Your prime builder is still dogma.
QuoteI propose that a very primitive and simple form of consciousness exists in the whole of the being, by the very nature of being. So being is consciousness itself.
I propose that the smallest simplest thing the universe is made of, can be arbitrarily called anything, since its the only thing that exists. All its properties can be exactly described by math, logic, and/or statistics, therefore it is equal to that.
As I've said before, if something exists for a reason, it is logical. If it has no reason, it is random and described by statistics, which are logical. Therefore everything that exists is logical. "2=3" is logical. It is logicly described as an incorrect string of 3 things.
Everything feels like the things around it are real, even if itsself is not real. Video game characters, for example, react to the game as if it were real.
But I've gone too far from the subject...
QuoteIt is so simple that its not even self-conscious and can't experience anything. Slowly [not in our timeframe] it evolved by a natural quality of self-negation and through Darwinian processes and could express itself in forms of itself (matter, we got).
What is self-negation?
QuoteThese multidimensional material forms grew more and more complex and some of them could become self-conscious.....souls, we have here.
The souls continued to evolve and could direct their own evolution, which speeded up the whole thing and the souls could become conscious of higher and higher dimensions, which were of course their own content.
Ok, but what is a dimension made of? And why does it feel like my mind pulls on dimensions to bend them during telekinesis?
QuoteSome of them are so evolved that they could create whole universes (which are they themselves expressing themselves) and mimic the evolution in an accelerated manner by incarnating their own parts.....gods, we arrive at.
Thats a far jump from your previous statements. I'll agree there are very powerful beings, but I am unsure if any infinite beings could or do exist. Have you seen any?
Quoteour consciousness remains of an inferior nature.
understatement
All I know is at least one car I owned that I loved very much and deliberately tried to put "energy" and intention into ended up with a distinct personality. That car would exhibit physical behaviour when driven by others-lights doing weird things and stuff like that.
Anyway it certainly spooked out one (alleged) black witch and my mother, also that car reacted solidly and negatively to my Grandma (whom I don't get on with). First time, she wouldn't start and the bonnet wouldn't open outside my Grandma's house. When my Grandma went back inside the hourse, the car started on the next attempt. Next visit, clutch broke.
Most of the stuff that happened is like anecdotal and individual Can't convince anyone but me and other folks involved at the time-and they have slightly different views. However I know what I intended with that car at 17 yrs old. She was as far as I was concerned the only thing I had that I trusted and relied on-so with my healing and energy sensitivity I built on that. Security blanket don't ya know :-)
I'm attempting this experiment again in a slower and more controlled way to see what happens.
Anyone else had any odd stuff happen as a result of investing energy into something in this way?
I know someone who swears his car has something nonphysical about it. I've never seen it do anything like that, but it handles extremely well on curves. It can go 50% faster around a curve than the speed that would flip a normal car over.
QuoteYour prime builder is still dogma.
Well, let it be, I mentioned that just to introduce the 'spiritual Darwinism' stuff. I guess everybody in modern world has got over it.
Quote"2=3" is logical
That's right. Logic has no relation to truth or falsity.
QuoteWhat is self-negation?
Hmmm..you need to dig a bit into Existentialism. I've only read J P Sartre, and found it very interesting. Basically being(which is pure positivity, its all that is) negates itself to create 'nothingness', after which the things start rolling.
Quotewhat is a dimension made of?
Good question, but a dimension only describes the degrees of freedom something can possess [in mathematics]. Consciousness has infinite degrees of freedom but it must restrict itself to a few to make some sense. Else we'd become a multidimensional ball of chaos. More evolved it becomes, it can organize in more dimensions.
My guess is that during telekinesis, you are exercising your ability of existing in more degrees of freedom.
QuoteI am unsure if any infinite beings could or do exist.
Well, I don't say 'infinite'. Gods are very much limited, else why will evolution continue? I've not witnessed anyone 'higher' yet, perhaps they are not interested in me ;) Just like I'm not interested in the activities of ants crawling in my backyard.
Quoteunderstatement
Agree.
Quote from: karnautrahlAnyone else had any odd stuff happen as a result of investing energy into something in this way?
Yes, I'm dead sure of this phenomenon.
