Experiences Atheism/afterlife and science bullshittery

[placebonaut]

@unodelacosa Rather than hijack the other thread thought better to take this to another thread

Post in thread 'Yay or nay - is it possible to be a weekend warrior long term with hard stuff?'

Jun 7, 2026

Exactly. You sound just like me nearly thirty years ago, sitting sober and meditating on these things deeply while studying abroad and on a spiritual quest. I've mostly said the same things, and at one point, for about three years, I was despondent over the knowledge that when we die, that's it, game over. Pondering these things depressed me but I pretended it didn't bother me, proudly declaring my atheism and trying to sound brave when I claimed I didn't fear death. I hid my depression and drank myself stupid at the time. I refer to this spell in my life as "seeking oblivion"...

• placebonaut

Spoiler: Post summary

Exactly. You sound just like me nearly thirty years ago, sitting sober and meditating on these things deeply while studying abroad and on a spiritual quest. I've mostly said the same things, and at one point, for about three years, I was despondent over the knowledge that when we die, that's it, game over. Pondering these things depressed me but I pretended it didn't bother me, proudly declaring my atheism and trying to sound brave when I claimed I didn't fear death. I hid my depression and drank myself stupid at the time. I refer to this spell in my life as "seeking oblivion". Some people never manage to make it out of that particular trap, seeking oblivion though alcoholism, and it kills them. They never stop seeking oblivion, and I think I know why. Others seek oblivion with opioids. Anything to quell the agony of having an ego. But fortunately I pulled through that spell through an unlikely mechanism, but everyone's path is different.

Even in the peak of my atheist years

So if they've peaked, does this mean you're no longer an atheist? Atheism is an all or nothing kinda belief. Hence why I think most proclaimed atheists are instead more reasonably agnostic, whether they realize it or not.

I was more open to some of these ideas than I was to religion (though there's overlap).

Obviously believing in God and believing in organized religion are two different things, but they're often mistaken for one another.

Now since getting back into drugs and having had a few k-holes I'm much more open to it.

Um, okay. So k-holes make you open-minded toward religion? Or toward the concept of an afterlife? So why is it you make an exception for ketamine inebriation but you draw the line at DMT?

I'm a scientist at heart,

Unless you're in a k-hole? What makes you say you're a scientist at heart? Meanwhile, Idk how familiar you are with my posts/comments, but if you read them, you might notice that you're not the only BLer who appreciates science… more specifically: organic chemistry.

simple fact is we do not understand enough about how the brain works or physics to have a clear theory on things let alone any evidence for what the right answers are.

I'm just curious what your qualifications are for stating this. You must do some kind of leading work in these fields to make these statements so confidently and assert this with authority. I mean, "we do not understand enough" makes it sound like you're speaking for the entire industry in a way you're uniquely qualified and experienced to do. … Either that or you're making broad claims and bad assumptions. Or maybe it's a blend of these… Lord knows my dumbass will jump to conclusions, and I'm a class 1 grade A hypocrite many times, so please don't take any offense to me pushing back here. Idk wtf I'm talking about, except once in a while I get lucky and I do.

There's interesting overlap between theoretical physics, metaphysics, maths, and spirituality.

Indeed. As a dumbass yank, it's still so odd to me that British-English speakers pluralize the nickname for mathematics: "maths" while the tradition in the U.S. is to shorten it to "math". To me, while there are many branches, it's all still the same singular tree of the one, pure subject. Let's call it "crystal math", shall we? ()… British English also does this with some names. Like Steven becomes "Steves", not simply "Steve". Brits also say "going to hospital" and "going to university" without any articles. In the U.S. we'd say "going to the hospital" or "going to a university." The lack of an article makes it sounds almost like a Russian speaker's grammatical inclination toward eschewing articles…

The universe is 13.8 Billion years old, humans have been around for what 300,000 years, we've only "recently" figured out quantum mechanics & the standard model but don't yet have a theory to align with gravity.

