From "God as illusion" by Richard Dawkins:
"The atheist is the one that gives 99% probability that god doesn't exist". (Because its not possible to prove God exists or doesnt 100%)
Details
- Because its similar to "Dragon lives in my garage, but You cannot see it because its invisible".
Because our universe allows for people to create the "alternative supernatural explanations that refute something" for anything.
For example:
- A "earth is flat"
- B "go to cosmos"
- A "ok, I am in cosmos, I see circle 🟢, but it doesnt prove that earth is 3d sphere, maybe its flat circle"
- B "try to go round the earth and see how it changes"
- A "i go round, the image is being changed AS IF earth is a sphere. But it still does not prove that earth is not flat, maybe it is an illusion, maybe someone changes the image for me when i rotate over the earth"
- .... an so on indefinitely
- Neil deGrass Tyson "Bear in the cave"
You and a friend are hiking deep into the woods and find a cave. You want to go in and explore the cave, but your friend thinks there could be a bear inside. Given what you already know about the area – such as the lack of nearby water and food a bear would need to survive, a lack of visible tracks or trampled vegetation, and information from nearby park rangers about bear locations – you consider the danger to be near zero. Your friend is not convinced and says there’s no way to prove there are no bears without going in. So, you take out a solar panel to power your cell phone and stream video of the cave’s entrance to your home computer for later review. For the rest of the week you review the footage and see no bears. You show the evidence to your friend, but they are still not convinced… maybe the bear is hibernating, or maybe the cave is part of a larger cave system and bears don’t have to use the entrance you found. You admit that is possible and proceed to research bear hibernation and get maps of the known cave systems in the woods. You find detailed drawings of the caves and they are well documented. No other pathways connect to that cave. By now you have weeks of video footage with not a single bear. You continue to review footage over the span of an entire year. At this point, you have proven the non-existence of a bear in the cave beyond reasonable doubt. However, your friend argues that without going into the cave yourself, you can never say for certain. The friend’s claim cannot be supported without the bear having supernatural abilities to never feed, never be seen, and never leaves tracks.
I am an atheist by this definition.
We cannot prove that god doesn't exist, BUT
- We can prove that souls don't exist (about this - below 👇¹).
- We know HOW life was "created"
- We don't know why our universe was created, maybe it was created by God, but there is an "Anthropic principle"/"observation selection effect" - "We see that our universe have 'these properties', because only in a universe with 'these properties' could an observer, a human being, appear."
SUMMARY: god is an "extra variable" to a "function" that works fine without this "extra variable". (about this - below 👇²)
Life appeared like this:
- in the "infinite" (?) universe appeared "infinite" (?) number of atoms
- atoms started to connect together into molecules with random properties
- some molecules DID have the "self-replication" property (they made copies of themselves), these are our ancestor-molecules (The natural "paperclip-making robot".)
Details
Why we dont see them around us? Because they are more probable to appear in water near heat source, and not in air? Because "already existing robots" (e.g. viruses, or bacterias, robots with a shell) eat "newly created robots" (without a shell, unstable)? Because there is actually some threshold of "how complex environment can be for organisms to be able to live there"? Environment should not be too boring (for example, world without winter-spring cycles IS boring) and not too complex. Environment with already existing organisms is too complex for fresh new organisms to survive
- our ancestor "self-replicating molecule-robot" was sufficiently stable to not die, and sufficiently malleable to mutate and evolution into you and me
Details
for example, radiation particles fly with big speed, break some molecules, these molecules die, but "not so much" break other molecules, and these molecules change itself and have new properties. Then some molecules became stronger, but not malleable and stopped to evolve, and others are stronger, but still malleable, because have a "death switch" inside to continue evolution. Soon we will remove this switch
THIS IS NOT similar to "from nothing a plane was created", because:
- we need (for example) just 1000 atoms to arrange properly to create a "self-replicating molecule-robot"
- So, it was only a matter of time that this will happen in "infinite" universe.
SUMMARY:
- We are descendants of "Self-replicating molecules-robots" that "have been created & created now & will be created until the end of universe" RANDOMLY BUT INEVITABLY
- Just like in a "Game of Life" automata: you generate random field, give rules, and self-replicating structures appear
You can try it here https://copy.sh/life/ or here https://john-conways-game-of-life.netlify.app/ - randomize the field and click on "play" You will see that life is created randomly (btw, there is no algorithm, that predicts if "life will live indefinitely or will stop". To predict - You should run the universe. Classical computers cannot predict, but quantum computers can. "For them, short, long and indefinitely long proofs are equal" (David Deustch))
- (From book "Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins) The "death" property is required for "self-replicating molecule-robots" BECAUSE it allows evolution ==> So, basically, humans became so smart, that are now able to (temporally) escape the death/"natural way of things"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFCvkkDSfIU&ab_channel=TED
Drew_Berry_Animations_of_unseeable_biology.MConverter.eu.webm
Eliezer Yudkowsky "Growth stories":
- The "Game of Life" universe is Turing complete. It means self conscious beings can appear there too.