I can feel very easily if someone else had used my PC. It gets a distinct 'alien-ness' imprinted on it. It gave a lot of trouble when it was shared in my family (especially with someone in particular), like lot of bad sectors, heating probs and h/w failures.
Then I locked it up with a bios password, and wont let anybody touch it...and it runs fine.
Also, I've seen some people can make machines go faulty just by touching it.
OTOH, machines start running magically better in presence of a few.
'Green hand effect' I guess. :)
QuoteWell, let it be, I mentioned that just to introduce the 'spiritual Darwinism' stuff. I guess everybody in modern world has got over it.
Yes evolution exists everywhere.
QuoteConsciousness has infinite degrees of freedom
Not the only requirement, but that requires there be an infinite number of particles (or whatever the universe is made of). 2 lines each connected at one end but not the other, in a 1000 dimensional space, where nothing else exists, can never exceed 2 dimensions. They never have more dimensions than a triangle. If you add a 3rd line not connected to the first 2, you add 2 dimensions (total 4), because both ends are unrestricted.
The most possible number of dimensions is the number of particles factorial, which is less than number of particles exponent itsself. Huge, but finite if there are a finite number of particles.
Until I see reason to think otherwise, everything nontheoretical is probably finite.
I should have been a mechanic-cars like me :-), I like them LOL. I don't know quite why I never kinda saw an oppurtunity to work with them in that way. Probably cos I'd never have found my current partner or Robert Bruce and this site among other things by being a mechanic.
They never break down in an awkward inconvenient place-if they gonna break it's always in the right place :-).
you think you couldnt do paranormal things without this website? I wouldnt trade it for what I really wanted to do.
From my previous post...
Do you agree if there are a finite number of things, then there must be a finite number of dimensions?
Do you agree there are probably a finite number of things?
Talking of physical plane only, infinite particles means infinite energy and infinite expense, which is absurd.
So your point remains valid IMO. But perhaps we dont understand finite and infinite.
Now, I really dont know if !p is the right number and if the dimensions exists on their 'own', but probbly we'd stop seeing everything in terms of numbers when we evolve out of it and it will all become, say 'metafinite'(?)
I'm not sure of the factorial, but I am sure the number of dimensions is less or equal to
((number of things that exist + 1) * dimensions of that thing)^((number of things that exist + 1) * dimensions of that thing).
That is based on pure logic. If it were in more dimensions, there would be an exponential number of positions where the relative positions are exactly the same, therefore it is the same. I'm talking about everything that exists. There would be nothing to compare it to to justify calling it more dimensions. I didnt mean only physical things. Whatever is the smallest simplest thing, paranormal or not, my equation applies.
QuoteBut perhaps we dont understand finite and infinite.
You insult me. Infinite is a simple idea. I dont have to understand every detail of an EXAMPLE of infinity to understand infinity itsself.
Ya only an idea...thats all.
I never found anything which is purely finite or infinite.
(I was afraid of writing that but anyway I did, lets see)
Ok tell me which is bigger - a set of integers or a set of real numbers?
:)
You have found at least one thing. Give an example of something that is not finite or infinite.
The set of real numbers is bigger, because for every integer X, real numbers X+.1 and X+.2 exist. You'll have to try harder than that to take down my infinite skillz.
Its going off topic ...anyway.
An electron.
Well you are right but both==infinite, so how can two things be infinite and still unequal?
Infinite is not 'real'.
Infinity shares some properties with numbers, but not all. In some ways, its not a "real" number, but is a real something.
"An electron". "An" means one. One is finite. One peak of a wave. One particle. One whatever-it-is.
You know, we are being tricked by the language.
The electron is just a concept, we observed some phenomenon and called it an electron. So when I say an electron, it means 'an xyz concept', and the concept is obviously 'one'. You've just counted the concept, not the actual thing.
Ok, you can count the peaks, but are the peaks same as an electron? Peaks are another concept, so you counted an attribute of the electron, not the electron itself.
Pass the electron through a double slit. How many are there now? No, you cant count, it has become a 'something else'.
Whole fallacy of counting and measuring is that, that you can count or measure anything only if you can isolate it from the other things somehow. But now we know from QM that there is no such thing as 'isolation'. Even consciousness is a part of the system being measured, that itself makes everything indeterminate.
Back to infinity..