You say this like we're behind schedule. We have nothing to compare this to, so we have no clue if our evolution has been rapid or slow-going. You know, from another perspective, we rapidly discovered the nuclear bomb during the middle of an intense global war, and humanity survived that, and (mostly) made it through the subsequent Cold War. Or maybe we're all really in an intense scaled-up version of a classic Mexican standoff. Perspective and paradox often seem to abound… just consider the double-slot experiment. As to Einstein's unified field theory, well… if Einstein broke the Newtonian model of reality, perhaps something yet will "break" Einstein's models of space/time and gravity/matter.

I'm a fan of American theoretical physicist, Sean M. Carroll, at Johns Hopkins University, who specializes in quantum mechanics, cosmology, and the philosophy of science. He writes excellent, accessible-to-the-public books on these topics, such as "Something Deeply Hidden". Highly recommended.

It's pure arrogance to think that scientifically we know the answers to what happens next,

I thought you gave up on religion. This is a canned response from religious folks. Is there such a thing as "impure arrogance"?

equally arrogant to think that a drug induced epiphany has the right answer - even if the experience is consistent across users,

Maybe, though perhaps you've mistakenly appointed yourself the arbiter of arrogance… Or perhaps the real arrogance is fully dismissing these ideas as if you have hard evidence pointing elsewhere and despite consistency across users.

correlation does not equal causation springs to mind,

This is something a bit different, and your phrasing is off. What you're thinking of, in logic, is known as the questionable-cause logical fallacy, aka: cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Properly stated it's: correlation does not imply causation. But that doesn't negate all value from observing a correlation. Very many times, this correlation alerts us to something. The logical fallacy there just means that while there may be an inference, we cannot directly deduce causation from correlation.

I know what you're getting at though: just because everyone has the same experience doesn't prove anything objectively concrete about the experience. And to that I would borrow a phrase from Sean Carroll and say, Yes, it's something deeply hidden.

DMT just might always work in the same way with human brains to produce the same effect, it would need better and more rigorous study before anyone could draw any conclusions.

They're working on it: "A New Theory Says DMT Entities Might Be Real, and Proposes How to Test It"

I'm open to the idea but doubt we'll get answers to much of this during my lifetime, but that's not even a blink of the eye in the grand scheme of things.

In the Grandest Scheme of things, the blink of an eye might be a lot longer than you think.

On the opposite end of a black hole, is there a white hole spewing forth matter continously? Are there universes parallel to ours with different physics rules making it impossible for us to exist within them? Does every quantum moment split into many worlds in which everything forks at each decision point into all possible outcomes but we only travel along one collapsed decision thread? Therefore is it possible all of these theories are "correct" relatively speaking? Do you believe in the existence of an objective reality or is it something more like a consensual mass hallucination?

So if they've peaked, does this mean you're no longer an atheist? Atheism is an all or nothing kinda belief. Hence why I think most proclaimed atheists are instead more reasonably agnostic, whether they realize it or not.

I think I'd say that I'm finally wise enough to recognize that I don't have the answer

Obviously believing in God and believing in organized religion are two different things, but they're often mistaken for one another.

yes very much so, and the institutionalized brain washing from a young age of organized religion makes this separation even harder

Um, okay. So k-holes make you open-minded toward religion? Or toward the concept of an afterlife? So why is it you make an exception for ketamine inebriation but you draw the line at DMT?

more open-minded to spirituality rather than religion I would say, including an afterlife, or even that this world isn't even real maybe - who knows.

I'm not making an exception for katamine over DMT, I've just not taken DMT yet so can only go on my own experience.

Unless you're in a k-hole? What makes you say you're a scientist at heart?

I believe in the process of science, whether in a k-hole or not, it's a sound philosophy, have an idea, test it, prove it, refine it, disprove it, evolve it.

Meanwhile, Idk how familiar you are with my posts/comments, but if you read them, you might notice that you're not the only BLer who appreciates science… more specifically: organic chemistry.

yeah there's a lot of interesting science talk on this forum, part of the reason I'm here

I'm just curious what your qualifications are for stating this. You must do some kind of leading work in these fields to make these statements so confidently and assert this with authority. I mean, "we do not understand enough" makes it sound like you're speaking for the entire industry in a way you're uniquely qualified and experienced to do. … Either that or you're making broad claims and bad assumptions. Or maybe it's a blend of these… Lord knows my dumbass will jump to conclusions, and I'm a class 1 grade A hypocrite many times, so please don't take any offense to me pushing back here. Idk wtf I'm talking about, except once in a while I get lucky and I do.

no offense taken.

no qualifications, I following physics research as a layman, and dip into other fields, know enough to pick up a research paper and read through things.