- Do you think the prayings of these 2D humans work?
- Do you think there is a god that will kill the bad 2D Chinghiz Khan that tortures 2D people and still has lot of money?
- Do You think they have an afterlife after death?
- Do You think they can reach the Buddha enlightment? Enlightment doesnt exist! Buddha was a liar, charlatan!
- If 2D father wants to explain something to a 2D child, but 2D child doesnt understand - Do You think being angry will help for understanding? Or maybe this is a problem of prompt/input, that should be modified (just like we modify prompt for AI bots. There is no point for being angry at computer.)
I don't believe in power of prayers OR that it's possible to "charge water by positive thoughts" OR taro cards OR horoscopes OR other magic. (read "God as illusion" by Richard Dawkins, they were tested and they don't work)
All religions were created by humans, and contain not only immutable truth, but also stupid thoughts inspired by old times
So, yes, I behave as if living beings, me too, are machines. But it doesn't make me want to kill people. Even putin and ted bundy. There exist harder, but more optimal solutions:
1. neurofeedback
2. fix their stupidity by teaching them what will (probably) happen with our universe (below. because from cosmological perspective lot of our problems dont make sense, e.g. borders, racism) and giving them to read "Harry Potter and methods of rationality" by Eliezer Yudkowsky, (this book has lot of love to humanity)
3. Tell them that zero-sum games are not the only possible games to play (e.g. the game of "climing on hierarchy ladder" is bad zero-sum game, "sport with only one winner" is good zero-sum game, "wealth/lets create new devises/lets fix death" is a good non-zero-sum game because "money and wealth are infinite", "by helping you I help us all"
1. I have seen code of "deep learning" and "human-like" neural networks, THUS I think there is no "magic soup" in the brain.
By this I mean that there is NOTHING in laws of physics that disallows us to:
a. (in place A) scan a body of a human for "position" and "type" of each atom b. transfer this information to place B c. make a copy of human body from atoms from the air d. destroy original body (optional)
Let's call a,b,c - the "atom-per-atom cloning", and a,b,c,d - the "atom-per-atom teleportation"
I believe, the thought process of a new human will start from where the old body stopped thinking, because:
- memory is just a ratio of Calcium to Potassium (for example, don't remember) in each neuron
- a neuron is just memory device that holds a number from 0.0 to 1.0
IF "average signal value to the neuron" is more than "neuron state value" THEN signal is passed to other axons ELSE not passed
NOTE that teleportation is not like a quantum teleportation of electrons
THUS (!!!!): IF you do "atom-per-atom cloning" (i.e. one does NOT destroy "original body" - step d) THEN
a. Did the original soul divide onto two souls? b. or Now the "original soul" operates two bodies from a heaven ?? O_O
NO, souls don't exist (!!!)
3. (from "Harry Potter and methods of rationality" by Eliezer Yudkowsky) souls don't exist, because brain injuries exist and remove ability to speak
I shouldn’t have believed it even for all of thirty seconds! Because if people had souls there wouldn’t be any such thing as brain damage, if your soul could go on speaking after your whole brain was gone, how could damage to the left cerebral hemisphere take away your ability to talk?
A guy was a good man, but then his head was injured (a brick fall on his head.) and he became angry, evil, started to kill.
SOUL?
God dropped a brick on his head! God, you are an asshole! This man was good, just like you wanted, but now he has to go to hell. Dont blame it on devil, because you created this universe and devil and rules.
5. (Sam Harris proof) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome
Souls don't exist because one can divide the connection between two hemispheres (a little, just like this is done to treat epilepsy), and now human body will act as if there are TWO humans live in ONE body (e.g. one hand is putting closes on, while the other puts them off)
So, I refuted "souls are immutable" and "souls are indivisible", but not "soul is something that leaves after death" (this is refutable by "Occam razor")
"Occam's razor" principle - from two explanations of same incident one should prefer the explanation that have less "moving parts"/variables.
👉² Soul is an additional variable c to a function f(a, b, c) { ...body of function, the code, but you dont know what it is... } that works fine without additional variable c (with a and b variables only) - it means the variable c is not used in a body of a function!
f is name of function, a and b and c are "function arguments"/"function variables".