Quoteits not a "real" number, but is a real something.
A real something...hmmm. I told you we dont understand it.
But you are right, there is an infinity under every rock that you trun. Its there...
Btw, Cantor classified the garden varieties of infinities that occur everywhere. One more example ...
2^(3^(4^(5^.....
Beavis, you are always so thoughtful and scientific with your posts
I feel like i cant contrinbute too much but i enjoy this subject anyways
I recently gave a report at my college about a doll that became self-aware because its owner would talk to it for hours on end for years straight (almost his whole life actually) Therefore the doll took on his personalities and his negativity....there is also a theory involving use of a soul stone (crystal or some sort of enchanted object) that has the power to imbune any inanimate object with life (i guess this is some kind of juju or vodoo practice)
http://www.horrorchannel.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=8&page=1
As far as building souls, i believe you could do it, i suppose you would have to truley love something to make it self aware.....
Anyways i cant help but post a quote a friend told me just the other day, (he is a deist) "God is the architect and we are the masons"
something to think about since you mentioned "building souls" :D
Psan
QuoteI never found anything which is purely finite or infinite.
There is only 1 UNIverse. I'm sure you've seen it. By definition, if there were more "universes", all of them together are the one UNIverse.
But for things smaller than the universe... Its possible one property of something is infinite while an other is finite, but that begs the same question of that property. Eventually there must be some part that is purely finite or infinite. There is no continuous range between finite and infinite.
Finite and infinite are descriptions of numbers, so if something about them is proven only for numbers, it is proven for everything described by infinite and finite, even if its not a number.
In the range of all numbers, no finite number can ever equal an infinite number.
-infinity < (all negative finites) < -1/infinity < 0 < 1/infinity < (all positive finites) < infinity.
No combination of finite and infinite numbers can equal anything except those 4 things above, except in a limit equation.
You might bring up some of the weirder equations like
(1 + 1/infinity)^infinity = 2.71... (E)
but that is really a Limit equation (1 + 1/X)^X where X goes toward infinity. Infinity cant be used directly because infinity does not equal infinity. If it did, (1 + 1/X)^(2*X) would be the same equation.
You can use infinity to calculate things, but everything in the equation must be either finite or infinite, and the answer must be either finite or infinite.
The weirdest known equations are fractals (example below). Their shape repeats infinitely as you look closer. They have infinite length edges surrounding finite area, but thats nothing new... The area under y=1/x^2 (x ranges 1 to infinity) also does that.
This fractal probably has an equation shorter than half of this sentence.
(http://www.d.kth.se/~d96-era/fractal.gif)
QuoteOk, you can count the peaks, but are the peaks same as an electron?
No, but I redirect my statement to the peaks. There are a finite number of peaks.
QuotePass the electron through a double slit. How many are there now?
There are 2 halfs of an electron.
ASunnieSpirit, before I clicked I thought you were talking about a mechanical doll, lol. Theres not enough science of paranormal things. People with no experience do experiements. People with experience usually dont. I'd like to cause some logical thought on the subject.
Back to the thread subject....
One of my psi wheels that I've used for many months is very easy to do telekinesis to, even when I cant get any other psi wheel to move.
Could the power I've put into it be called a soul? It often does appear to have its own "free will". It can sit motionless for a long time, then I try to move it, and it will spin that direction for minutes, despite my efforts to reverse its direction. Or sometimes it reverses on its own when I'm not watching it. Damn, now I feel bad about trying to control it.
QuoteIts possible one property of something is infinite while an other is finite
In fact that seems to be the case.
Every time we measure something we must stop somewhere, assume the finiteness, approximate the results, use them and move on.
A rough example : say I measure the size of my bed by a tape. I get say 2.2 m. Now I increase the precision, use a better tape, I get 2.19. I go on measuring it precisely, I end up with a size = 2.17982573...... to infinity. Somehow I cant say where exactly my bed ends. If I push it more, uncertainty principle would make the bed itself meaningless. The bed remains finite...i.e. 1.
I feel at some level the bed becomes a part of me. Its a part of my consciousness, I can't isolate it so I can't measure it. I must negate the bed, the bed is not-me, in order to even perceive it.