A few "recentish" examples that make you wonder what's really going on, all these have plenty of active current research going on and papers that you can read.

1. Quantum Effects in Microtubules
2. Holographic universe theory
3. Quantum entanglement
4. Spacetime
5. Block universe
6. Universe simulation theory
7. Hawking radiation
8. What came before the big bang

we don't understand these 8 things fully, and if some or all of them are wrong the alternatives are just as interesting.

we don't understand how/or why we're able to perceive time, or even if time is a "real" thing.

You say this like we're behind schedule.

Not that we're behind schedule, more just making an observation that we've not been doing it for very long in the grand scheme of things!

I'm a fan of American theoretical physicist, Sean M. Carroll, at Johns Hopkins University, who specializes in quantum mechanics, cosmology, and the philosophy of science. He writes excellent, accessible-to-the-public books on these topics, such as "Something Deeply Hidden". Highly recommended.

thanks for the tip, will try and check him out

I thought you gave up on religion. This is a canned response from religious folks. Is there such a thing as "impure arrogance"?

Not sure I get your point, don't think I'm being contrary here, just an observation that science hasn't proven that there is no god or afterlife, absence of proof doesn't confirm or refute anything, that's all.

Maybe, though perhaps you've mistakenly appointed yourself the arbiter of arrogance… Or perhaps the real arrogance is fully dismissing these ideas as if you have hard evidence pointing elsewhere and despite consistency across users.

No certainly not arrogant enough to think I have any credibility to draw any kind of conclusion here.

My point is that if there is credibility behind consistent DMT drug experience actually pointing to proof that there is something actually going on then applying rigorous scientific study to it is the best way to draw out any conclusions.

IMHO the global war on drugs and related research has held us back a massive amount here, this could have been something that we've been studying extensively for a long time.

Just trying to understand why the experience is consistent itself as a minimum helps to understand brain chemistry and brain structure etc, it could lead to even bigger and better things.

Grossly overlooked field of study, I'm just happy to see that research in psychedelics is gaining traction at long last.

This is something a bit different, and your phrasing is off. What you're thinking of, in logic, is known as the questionable-cause logical fallacy, aka: cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Properly stated it's: correlation does not imply causation. But that doesn't negate all value from observing a correlation. Very many times, this correlation alerts us to something. The logical fallacy there just means that while there may be an inference, we cannot directly deduce causation from correlation.

I know what you're getting at though: just because everyone has the same experience doesn't prove anything objectively concrete about the experience. And to that I would borrow a phrase from Sean Carroll and say, Yes, it's something deeply hidden.

Much better put that my clumsy words.

They're working on it: "A New Theory Says DMT Entities Might Be Real, and Proposes How to Test It"

Great to see this, will have a read thanks for the link

In the Grandest Scheme of things, the blink of an eye might be a lot longer than you think.

wise and interesting choose of words.

black hole and event horizon anyone?

or maybe a single consciousness partitioned to experience every possible eventuality?

who knows

On the opposite end of a black hole, is there a white hole spewing forth matter continously? Are there universes parallel to ours with different physics rules making it impossible for us to exist within them? Does every quantum moment split into many worlds in which everything forks at each decision point into all possible outcomes but we only travel along one collapsed decision thread? Therefore is it possible all of these theories are "correct" relatively speaking?

These are all active fields of scientific study right now.

now overlap metaphysics and religion.

If multiverses exists and there is a god, is it the same god in each universe?

Pretty cool and interesting thought ideas and permutations here.

Do you believe in the existence of an objective reality or is it something more like a consensual mass hallucination?

Honestly I have no idea, all I can say with varying degrees of (un)certainty is that it feels real to me.

