What do you think of this scientific definition of God?

Question

God is the omnidimensional metaversal wavefunction of the quantum vacuum.

Uncle J -- all science begins with speculation based on observation... Needless to say, this is a hypothetical definition of God.

Dead Elves -- It actually came out of my own brain... reading too much quantum mechanics and transdisciplinary systems theory.

J.P. -- You bet. Throw in some panexperientialism and it's a definition I'm totally happy with.

Check out

http://www.stanford.edu/class/symbsys100/readings/nagel_bat.pdf

if you haven't seen it already.

Panexperientialism is the idea that "there is something that it feels like" to be any sort of matter-energy event whatsoever. Note the distinction from panpsychism. Panexperientialism simply asserts "experience" as an aboriginal aspect of the universe. Now instead of applying that to *phenomenal* reality, apply it to the ZPF wavefunctions *underlying* phenomenal reality. Hard nut of consciousness cracked (when you apply an emergentist interpretation of the arising of various levels of experience). So basically, God is what it feels like to be the quantum vacuum wavefunction consisting of the superposition of all quantum vacuum wavefunctions.

J.P. -- "However, there is already a neural network explanation for why qualia are non-transferable." The hard nut of the problem is not the non-transferability of qualia, but their very existence... I think that's really what Nagel's getting at.

Answer 1

You've just said:

god is the vacuum energy/zero-point energy.

Let me ask you this: Is this how you want to define your god?

------------------

However, as I think about it... this is very nearly exactly how Kabbalah defines the deific force. Hmmm....

------------------

Explain panexperientialism.

------------------

I notice immediately on the first page of this file a grevious scientific error, and one we so often accuse Christians of -- argument from incredulity... "We do not know how consciousness happens so it must be unexplainable/intractible."

The field of neuroscience is still learning. It may yet find answers to the problems. To declare it intractible is to confess a non-natural basis to consciousness. We do not know enough yet of neuroscience to make this conclusion.

The author is trying to get at the concept of qualia (Thank you, Cogito Sum, for introducing me to this concept). However, there is already a neural network explanation for why qualia are non-transferable.

I use the following notation: x-y-z describes a feed-forward perceptron neural network, with x input neurons, y hidden layer neurons, and z output layer neurons.

I have a data set that I wish to train a neural network to be able to compute. I divide it in half and train both a 5-2-2 and a 5-3-2 network on the first half of the data set. The 5-2-2 network learns with 95% accuracy, the 5-3-2 with 95% accuracy as well.

Even presented with the same data to learn, and the same learning algorithms, the two will likely disagree on which they get wrong and which they get right (that is, the partition of {wrong, right} will be different for the two networks).

Further, there is no way to take a 5-3-2 network and in all cases transfer that experience/learning to a 5-2-2 network, nor vice-versa (it is possible in cases where an input turns out to be trivial. Presume that these networks have no trivial inputs).

This demonstrates a neurological basis for qualia that does not require an appeal to a nonmaterial or dissociated consciousness.

--------------

If the existence of qualia at all is the question -- the correct answer at the moment is, "Insufficient data at this time. We're working on it, please wait." Anything else is, at this time, either argument from unproven-axiom or argument from incredulity.

Of course, you expect this in these esoteric applications of quantum principles.

There is some debate that the cytoskeleton of neurons contains structures small enough to be significantly affected by quantum effects -- if so, it becomes possible that the brain may be capable of hypercomputation (which if it were capable, btw, it ld be a sufficient counter-example to the Church-Turing Thesis for this purpose). Consciousness would still be deterministic under quantum effects, but they would, indeed, be global, not local, effects.

You just can't escape that arrow of time problem no matter how you cut it. ;)

Still, here's hoping we start making some significant breakthroughs in the field of consciousness. Too many questions, preciously few answers.

Answer 2

Wow that's a big question, Love,light,joy,peace,happiness,faith, these all say what God is, but yet every living creature big and small, all life of animals, plants,fish,plankton, one celled creature, all are tied to God because they have life. Anything you imagine,reason,have memory of, any affections you may have, these cannot be without higher power. Communication of spiritual matters, defying principles of science, creation of matter from nothing, and disappearance of matter-- theory of relativity; as all matter reaches the speed of light it becomes pure energy or light. Properties of light, it acts like a wave and gos in a straight line also depending on test preformed. Black holes in space=devil Suns=God, the fact that a black hole could have been a sun at one time but now sucks all life into it. All the solar system keeping orbits and in order better than any possible man made clock. All of thiese thing are well beyond human understanding and yet each man is a god in his own thinking to imagine there is NO GOD? This very much sounds like a fool to me to try and reason away some higher force at work other than what we can only see with our eyes.
But again I understand Satan thinking how he was so much greater than mankind, why does he have to bow before a weak man, so I see the reason of it all, how the children of the Devil would feel exactly like the father and say there is no god, or maybe there is but he does me no good, therefore he is just my imagination, and I can do whatever I do like to do.

Answer 3

I really like that definition, it's perhaps one of the more accurate ones I've heard in a long time. I've always liked quantum physics.

Answer 4

Nice definition. Where'd you find it? I think non-pantheists would disagree though, since they see God as distinct and separate from creation. The definition describes god as creation though, meaning we're all god.

Which I think is probably as close to true as any other speculation about the nature of god...

Answer 5

It's pretty much like everything else in science. Hypothetical. GOD can not be defined by people who know him best, I highly doubt scientists have him defined. Thank you and GOD bless.

Answer 6

I like it all except the quantum vacuum part. Try "Luminescent Allness."

Answer 7

never heard such a thing...the definition should be: something unexplained made up by man in order to explain the unexplained..now that makes perfect sense to me!

Answer 8

try omnidimensional metaversal malfunction of the quantum vacuum.

Answer 9

Why define GOD? You really can define Him one way/ I Am, all knowing, Almighty

Answer 10

Until you can repeatibly and accurately measure it, its just speculation, not science