If you drill deep into the consciousness of a new born child, you'd find that he faces a lot of confusion regarding whats 'he' and whats 'other'. The growth is mostly focused on his ability to differentiate himself from the surroundings. More isolation = more awareness.
So, in effect you create a soul, if you isolate a part of being from itself and make it look at itself by some means. This part will perceive itself as a consciousness perceiving a world (other parts). The drama starts when, in order to make sense of the world it starts approximating it through its measuring instruments (senses) and there are a number of such souls. It must drop down to lesser degrees of freedom, if its less evolved. We got a physical plane here :)
QuoteThere are a finite number of peaks.
If you say so. So much depends on the method of measurement. Someone can choose the area enclosed by the curve to represent an electron. He may not bother how many peaks are there.
QuoteThere are 2 halfs of an electron.
Oh no, you cant measure two halves separately. You place a detector anywhere and you find only one. But while its not being measured, the electron occupies the whole universe. The process of measuring approximates it, and the process ends only if someone with a consciousness reads the meter. But I doubt it ends there too.
QuoteEvery time we measure something we must stop somewhere, assume the finiteness, approximate the results, use them and move on.
A rough example : say I measure the size of my bed by a tape. I get say 2.2 m. Now I increase the precision, use a better tape, I get 2.19. I go on measuring it precisely, I end up with a size = 2.17982573...... to infinity. Somehow I cant say where exactly my bed ends. If I push it more, uncertainty principle would make the bed itself meaningless. The bed remains finite...i.e. 1.
We dont know the bed is somewhere between 2.1 and 2.3 meters. It will never measure close to 1, viewing from anywhere on earth.
Quotefeel at some level the bed becomes a part of me. Its a part of my consciousness, I can't isolate it so I can't measure it.
I've felt many similar things, but that doesnt mean they're true. I should derive the probable truth from it, which could be completely different.
QuoteIf you drill deep into the consciousness of a new born child, you'd find that he faces a lot of confusion regarding whats 'he' and whats 'other'. The growth is mostly focused on his ability to differentiate himself from the surroundings. More isolation = more awareness.
Babies are stupid. Why should I trust what they think?
QuoteOh no, you cant measure two halves separately. You place a detector anywhere and you find only one. But while its not being measured, the electron occupies the whole universe.
You claim we cant measure even a single electron but that you can measure the whole universe.
QuoteThe process of measuring approximates it, and the process ends only if someone with a consciousness reads the meter.
Machines read it well enough without us reading them.
One electron is shot at a flat surface with 2 holes. When 1 hole or the other is closed, the pattern of electrons hitting the surface behind the holes is recorded. When both holes are open at the same time, the single electron gives a different statistical distribution on the back surface than the sum of the first 2. If it was a particle, it could go through only 1 hole in either type of test at once, and they would be identical. They're very different. The only reasonable explanation is that the electron goes through both holes at once, and since it was 1 electron first, it must be 2 half electrons after. I'm not saying its a half particle. Its not a particle.
QuoteIt will never measure close to 1,
I think you mistook 1 as the size of bed. By 1 I meant an identity, i.e. not an infinity.
QuoteBabies are stupid.
:D, what I quote is not from the mouth a of baby. These are the views of scientists studying consciousness and its emergence seriously.
QuoteYou claim we cant measure even a single electron but that you can measure the whole universe.
Seems that I couldn't convey it, anyway it don't claim such thing.
QuoteMachines read it well enough without us reading them.
They do read it, but the result is a superposition of all possible results until a person sees it. He collapses the wavefunction. We all know this....
QuoteIts not a particle.
Its not a billiard ball, but its a particle, a subatomic one.
You need to come up with a smarter reply instead of 2-halves thing. Because we all know that half of infinity is still infinity ;)
[Btw the question was whether electron is finite or infinite- a reminder]
Back to the topic -
Why don't you try creating a soul on a computer?
I tried such thing once but failed (may be I was too lazy)
QuoteIf you drill deep into the consciousness of a new born child, you'd find that he faces a lot of confusion regarding whats 'he' and whats 'other'. The growth is mostly focused on his ability to differentiate himself from the surroundings. More isolation = more awareness.
Babies are stupid.
what I quote is not from the mouth a of baby. These are the views of scientists studying consciousness and its emergence seriously.