I read a paper/article recently which pretty much concluded that statistically speaking we (I?) must be in a simulation.

However there's credibility behind the multiverse idea and quantum many worlds theory in which both/either can lead to infinite possibilities.

So statistically it might be more likely we're in a simulation, however with infinite possibilities there will always be outliers.

The question is where are we on the bell curve??

 

[M!$TER-ED]

@unodelacosa, help me understand the point you were trying to make in the thread above?

 

[Themailman]

I was firmly agnostic for my entire life. I honestly never imagined that would change, ever. I am naturally a very skeptical, objective person.

You know how God came into my life at age 37? Not understanding why I am not dead.

I should be dead, insane, or in prison. I should be all 3 of those things, simultaneously, many times over. I simply cannot understand why I am not. Trust me, it wasn't from lack of trying.

That's where God comes in.

 

[M!$TER-ED]

Ok I appreciate your thoughts however, everyone is diffefrent. What I find that is helpful is appreciate the person's ability to choose what he or she wishes to believe in. Believing in the person's abillity to choose is a human trait unlike any other living being on earth. That's what I define as special and unique. I gave up trying to convince anyone about what or how they should believe and rightly so, I know about as much as anyone else but that doesn't make me right or wrong, it makes me human and I can relate to that.

 

[unodelacosa]

@unodelacosa Rather than hijack the other thread thought better to take this to another thread

Okay. Fair enough. I don't love the title, but not worth nitpicking.

I think I'd say that I'm finally wise enough to recognize that I don't have the answer

Again: agnosticism vs atheism…

yes very much so, and the institutionalized brain washing from a young age of organized religion makes this separation even harder

Well aware. You're preaching to the proverbial choir here, irony fully intended…

more open-minded to spirituality rather than religion I would say, including an afterlife, or even that this world isn't even real maybe - who knows.

Exactly.

I'm not making an exception for katamine over DMT, I've just not taken DMT yet so can only go on my own experience.

Oh, why have you not done DMT yet? It's in my top 3 favorites…

I believe in the process of science, whether in a k-hole or not, it's a sound philosophy, have an idea, test it, prove it, refine it, disprove it, evolve it.

You don't have to convince me… I wanted to hear your thoughts on it, and I see we agree on most things, though you heavily underestimate my knowledge.

no offense taken.

Thanks for taking it in stride.

no qualifications, I following physics research as a layman, and dip into other fields, know enough to pick up a research paper and read through things.

Ah, another autodidact.

A few "recentish" examples that make you wonder what's really going on, all these have plenty of active current research going on and papers that you can read.

1. Quantum Effects in Microtubules
2. Holographic universe theory
3. Quantum entanglement
4. Spacetime
5. Block universe
6. Universe simulation theory
7. Hawking radiation
8. What came before the big bang

Oh yeah, I'm well into all of these, and this list is hardly exhaustive. There's plenty we still don't know, including perhaps more fundamentally: we don't really understand consciousness.

we don't understand how/or why we're able to perceive time, or even if time is a "real" thing.

Hey do you remember that paper that was published circa 2003 by a guy with no formal academic education or training, totally self-taught? … This was in New Zealand, guy's name was Peter something I wanna say with a Z… and he posited that there are no precise static instants underlying physical processes. This is a subtle distinction from Block Universe/eternalism (ties into special relativity stating 'all times are real'), which is different from "timeless physics" ('time is not fundamental; reality is a collect of "nows"'), and now there's quantum gravity approaches suggesting that time might emerges from deeper non-temporal structures…

Not that we're behind schedule, more just making an observation that we've not been doing it for very long in the grand scheme of things!

Yeah but compared to what though? Everything is logarithmic, and exponential growth and decay are natural processes, so if it seems like humanity has really hit the accelerator, well, strap in… We're just hitting that curve in the polynomial where the derivative equals zero (not a perfect analogy, but grant me some poetic license here, brothaaa!)

"See you on the other side of space, brothaaas!"

Not sure I get your point, don't think I'm being contrary here, just an observation that science hasn't proven that there is no god or afterlife, absence of proof doesn't confirm or refute anything, that's all.