By "works fine" I mean IT SEEMS LIKE function f doesn't use the variable c.
IF I change `a` argument THEN `returned_value` will be changed IF I change `b` argument THEN `returned_value` will be changed IF I change `c` argument THEN `returned_value` will NOT be changed, the `c` makes no effect on `returned_value` IF I change `a` and `b` argument THEN `returned_value` will be changed IF I change `a` and `c` argument THEN `returned_value` is same as if I changed only `a` IF I change `b` and `c` argument THEN `returned_value` is same as if I changed only `b` IF I change `a` and `b` and `c` argument THEN `returned_value` is same as if I changed only `a` and `b` RESULT OF TEST: (IT SEEMS LIKE) function `f` doesn't use the variable `c`
example function with such property in javascript:
function f(a, b, c) {
return a + b
}
https://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_cave_the_4_stories_we_tell_ourselves_about_death
Seems like:
- The same that was before you were born
- Same that happens when you are out of consciousness
From:
- "Cosmology and the arrow of time: Sean Carroll at TEDxCaltech"
- and most importantly "Sean Carroll - The Passage of Time & the Meaning of Life"
Imagine a cup, in a cup there is: 1. (at the bottom) a coffee 2. (at the middle) some thing that separates coffee and milk, e.g. from plastic 3. (at the top) a milk then imagine a separation `2.` magically disappeared. What will happen next is that coffee and milk will start to slowly mix together AND create tornados (i.e. `tornados of milk in the coffee` OR `tornados of coffee in the milk`) WE ARE these little tornados in a cup (on a border of coffee and milk, when they are mixed together) 1. (LOW ENTROPY) coffee and milk are fully separated - beginning of universe 2. (HIGH ENTROPY) coffee and milk starts to mix - human civilization, then black holes are everywhere, but black holes evaporate 3. (LOW ENTROPY again) coffee and milk are fully mixed - all black holes have evaporated, only the plain energy, all energy combinations will be tried Then, in one place, there will be a combination that is the same (or almost the same) as the "begging of universe" combination. This is the New universe, like a bubble amongst other bubbles (other expanding universes in multiverse), that have appeared in a space of "plane energy".
We are like hexagons that appear on a mercury when it is heated 1. (LOW ENTROPY) Low temperature - no cells 2. (HIGH ENTROPY) Mercury is heated - hexagonal cells appear (this allows heat/entropy to pass through to the outer world easier?) 3. (LOW ENTROPY again) Heated more - no cells https://bartoszmilewski.com/2018/03/28/life-and-thermal-death-in-the-universe/
Q: What IS an entropy?
A: entropy is number that shows HOW MANY "different arrangements of atoms" would give the "picture, that an OBSERVER (human) is seeing".
Energy is more usable when it is concentrated. less usable when spread out. entropy shows how spread out is energy. the energy we get from sun is steady stream of low entropy, that is concentrated bundled up energy. one photon coming to earth equal to 20 photons leaving. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxL2HoqLbyA
Why ants exist? imagine a sugar fall on a ground. when the orderly energy of sugar will be transformed to unorderly energy? IF life doesn't exist THEN "when black hole will swallow sugar and dissipate it back into universe as Hawking radiation" ELSE "when ant will eat sugar to dissipate its energy as heat and movement".
> second law of thermodynamics, which states that ordered energy, such as chemical or gravitational potential energy, may be converted entirely into disordered energy, i.e. heat, but never vice versa. [fabric of reality]
High entropy = lot of "disk space" is needed to store the information about the "picture, that OBSERVER is seeing"
By this I mean: the definition of entropy is tied to a fact, that the only way for us (humans / observers / instruments that can detect and react on changes) to find the "location" and "speed" of an object (e.g. atom) is by using a light, but light is a wave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBnnXbOM5S4
Having radar (devise that can emanate pulses to the world and detect pulses from the world) THAT makes pulses and then detects responses (the pulses reflected from the flying plane)
- To know a position of a plane - radar should emanate "low frequency waves/single pulses"
- To know a speed of a plane - radar should emanate "high-frequency waves/many pulses", higher frequency = higher speed precision
THUS
1. there is a limit to how much "pixels" we can get when we study a bunch of atoms in a box
2. atoms are hot (move fast) - more "exact positions" of atoms could give "a picture we see"
3. atoms are cold (e.g. 0 kelvin, no movement) - only one position of atoms could give such picture
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_eC14GonZnU Stephen Wolfram: have found some basic principles that are even more basic than principles of our universe itself. These principles allow to generate many universes. One of such universes is very similar to ours. > The quantum theory follows very beautifully from this: the recipient state cannot be updated before originator of a signal is updated ------- So, based on Stephen Wolfram "New science": in the plainness of energies new universes arise all the time, some of them are not stable but others are, in one of such universes we live, and there is no way to escape the death of our universe?