Its not relevant if the scientists are right or not. If the brain in a baby knows the difference between the baby body attached to it and other objects, could be completely caused by the baby brain being stupid. If consciousness is truly separated or not is not implied by this baby evidence.
QuoteMachines read it well enough without us reading them.
They do read it, but the result is a superposition of all possible results until a person sees it. He collapses the wavefunction. We all know this....
You've found proof of the infinite universes theory? Show me. I dont want to see some page on theory. I want facts, with undeniable proof. How else could "we all know this"? At the most, we know there are multiple parallel locations that are probably much smaller than a universe.
QuoteYou need to come up with a smarter reply instead of 2-halves thing. Because we all know that half of infinity is still infinity
you assume it is infinity. half of finite is finite. half of infinity is infinity. But its at least usually finite, since we can count electrons so well.
QuoteBack to the topic -
Why don't you try creating a soul on a computer?
I tried such thing once but failed (may be I was too lazy)
A single computer is about a million times slower than a brain.
I might try someday, but certain programs (that I've been working on) must be made first.
My guess is that it will be easier to simulate consciousness using some analogue system, as the dgital usually focuses on numbers and rules out QM components.
Or may be a hybrid of those two.
Analog systems are easy to build on computers. The biggest standard analog numbers on computers have about 15 significant digits, or as many digits as you want if you're willing to pay a high price in speed, but thats more than enough to describe any physical analog system... I'd be surprised if the circuits of an analog radio were accurate to more than 5 significant digits.
The things I'm building are mostly analog. For these types of programs that could maybe eventually become self-aware, its probably useless to use strict rules. I'm making tools that it might use to build more parts of itsself, and maybe replace some of its original parts, whatever "it" is. One of those tools uses a lot of little pieces of equations, like sine add exponent minimum etc, and some weird math-like functions that build other equations. It all goes into an equation, like add(sin(x), makeEquation(4,y)), but usually a much bigger equation, and they build bigger and bigger equations. I dont have to randomly mutate them like in evolution. From the start, its something that builds other things like itsself. It can even handle inconsistent equations like x = x/(2+2-4) + 2*x. The divide by 0 equals 0, and the value of x doubles every time its looked at. Could a self-modifying equation be called alive? I think so. You might say it has free will since it can have truly random inputs (from the computers clock), and I dont know what a self-modifying equation will do until it does it (a proven fact, look up "halting problem"). I dont know exactly what I'm trying to build, but when its finished it will be really weird.
I meant actual analogue systems, whose states are continuous not discreet. Even if we increase the number of bits to 1000s instead if 16/32 or 64 nowadays used in processors, it will be only an appoximation.
Digital systems can only simulate analogue ones.
Anyway your self-modifying equation seems to be interesting, so good luck. :)
there is ablance of life!!!!
lets not interfere!!!!!!!!!!!!
if we created souls then god can take a vacation????
:twisted:
:twisted:
:twisted:
:twisted:
Psan its not a digital system. Voltage in the computer circuits must change continuously, not discreetly. To be at voltage X then voltage Y with no time between breaks the laws of physics that were used to build the computer. Analog software is an analog approximation on a digital approximation on a supposedly analog laws of physics. But I disagree. 15 significant digits should be more than enough. If that number measures the size of earth, it has accuracy to about .00001 millimeter. And if I wanted it, I could have millions of significant digits. Can you prove the laws of physics arent digital with only 1000 significant digits?
kenshinhan604 your "balance of life" is obsolete and will eventually be destroyed. Your warnings to not interfere make me want to interfere more. What are you trying to hide? Lets leave it all to "god", you say, but if your god is so powerful, why do you worry about me trying to change things?
I would get involved with this, but the bed gnomes won't let go! Hehe.
God is all powerful for one reason, beavis is that reason. I think god is trying to prove that he's really better than all the other gods out there. My proof of this is beavis.
Anyways, enough brown nosing for me now. On to the show!
-----
Ok, you both are dancing around finite and infinite like you're in ballet and these numbers are swans or something. Shouldn't these both be part of the whole anyways? I say that under the right thought pattern that infinity is finite and finity is infinite and v.v. Measuring things is just to make it easier for us to get it 'close enough' to work with. Why are you measuring your bed other than to see a number? Is there any true purpose behind it? Move on!