Again, aware. I've read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion"…

My point is that if there is credibility behind consistent DMT drug experience actually pointing to proof that there is something actually going on then applying rigorous scientific study to it is the best way to draw out any conclusions.

If only it were easy to do this…

IMHO the global war on drugs and related research has held us back a massive amount here, this could have been something that we've been studying extensively for a long time.

Yes, plus preventing all sorts of unnecessary incarceration and community damage dealt at the hands of vice cops and DEA agents, and this despite the fact that maybe ~half these agents actually have good intentions. The other half are criminals disguising themselves as cops.

Just trying to understand why the experience is consistent itself as a minimum helps to understand brain chemistry and brain structure etc, it could lead to even bigger and better things.

At the heart of that is understanding what exactly gives rise to conscious experience.

Grossly overlooked field of study, I'm just happy to see that research in psychedelics is gaining traction at long last.

It's still fairly mired in red tape though…

Much better put that my clumsy words.

Thanks, I try.

Great to see this, will have a read thanks for the link

Honestly I'm not crazy for their methodology, but it's a start at least.

black hole and event horizon anyone?

Ever see the sci-fi horror movie, Event Horizon, with Lawrence Fishburn, Sam Neill, and Jack Noseworthy? Scary film.

or maybe a single consciousness partitioned to experience every possible eventuality?

Right, one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.

If multiverses exists and there is a god, is it the same god in each universe?

I've wondered this myself quite a bit. I think it depends on what God actually is. To me, the Judeo-Christian view of God as a gray-bearded patriarchal, lone, omnipotent deity is only useful as a comedy trope. To me, God represents a state of ultimate harmony and sheer complexity throughout every possible world in every possible multi-verse. I suspect that whatever that God is, it just might be the same thing as The Infinite. I'm careful whenever I think about this subject or my mind feels like it's about to collapse into an abyss. I realize it's more than any one of us could ever contain individually. Consider this: mathematician, Georg Cantor, who gave us the very important Cantor Sets, died in an insane asylum; supposedly he went insane from thinking too deeply about infinity. He was also ridiculed during his lifetime for Set Theory, and it wasn't until after his death that mathematicians realized his Set Theory was, in fact, correct and super useful for higher mathematics, so there may have been other factors at play, but still…

Honestly I have no idea, all I can say with varying degrees of (un)certainty is that it feels real to me.

I read a paper/article recently which pretty much concluded that statistically speaking we (I?) must be in a simulation.

It certainly feels like it, constrained as we are by the speed of light and seemingly separated from other star systems by distances too vast to properly fathom, making it impossible to ever see the "walls" of the simulation, as it were.

However there's credibility behind the multiverse idea and quantum many worlds theory in which both/either can lead to infinite possibilities.

I know. It makes my head hurt.

So statistically it might be more likely we're in a simulation, however with infinite possibilities there will always be outliers.

Infinity is so impossible to work with mentally and mathematically. All we can do is approach infinity with limits. To prove this, try dividing a number by zero. Even a calculator can't do it; it bricks out.

The question is where are we on the bell curve??

Yes, if that bell curve were extended and curved into 10 dimensions…

 

[placebonaut]

Okay. Fair enough. I don't love the title, but not worth nitpicking.

trying to keep a heavy subject a little light hearted is all, not trying to belittle it, it's also a reference to long time streamer soviet womble who's very funny to watch

https://www.youtube.com/@SovietWomble

I find it beautiful that the most serious of scientific subjects with lots research, great minds, experiments and robust maths has some of the most insane and crazy ideas that at times sound like they were made up by the ramblings of crazy people - quantum mechanics is a great example, it sounds utterly nuts, but robustly provable experimentally!

That's the bullshittery angle

Oh, why have you not done DMT yet? It's in my top 3 favorites…

it's on my to do list but honestly I need to pluck up the courage to do it, I won't be able to get a trip sitter.

had a very bad experience on LSD 30+ years ago, just started taking 2C-B, I'll get around to it at some point without a doubt.

