Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Hangarnut t1_ixy1r1a wrote

I read years ago humans are basically biological technology! Brains= computers, Eyes = cameras, Muscles = hydraulic movement

We are literally biological structures with an amazing technological structure.

21

[deleted] t1_ixyjreg wrote

I thought this too. But recently I came upon a counter argument that humans tend to describe things with the most advanced technology available to them at the time.

If we go back to the past, most things were described as transcendental, spiritual and natural in order to explain physical reality. Even though we know the Antikythera mechanism is 2000 years old, humans have not described the world as machinery or computers until recently.

It may seem obvious we will continue this trajectory of technological advancement. But we cannot say for certain what new means will be adopted into technology to achieve better understanding of the world around us. As such, we may use different descriptions for physical reality and change our understanding completely to a combination that emphasis less on computer systems.

Everything is just an information system within a bigger system of information. It would appear obvious to me that we’re reverse engineering to get the answer of how the world works by stopping at our current understanding and believing it’s the final answer.

14

Tura63 t1_ixzamwx wrote

Well, despite the flaw that one could always make that argument from a psychological point of view without addressing the content of the explanation, the bigger flaw in that criticism is that computers aren't just the current most advanced form of technology, they're universal simulators. No previous technology has that feature.

Computation is deeply connected with the laws of physics though the Turing principle. Any physical system can be simulated on a universal computer. It's not an analogy that brains are like computers. It's a deep principle of physics and computation which means that there isn't a different kind of machine that a brain could be.

Of course, knowledge is always conjectural, which means anything could be overturned someday. But what is one to do, in the absence of better explanations? One should take our best explanations seriously. Especially since denying the computable nature of the world breaks most other reasonable explanations we have.

3

DeveloperHistorian t1_ixyh5xh wrote

Life is the most advanced type of technology in the universe

6

[deleted] t1_ixym1jv wrote

[deleted]

−17

ShadowMercure t1_ixyq57m wrote

Someone did downvote you, but honestly yeah. Look I was an atheist and now I’m agnostic - I don’t say there is or isn’t a God, but I am fairly certain there is a “creator”. I don’t think it’s a religious thing, more so a cause and effect thing. Science currently tells us something cannot come from nothing. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is not impossible that there was an initial force of energy that caused the Big Bang and had this space we call reality good to go.

Whether it was sentient, whether it was humanoid like us, whether it had a physical form at all - we don’t know. Personally the farthest I’d go to say there’s a creator is that there was a force that led to our existence. That’s it. Whether it can hear prayer or answer questions is unlikely. But whether it caused existence itself? Whatever it is? To me it’s almost certain.

Even with simulation theory, it requires an entity to have initiated the beginning of the simulation.

Even with the Big Bang, it requires an initial burst of energy to initiate that.

Even with religion, it required a creator to do those things.

Even with stone cold rational science, “every action has an equal and opposite reaction” that law should apply to our very existence itself. Something caused it. We don’t know what. I personally call it “God”. I don’t think it’s a person. Just a force, nothing more.

−6

Sloofin t1_ixyufjj wrote

You’ve not come across the infinite regress argument yet? So if there must be a first cause, ie the Big Bang needed a “creator”, who created the creator, or what was it’s first cause? And if he/she/it doesn’t need a first cause (usually what religious types will say at this point of the discussion) then why the exception, ie why doesn’t the creator need a first cause but the universe does?

9

ShadowMercure t1_ixz5ohf wrote

My answer to that is a question - if something can continue in perpetuity, why does that mean it did not have a beginning? Can infinitely begin after a beginning? Where a line starts, why does that mean it has to end? For the ball to roll, it must at some point begin to roll. At least, in our version of reality.

We know in our reality, that things start, things continue and then things end. So the “what came before that” cycle that continues infinitely shouldn’t really be possible, because there must be a definite stop point according to our laws of logic.

However the endless question is interesting because - what did make “God”? And what made that? And is our reality the only reality? Is there a sea of failed universes with broken physics out there? Are there others just like us? It is boundless curiosity. But in truth, we will never know nor comprehend what created the creator - and the endless loop that follows - in its entirety. Because we are not equipped to truly deal with “infinity” - it is unimaginable.

My personal belief, is that space-time together with all matter and all concepts we associate with reality, had an origin point that existed beyond space-time. Where “infinity” might be a thought experiment here, but is a straight up “default” mode of the void out there. Time doesn’t move where space doesn’t exist. But where did the creator come from if it exists in the void? What made it? What if the creator is the void?

Do you see where I’m going with this? Probably not, because this thought process will lead one to insanity. Such concepts are unimaginable. We will never understand it. Because again, in our world, cause and effect is the name of the game. But out there, beyond the universe? We cannot even theorise, because we are only built to understand our own.

In short, my belief is that there’s a creating source that made everything. What is beyond that? I dunno, I can’t even think about it. It’s like a syntax error. In the bounds of our own domain, we can only say something created us. What created them exists beyond every physical law we know. Hence my brainstorming ends at what I see as the beginning of our reality, I cannot fathom the beginning of the creating force’s reality. It is beyond us.

−3

Sloofin t1_ixz634y wrote

Luckily for us, others are working very hard on it :)

3

L0nely_L0ner t1_ixzpoov wrote

My man, if you think there is a "creator", then you are not agnostic. Lmao

2

ShadowMercure t1_iy25g70 wrote

I’m not a creationist lol. When I say creator I mean a creating force. Did you read the rest of what I said? I’m as agnostic as they come.

0