Anyways, I think you both (and whoever else strolls by) miss the principle of a paradox. The reason why all of this makes sense is simply because it doesn't really make sense at all. Scientific thinking only lets you see a detailed part of the big picture, but then you miss the forest for the trees. Essentially what I'm saying is something like this; you have to see both finity and infinity together as a whole, not separately.
finite = infinite.
makes sense = doesnt make sense.
Come back when you have something noncontradictory to say. You're not the first to say things like that, and it doesnt mean anything this time either.
QuoteOk, you both are dancing around finite and infinite like you're in ballet and these numbers are swans or something. Shouldn't these both be part of the whole anyways?
It appears that finite things exist, but I cant see well with my senses (which are all finite) anything thats infinite, so I probably wouldnt know its there, and neither would any other Human, except by speculation. So NO, infinite things shouldnt be part of the whole anyways. That is unknown.
QuoteMeasuring things is just to make it easier for us to get it 'close enough' to work with. Why are you measuring your bed other than to see a number? Is there any true purpose behind it? Move on!
Thats all I use measuring for. Approximations are good enough to build everything that Humans have ever built, and the same should be true about the weird things I'm trying to build.
QuoteScientific thinking only lets you see a detailed part of the big picture, but then you miss the forest for the trees.
The same is true of thinking only in new-age paranormal terms. I dont limit my thinking to either.
Beavis, by analog we mean a system which has continuous stable states.
In digital systems when a bit goes from 0 to 1, the voltage goes through all the values from,say, -5 to +5 in a nanosecond, the inbetween values are not stable.
Quote15 significant digits should be more than enough.
For what? To simulate a soul?
The question here is not of range. If its possible to create a soul by binary numbers alone, then may be a 15 digit number will be accurate enough. The question here is - whether its possible to do this by numbers alone or do we need actual matter going through analog states.
Now we have two possibilities -
1. Soul (consciousness) is some kind of higher matter, of which we don't know yet.
2. Soul is only information, nothing else and is independent of matter.
Assuming 2nd is true, its possible to build it using numbers,as numbers are good approximations for information, 15 is enough.
Assuming 1st is true, we need to arrange the material (in similar fashion as brain) and hope to find a soul inside, the analog method.
Hopefully its clear what I'm saying.
QuoteCan you prove the laws of physics aren't digital with only 1000 significant digits?
The laws of physics describe the real world which is purely analog, and has infinite possible states, which is obviously not digital.
Quote from: kenshinhan604if we created souls then god can take a vacation????
Are you afraid of god? just like those cave people :lol:
Ybom,
QuoteWhy are you measuring your bed other than to see a number? Is there any true purpose behind it?
Are you asking what is the purpose behind man's pursuit for truth? Are you aware that only one in a billion men ever asks for truth, rest just move on.
Quoteyou miss the forest for the trees
Would you ever know what a forest is if you don't know what a tree is?
Its the analysis that leads us to synthesis, and finally to the true understanding, not the other way round.
For example, the analysis of life-forms has lead to the understanding that all are variants of a single molecule -the DNA. And the analysis of matter has shown that all substances are arrangements of same stuff - particles.
Quoteyou have to see both finity and infinity together as a whole, not separately.
Its very easy to say something that doesn't make sense but sounds great.
As, I've said earlier, there is an aspect of reality that we cant grasp at this stage of evolution. When we approximate the reality, it becomes finite and useful, but when we probe deeper it becomes infinite and nonsensical.
Psan
QuoteBeavis, by analog we mean a system which has continuous stable states.
In digital systems when a bit goes from 0 to 1, the voltage goes through all the values from,say, -5 to +5 in a nanosecond, the inbetween values are not stable.
1 bit by itsself doesnt make a stable system, but I'm using them in groups of 64, but I dont stop there. Those 64-groups are connected together in weird ways. If it can be a stable system or not is not a theoretical question. It can already behave like waves without the use of the sine operator, instead by simulating the real forces that cause waves. These waves can be built to gravitate toward a central frequency even when all parts of the wave have little apparently-random deviations from a true sine wave - stable.
QuoteFor what? To simulate a soul?
I meant for my weird software. A soul might work with 15, but probably wouldnt need more than 100.