You don't have to convince me… I wanted to hear your thoughts on it, and I see we agree on most things, though you heavily underestimate my knowledge.

not sure I understand what exactly you want to hear my thoughts on, didn't I answer the question deeply enough for you? not sure there's much more to say, the debates about how to go about rigorous scientific study are well documented, plenty of best practice around but independent provability & repeatability are core principles.

Certainly not underestimating your knowledge in the slightest, it's really interesting to talk to someone else who's clearly on a similar wavelength and obviously knowledgeable.

Ah, another autodidact.

think even that's a stretch, I know enough to be aware of key concepts but the maths is too much for me in truth.

Oh yeah, I'm well into all of these, and this list is hardly exhaustive. There's plenty we still don't know, including perhaps more fundamentally: we don't really understand consciousness.

not meant to be exhaustive, just given a few examples to paint a picture, if you've read anything about the topics then just referencing them should be enough to join the dots to see the connection to the point I was making i.e. from a theoretical and experimental physics perspective there is a massive amount of latitude that would allow there to scientifically be a provable afterlife/god/aliens/machine elves.

That's what's started to make me question my Atheism. Ironic isn't it, the very thing that started me down the path of Atheism is the very thing that now makes me unsure about it.

Hey do you remember that paper that was published circa 2003 by a guy with no formal academic education or training, totally self-taught? … This was in New Zealand, guy's name was Peter something I wanna say with a Z… and he posited that there are no precise static instants underlying physical processes. This is a subtle distinction from Block Universe/eternalism (ties into special relativity stating 'all times are real'), which is different from "timeless physics" ('time is not fundamental; reality is a collect of "nows"'), and now there's quantum gravity approaches suggesting that time might emerges from deeper non-temporal structures…

not familiar with it, had a quick search and think you're referring to this

Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy Versus Discontinuity - Foundations of Physics Letters

It is postulated there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process at which the relative position of a body in relative motion or a specific physical magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined. It is concluded it is exactly because of this that time...

link.springer.com

I can't get access to the paper but just had a quick read around it and it seems to be saying effectively there is no minimum "Planck" length to time, an object doesn't move through spacetime, an object is a shape in spacetime.

I think I understand the point but don't understand enough about the implications on other theories as a result - and no doubt the interalated maths of it all!

And it still brings up the old question of how humans "perceive" the passage of time, pre-detirminism, and the effect of this versus quantum mechanics uncertainty.

Yeah but compared to what though? Everything is logarithmic, and exponential growth and decay are natural processes, so if it seems like humanity has really hit the accelerator, well, strap in… We're just hitting that curve in the polynomial where the derivative equals zero (not a perfect analogy, but grant me some poetic license here, brothaaa!)

100% yes.

would it be a coincidence that all this shit gets figured out just in time for my own personal "death"?

"See you on the other side of space, brothaaas!"

never seens this before, love it!

Again, aware. I've read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion"…

I find him hard work, have read a couple of his books but his language seems to me intentionally too academic and "highbrow" which grates me, there's an arrogance about him that turns me off.

purely a style thing though, not so much the points he makes.

If only it were easy to do this…

it's not easy, far from it, but years of under investment puts it in a much worse position that it should be in

At the heart of that is understanding what exactly gives rise to conscious experience.

this is an area that I would like to read more about when I get the time, I've not had a major interest in this area until I started taking drugs again but it's another fascinating subject.

It's still fairly mired in red tape though…

it's a start though, better that than a complete ban!

Ever see the sci-fi horror movie, Event Horizon, with Lawrence Fishburn, Sam Neill, and Jack Noseworthy? Scary film.

Great film, have seen it quite a few times, in fact I'm maybe about due to watch it again soon

I've wondered this myself quite a bit. I think it depends on what God actually is. To me, the Judeo-Christian view of God as a gray-bearded patriarchal, lone, omnipotent deity is only useful as a comedy trope. To me, God represents a state of ultimate harmony and sheer complexity throughout every possible world in every possible multi-verse. I suspect that whatever that God is, it just might be the same thing as The Infinite.

Spot of for me with the trope point.

I've thought about very similar things, it's an interesting and mind blowing topic.

my thought process started from the simple classical question "if they are omnipotent can god create a stone that they cannot lift?", how about a universe in which they do not exist?