"Harry Potter and methods of rationality": imagine you arrived on a planet with a tradition - they beat themselves with a stick to a head every day at 12pm. You would notice that people "tell that it's actually good to be beaten, e.g. your scull becomes stronger" (it's called "to change perception of problem to reduce the cognitive dissonance"). But You are from planet where people dont beat themselves with a stick to a head, whatever they say will be stupid for You. The same is with our attitude to a death: somehow we think that being dead is better than alive.
Eliezer Yudkovsky in a story about a funeral of his small brother: people were coming and saying "so sorry about Your loss" and only one have said "we have to be faster, we have to fix death faster". THEREFORE never say to me "I'm sorry", say "we have to be faster"
Eliezer Yudkovsky: I want to see the marriage of my 1 million'th grandson on Alpha Centaura. i what to meet every human being, one by one, and become friends with each of them
"Harry Potter and methods of rationality": imagine you came to work and see that a guy beats a printer. The first thing you will think is that a guy have problems with a head or a bad character, but the guy will think that he is a good person that just had a bad day
"Harry Potter and methods of rationality": IF humans would really believe in a "life after death" THEN they would commit suicide
"The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins: There was the "Great prayer experiment" to find "does praying helps patients to recover?".
Patients were divided to 3 groups: - group 1 - "didnt receive prayers and didnt know about it" (control group) - group 2 - "received prayers and didnt know about it" - group 3 - "received prayers and knew about it". Outcome: - group 1 - no statistical difference, as expected - group 2 - no statistical difference, prayers dont help, - group 3 - post-operation state is even worse than for other groups, because patients had stress because of thinking "wow, they even have to pray for me, probably my state is very-very bad"
Jordan Peterson: The "great flood story" is about that you should prepare, because flood is coming. The "Cain and Avel story" - is that it's only a statement of a fact that people can envy your success and maybe even kill you
Jordan Peterson: We sell today for tomorrow. We do hard work now, to live better later
Jordan Peterson: You live so good, not because You have created all cities and technologies You use every day, but because it's grandfathers and grandmothers "made the right sacrifices to the God/universe"
Jordan Peterson: Too much order - tyranny, too little - chaos.
Jordan Peterson: It's actually harder to write a poem without "rules/order" or "starting point".
Jordan Peterson: "Do to others what You would like other people do to You" also means "make pain to others, if You would like that someone else would do that pain to you, if You was that someone else"
Elon Musk: the more we know, the better questions we can ask
Naval: starting from 18 years old, I was writing a diary every year, at the end of the year, about "what I wish I would do this year better". Later I would notice one and only one pattern: I wish I would be less angry and emotional in hard situations.
Michio Kaku: in 2060 we will have a device, that can make food from atoms in the air.
"The Nexus Trilogy" by Ramez Naam: In future we will connect all our brains to one mega-brain using Neurolink technology.
"Art of learning": if music doesn't allow you to learn, don't close a window, try to use it (now i think it's boolshit advice)
"Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach" book: we want to create AI. how smart, in principle, can it be? can we create it, so it is able to predict everything that is happening in universe? even such small probability events like "a safety-deposit box 🗄 being accidentally thrown down on AI agent from a plane
✈️ " to prevent his death? no, we cannot "create it, so it is able to predict everything that is happening in universe". And humans are limited like this AI too. (rational, but not omnipotent?)
Eliezer Yudkowsky: There exists an upper threshold on how smart a being can be. The brain cannot be infinitely dense and big, because after some threshold it will convert itself to a black hole.
"grokking Deep Learning" by Andrew W. Trask:
Overfitting
Overfitting - this is why Elon Musk told "People should be dying, because old people dont want to change their minds!!! THEREFORE if old people will live forever - humans will stagnate THEREFORE I, Elon Musk, want to die"
But this is stupid. Overfitting can be fixed without killing AI. We should find solution to this problem, because I dont want my parents to die ... Give everyone psychodelic mushrooms? 🍄 Neurofeedback devise that can notice when human is telling something that he doesn't believe and can notify human about this 💡 (idea of Eliezer Yudkovsky)
I am a citizen of a universe, not a country.