Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness

1. n /∞ = 0 and ∞ / n = ∞
The argument that you exist now but cease to exist in the future requires that at some point infinitely in the future you are perceived as not having existed infinitely into the past. If you have not existed into the past from some future perspective and do not exist infinitely into the future from your current perspective then you never have and never will exist for all infinity. Obviously this is a logical paradox that can only be resolved by saying consciousness is external and infinite in nature.

More

Source




Mod Note: Posting work written by others - PLEASE READ

I was with you, until you made the leap that somehow infinite conciousness translated into a sentient god, and managed to make this an atheists vs. theists thing.

How do you make the jump from endless conciousness to a confirmed existence of a creator?

Consciousness is the game-changer for the thinking person imo. Science generally sidesteps the issue as the implications don't compute with the current models they've bought into. It's so elusive to that mindset that most ignore it...or attempt to explain it away.

I've come to believe that consciousness is the one and only "indivisible" thing in the universe. Consciousness, to me, is one of the main reasons that a conscious "God" is indeed plausible.

Superior OP, thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by jtap66
I was with you, until you made the leap that somehow infinite conciousness translated into a sentient god, and managed to make this an atheists vs. theists thing.

How do you make the jump from endless conciousness to a confirmed existence of a creator?

If consciousness is infinite and eternal, then there is an afterlife. This non-local consciousness implies a creator to bring consciousness into existence in the first place in its non-local location.

I would also suggest that a Big Bang type event also implies the existence of a creator to bring that into existence as well, but physicists like to dispute this point by using QM interpretations. Obviously by refuting QM as a mechanism, I am demonstrating the need for a creator.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by jtap66
I was with you, until you made the leap that somehow infinite conciousness translated into a sentient god, and managed to make this an atheists vs. theists thing.

How do you make the jump from endless conciousness to a confirmed existence of a creator?

If consciousness is infinite and eternal, then there is an afterlife. This non-local consciousness implies a creator to bring consciousness into existence in the first place in its non-local location.

I would also suggest that a Big Bang type event also implies the existence of a creator to bring that into existence as well, but physicists like to dispute this point by using QM interpretations. Obviously by refuting QM as a mechanism, I am demonstrating the need for a creator.

Bro no one here is going to understand anything in your OP but a select few of us. You can't use logos to explain all this. If you could then the world wouldn't be the # hole that it is in today. Got to use some mythos as well. (maybe tell a story how all this would work?). I've had the above explained to me but it was explained in a lot more detail. But it is the truth none the less. Weather people can understand it or not is a whole different thing.

Originally posted by Slavich

Bro no one here is going to understand anything in your OP but a select few of us. You can't use logos to explain all this. If you could then the world wouldn't be the # hole that it is in today. Got to use some mythos as well. (maybe tell a story how all this would work?). I've had the above explained to me but it was explained in a lot more detail. But it is the truth none the less. Weather people can understand it or not is a whole different thing.

If you don't understand, then you simply need to read and learn.

There are people here who fully understand what I am saying and I'm eagerly awaiting their responses.

reply to post by mnemeth1


How can there be an "afterlife" is conciousness is eternal? "After" what?

Again, say there's an afterlife. Say there's something beyond this realm. That still doesn't in any way point to a sentient creator.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Slavich

Bro no one here is going to understand anything in your OP but a select few of us. You can't use logos to explain all this. If you could then the world wouldn't be the # hole that it is in today. Got to use some mythos as well. (maybe tell a story how all this would work?). I've had the above explained to me but it was explained in a lot more detail. But it is the truth none the less. Weather people can understand it or not is a whole different thing.

If you don't understand, then you simply need to read and learn.

There are people here who fully understand what I am saying and I'm eagerly awaiting their responses.

edit on 19-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

I just said I understood and it was explained to me in much more detail. O.o? Reading comprehension man.

Originally posted by Slavich

I just said I understood and it was explained to me in much more detail. O.o? Reading comprehension man.

Sorry, I did misinterpret what you wrote.

My comment wasn't pointed at you, but at others who do not understand.

Originally posted by jtap66
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

How can there be an "afterlife" is conciousness is eternal? "After" what?

Again, say there's an afterlife. Say there's something beyond this realm. That still doesn't in any way point to a sentient creator.

Something had to create individual conscious entities.

You may reject this notion, but it is the only rational explanation for the existence of an external consciousness.

reply to post by mnemeth1


It's a simplistic argument, but the big bang wouldn't need a creator. If a creator exists, who created the creator? If the creator requires no creator, then neither does the big bang. Neither does consiouness. The concept of a beginning and an end is as much a human creation as time itself.

Conciousness is eternal, in my humble opinion. This incarnation of it may end, but it will evolve and move on. No creator required.

Originally posted by jtap66
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

How can there be an "afterlife" is conciousness is eternal? "After" what?

Again, say there's an afterlife. Say there's something beyond this realm. That still doesn't in any way point to a sentient creator.

Because there isn't one. I'll explain everything he said in a mythological story.

1st off you must accept the notion that nothing can't exist.
Therefor the number zero does not exist. So we must redefine it.
Zero is a number that is infinitely small.
Infinity is a number that is infinitely big.
This now makes it so ALL numbers are equal to one another. (This goes hand in hand with law of conversation of energy).
Once we understand this , we can understand what a singularity in a black hole is. (It is matter being compressed so small till it finally becomes dimensionless. (light).


