God; puzzle solved.

Isn't the God puzzle trying to figure out the least amount of moves through say, a city grid, to get from point A to point B?

Or is that the God algorithm? I forget...

Just because everything seems like an natural progression (evolution which I believe in) does not necessarily prove that God has not intervened and we just cannot perceive the ways yet.

I think the "God Puzzle" is likely to be solved long before the "Rex Puzzle"

God simply has to pay a price every time he oversteps natural laws...

A very logical concept...

Cause and effect.

The fact that we even perceive God demonstrates this.

The RexRed puzzle is for me to supply the pieces.

Like an apostle...

Most people do not know even what an apostle is...

An apostle brings new light to a generation...

It may be old light that has been lost...

If the devil oversteps a natural law then it gives God the justification to overstep the same law but with opposing results.

Just as if God oversteps a natural law then it gives the devil justification to overstep the very same law but with opposing consequences.

Cyracuz,

Why call this singularity "God" ?

Those who use such a label do so in order to seek "causal explanations" of existence (as we can see from RexRed above) but the concept of a singularity transcends and deflates the concepts of causality/omnipotence/prime mover. It only takes the observation that "ordinary logic" relies on a multude of discrete set memberships rather than "a singularity" to grasp this point.

Your recognition of the singularity is not a matter of "logic" in the normal sense, it is a recognition of the limitations of such logic. Such limitations have been well documented in both mathematics (Godel) and psychology (Piaget).

You refer to God as if he is a known part of physics rather than the creator of physics...

No...I refer to "God" as an emotive label which some associate with the complex system of which we are a mere part. The emotive aspect comes from the unfounded view that such a system is "benign" relative to its components and that the system has "will" or "purpose". All three of these proposed attributes are anthropomorphic projections. None of these are required for a scientific definition of "a system".

Fresco

I called it God because such an entity would be the grandest of all creatures, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Pretty much everything that is said about god.

But the singularity does trancend and deflate the concepts in question, since it contains them within it.

But I am not sure I understand your last paragraph. Would you care to elaborate?

http://aether.lbl.gov/personnel/smoot.html

An interesting article...

Another one

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_showmegod.html

Cyracuz.



Godel's proof shows that no "sub-system" can be logically self explanatory. There is always at least one axiom whose origin is external to the sub-system. By extrapolation, everything is "connected" within a hierarchy of nested subsystems whose limit is essentially the limit of our imagination. (For some this is called "God")

Piaget pointed out that "logic" was merely a aspect of "adult thinking". Therefore whatever "knowledge" was, it could not depend on "logic" alone. Instead he propsed a system called "genetic epistemology" in which there is an interplay between "internal" and "external states of being". In simple terms, the observer in state1 sees the world in stateA and is "receptive" to information typeA. This moves the observer into state2 who then sees the world in stateB etc...ad infinitum. Perception is active not passive. "Knowledge" is a continuous process of construction of expectancies about "the world" which consequently shifts in perceived structure.

RexRed,

Its a pity your reference is at odds with other scientific "believers" like Polkinghorne who have moved on from such simplistic concepts of "causality". :wink:

Thanks fresco.

Interesting ideas. All sub-systems require an axiom from an external system. But logically, we can envision all sub-systems as one singular system. If they are interlinked, as Godel suggests, we can state that there aren't really any sub-systems, because none of them make sense on their own. Only when we look at all at once do they make sense.

I have come to call this abstract singularity the Living Everything. JLN calls it Brahma, but it is essentially the same idea. I see it as living because of the fact that there is life within it, but not independent of it. If some of the singularity has life as we define it, then all of it must have, since life can be thought of as a sub-system needing it's external axioms to make sense.

A thought occured to me one day, that maybe the term God isn't at all intended to refer to something mystical and paradoxical. Well, not more so than existence itself anyway.

The oldest concepts of Gods we know of, the hindu gods, can be thought of as manifestations of internal forces of the Living Everything. As sub-systems rather than mystical entities with consciousness. Krishnaites define their supreme as the all-attractive, because it encompasses everything. God is everything.
I suspect that the christian God is a perversion of these ideas. A concept created to rule others, not enlighten them.

Yes,

All problems seem to stem from the personification of a higher level system. The same faulty logic which applies psychological terminology like "motivation" to sociological entities like "nation" is extended to cover "meta-entitities". The irony is of course that those would would defend such defective logic argue that "God made man in his own image" when all the evidence points to the reverse.

Not fair...

All Gods are subject to human and devil interpretation. It just seems the Christian God has been poorly interpreted more than others.

This should then speak of the Christian God's true allure and the fact that it is the most attacked religion only shows it's inner truth struggling to be "rightly" interpreted.

All meta and sub groupings/systems have a line drawn between creation and creator.

RexRed,

I'm not sure what you are implying by "a line" here. The systems approach is similar to the concept of Gestalt...the whole is greater than the sum of the parts....the function of a part can be understood in relationship to the whole. But any level we call "whole" could be a part of a larger system.

"Creation" doesn't really come into it. Have I "created" this script such that I am separated from it in some irrevocable way ? Surely both "I" and "the script" continue to have an interrelationship within the body of the communicative group called "this forum"....which is part of..etc,etc.
And did that "creation" occur out of the blue ? ....of course not ! ...the fact that we can "draw a line" in order to package discrete posts is merely a convenience which belies the real nature of the continuous interrelational flux between different system levels.

Pardon the delayed responses.



By your logic, the critique of the Bush administration shows it's "inner truth struggling to be rightly interpreted".

The cristian notion of God hasn't been anything but a means to rule for hundreds of years. The concept has been modified so many times to fool illiterates of the old ages that what material we have on it today is hardly a truthful source.




Indeed, But it is possible to envision a "whole" that is complete. By definition this "whole" cannot have anything outside it. This "whole" as a singularity is what I name God, just as an experiment, just to see if any of the things said about God in all religions can be compatible with it, so to speak.

Can God create a computer that can think outside of himself?