QuoteThe question here is not of range. If its possible to create a soul by binary numbers alone, then may be a 15 digit number will be accurate enough. The question here is - whether its possible to do this by numbers alone or do we need actual matter going through analog states.
Now we have two possibilities -
1. Soul (consciousness) is some kind of higher matter, of which we don't know yet.
2. Soul is only information, nothing else and is independent of matter.
Assuming 2nd is true, its possible to build it using numbers,as numbers are good approximations for information, 15 is enough.
Assuming 1st is true, we need to arrange the material (in similar fashion as brain) and hope to find a soul inside, the analog method.
Hopefully its clear what I'm saying.
"1." could still be solved with technology. Simulate the matter on a computer then when it works right, build matter that way. Even if you dont call it a soul, I'd be happy to make something with the same behavior, and I'd call it one.
But theres a milestone before building a soul, to build something thats alive from nonliving parts. In some ways, its already been done, but its not even as complex as a virus. In "conways game of life" (easily searched for, downloaded, and run), there is a grid of squares that can be either white or black. Every increment in time, for every square, depending on how many of the 8 adjacent squares are black, the square becomes (or stays) white or black. More complex physics have been done, but this simple example is enough for life. Simple patterns have been found that use those laws of physics to move and eventually rebuild their shape farther away, and when they crash into each other, sometimes they create other similar things (reproduce). The smallest self-moving pattern is about 5 black squares. Its not our laws of physics, but I say its just as valid (but with less potential for complexity) for life to exist in.
QuoteCan you prove the laws of physics aren't digital with only 1000 significant digits?
The laws of physics describe the real world which is purely analog, and has infinite possible states, which is obviously not digital.
Its not obvious to me that it has infinite possible states or is purely analog, but if its obvious, you should be able to easily explain why its obvious. I could agree it has at least some exponentially huge number of possible states, but thats far from infinite. Why should I think it cant be apparently-analog but really digital with only 1000 significant digits?
QuoteIts very easy to say something that doesn't make sense but sounds great.
As, I've said earlier, there is an aspect of reality that we cant grasp at this stage of evolution. When we approximate the reality, it becomes finite and useful, but when we probe deeper it becomes infinite and nonsensical.
How do you know whats there when we probe deeper? Did you use your finite senses and measuring equipment to know its infinite? Or did you assume its infinite and derive the errors from that?
There some mention of how to create souls over in that Arch Angel Michael thread.
I shouldn't have disappeared. I'm sorry to have offended you beavis, but I was trying to get a point across and I seem to have failed.
Let me do a bit more research to see if I can find some scientific evidence to back up what I'm picturing here.
I thought I lost this thread somewhere, I was searching for it :o
Quote from: beavisI meant for my weird software. A soul might work with 15, but probably wouldn't need more than 100.
Your s/w will surely work here, no doubts. I think for a soul you'd need
real QM fields, not the numbers encoded in x-bits. It's a different matter that you can also simulate it down to QM level, but then the computer which can do this in real time will be a quantum computer and would actually become a real brain (an electronic one). So I see a hybrid solution to this problem.
QuoteIn some ways, its already been done, but its not even as complex as a virus.
I may add here that we have the tech to build a 'living thing' already. Such as a robot which can assemble copies of itself and can repair itself. We can realize such robots economically only after nanomachines start coming up. Computer simulation of a living thing is not a problem at all.
The real challenge is to build a conscious machine, and a self conscious one. We have Turing's test to ascertain if something is conscious in a 'human way'. So far nothing has passed this test.
QuoteIts not obvious to me that it has infinite possible states or is purely analog, but if its obvious, you should be able to easily explain why its obvious.
Take any physical quantity you like, say, sound, it has all possible amplitude and all possible frequencies. On your PC sound card 16 bits/sample are enough for a good approximation, but we know that this is only an
approximation. This is true for any real thing that you quantize, even a soul.
Another example is the number Pi. It occurs often in nature, in equations that describe something. How many bits would it take to make a real Pi?
Same reasoning goes for e and c.
At QM levels things are discreet, i.e. some states are forbidden, but there is no limit on the value and number of states. Perhaps you are confusing discreet with digital.
QuoteDid you use your finite senses and measuring equipment to know its infinite?
We use mathematics. But I see your point.