So anyways the story.

Okay so you have God. Now God is sitting there. He is bored because he is the only thing that exist. Lets say God is actually just the dimension of shapes. Or the imagination. (Maybe this is where i in mathmatics come form and why you can't find a squareroot of a negative number.)

Anyways. God is bored sitting there. Nothing to keep his attention. So he decides to kill himself.
This initiates the big bang.
Now that god is dead. What is the point of the universe?
To recreate god.
Now you understand what the point of evolution is and what intelligent design is.
But what is the ultimate plan?
Well god doesn't want to be bored so he wants to create a community of gods. Well how is this accomplished?
All matter is councious because everything is god. The more and more complex matter gets, the more councious you become. Thus we get human beings. The pinnacle of evolution.
So now you have God living a different life in every person.
Because these people all have different memories associated with themselves, they all appear to be of different mind.
Even though we are all essentially god, we are able to individuate ourselves from others because we have an attachment with our own memories that we experienced ourselves (subjectively).
Thus so it was. God killed himself so the universe could recreate him in an infinite amount of perspectives so that God would never be bored again. (Makes sense doesn't it?)


And thus all is cool.

Basically this allows us to develop a theory of everything. We live in a 6 dimensional universe.

We have: Dimensionless, Length, Width, Height, Time, and Mind.

Originally posted by jtap66
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

It's a simplistic argument, but the big bang wouldn't need a creator. If a creator exists, who created the creator? If the creator requires no creator, then neither does the big bang. Neither does consiouness. The concept of a beginning and an end is as much a human creation as time itself.

Conciousness is eternal, in my humble opinion. This incarnation of it may end, but it will evolve and move on. No creator required.

This is a philosophical debate I enjoy because it assumes at least one component of what I already know to be true, which is that consciousness is eternal and external.

What brought a creation of consciousness into being is something that is unknowable from our current perspective as incarnate humans. We must die to know the answer to that question with any certainty, but I don't believe consciousness simply divided and sprung into its own existence out of nothing.

I believe what the NDE'ers are telling me, that God is Love - period. That because love exists, we exist. Life is the experience of existence outside of infinite love for the purpose of growth and adventure.

Put another way, you're arguing that man-made hypotheses somehow negate or rule out other theories. I'm of the opinion that any crrently "correct" scientific theory should end with the caveat "as far as we know".

All this is endless and timeless and seamless.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I agree in part, but not in whole. Either way, I like the message. Peace, my friend.

Originally posted by jtap66
Put another way, you're arguing that man-made hypotheses somehow negate or rule out other theories. I'm of the opinion that any crrently "correct" scientific theory should end with the caveat "as far as we know".

All this is endless and timeless and seamless.

A probabilistic theory is required to even get close to explaining free will. Because QM runs into logical contradictions, we can say that probabilistic theories are incapable of explaining free will. This leaves one of two choices - non-local consciousness or determinism.

Determinism just sounds ****ing retarded on the face of it.

If I don't have free will, then why the hell did this entire universe create itself and decide to take me along for the ride? Obviously I don't have a choice in asking that question if determinism is true. I have no choice in writing this article, I was destined to do it. I have no choice period. Nothing matters. Total nihilism.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by jtap66
Put another way, you're arguing that man-made hypotheses somehow negate or rule out other theories. I'm of the opinion that any crrently "correct" scientific theory should end with the caveat "as far as we know".

All this is endless and timeless and seamless.

A probabilistic theory is required to even get close to explaining free will. Because QM runs into logical contradictions, we can say that probabilistic theories are incapable of explaining free will. This leaves one of two choices - non-local consciousness or determinism.

Determinism just sounds ****ing retarded on the face of it.

If I don't have free will, then why the hell did this entire universe create itself and decide to take me along for the ride? Obviously I don't have a choice in asking that question if determinism is true. I have no choice in writing this article, I was destined to do it. I have no choice period. Nothing matters. Total nihilism.

haha. Did my story explain much ? I just wrote it from my own understanding.

reply to post by mnemeth1

5. The number of synapses in the brain is not large enough to hold all the memories of the brain.

I call BS on this one.

This might sound like a lot, but consider that only amounts to about 3.5 years worth of HD video.

Some people (granted very few, but only one case is sufficient to prove my point) have the clear ability to recall nearly every day of their adult life in practically perfect detail

Visual memory is a LOT more compressed than a HD video. What we remember is just shapes, colors, specific information and vague impressions. I am sure even the best hyperthymetics in the world cannot compare to a HD video in the density of recorded information.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

5. The number of synapses in the brain is not large enough to hold all the memories of the brain.

I call BS on this one.

This might sound like a lot, but consider that only amounts to about 3.5 years worth of HD video.

Some people (granted very few, but only one case is sufficient to prove my point) have the clear ability to recall nearly every day of their adult life in practically perfect detail

Visual memory is a LOT more compressed than a HD video. What we remember is just shapes, colors, specific information and vague impressions. I am sure even the best hyperthymetics in the world cannot compare to a HD video in the density of recorded information.

You can fully operate and be fully functional and competely normal if you had half your brain taken out at an early enough age. This alone should tell you something.

reply to post by mnemeth1

2. If you believe in the theory of Einsteinian Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function.

Why conscious? Unconscious interaction is incapable of collapsing a wavefunction?