If they are infinite, there are many different types of infinities....which one are they? some of them? all of them?

If you were an infinite being, what would you do? would you maybe create every possible outcome, including beings with the ability to "perceive time" as a way preserve your own sanity?

If as god you're in mental torture could you commit suicide? what would that look like exactly?

Would you hide your conscious away in beings who perceive time as a way to protect your own sanity?

I'm careful whenever I think about this subject or my mind feels like it's about to collapse into an abyss.

you could spend an eternity thinking about it I suspect

I realize it's more than any one of us could ever contain individually. Consider this: mathematician, Georg Cantor, who gave us the very important Cantor Sets, died in an insane asylum; supposedly he went insane from thinking too deeply about infinity. He was also ridiculed during his lifetime for Set Theory, and it wasn't until after his death that mathematicians realized his Set Theory was, in fact, correct and super useful for higher mathematics, so there may have been other factors at play, but still…

yes familiar with him, you could add tragically to this list, people like Nietzsche or Van Gogh for example.

It certainly feels like it, constrained as we are by the speed of light and seemingly separated from other star systems by distances too vast to properly fathom, making it impossible to ever see the "walls" of the simulation, as it were.

Part of the beauty of why I like this theory is it's grounded in the simple idea that the simulators technology is just so much better and powerful than our own that there's no way we could tell the difference (that is until we can).

But even if we are, what is consciousness?

Will AI, which is a computer simulation, ever truly be conscious?

My personal view is that I think it's inevitable that it will be conscious, given enough time... - I refer back to the age of the universe and your logarithmic point.

I know. It makes my head hurt.

Mine too, it's fun to get high and think about it though!

Infinity is so impossible to work with mentally and mathematically. All we can do is approach infinity with limits. To prove this, try dividing a number by zero. Even a calculator can't do it; it bricks out.

Again my layman understanding here, but think these are different issues, dividing by zero is effectively an invalid operation, it makes no sense to do it.

infinity's a different best, Cantor's work on infinity set theory is an interesting read (even at an intro level), but yes for us mortals it's a useful tool to work with maths that bounds the infinity problem rather than using infinity because that helps make the maths easier without materially effecting the results

Yes, if that bell curve were extended and curved into 10 dimensions…

spot on, and from my earlier point then start adding in all the other current theories that are floating around. The possibilities are pretty mind blowing.

fascinating stuff!

 

[unodelacosa]

not sure I understand what exactly you want to hear my thoughts on,

Do note: I said "wanted", past tense. It's all good.

If they are infinite, there are many different types of infinities.

No, there are an infinite amount of infinities. That's what makes infinity so ungainly to work with philosophically and mathematically.

it's on my to do list but honestly I need to pluck up the courage to do it, I won't be able to get a trip sitter.

Make a trip to NYC and you'll have one…

if they are omnipotent can god create a stone that they cannot lift?

I like The Simpsons version of that question: "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself cannot eat it?"

If you were an infinite being, what would you do?

Impossible to happen; impossible to know. I couldn't possible contain that info…

as a way preserve your own sanity?

Not a applicable to God.

If as god you're in mental torture could you commit suicide? what would that look like exactly?

Now you're applying too many human attributes to the ultimate divinity. Sure we're made in His image, insofar as to say: we, too, are creators on a scaled down level, just like God. But in my opinion, God is far beyond petty human emotions and well beyond Death.

Would you hide your conscious away in beings who perceive time as a way to protect your own sanity?

Yes, I think I would decide to experience myself subjectively…

Mine too, it's fun to get high and think about it though!

Which is exactly why you need to get back up on the horse of tripping, and also precisely why you need to vaporize some DMT and explore… Trust me; there's nothing to fear.

Again my layman understanding here, but think these are different issues, dividing by zero is effectively an invalid operation, it makes no sense to do it.

Of course it makes no sense to do it. In a certain sense, taking any integer, X and divide by zero by asking: How many times does zero go into X? But otherwise, no, you're right, we only use ∞ with limits and in algebra we do not go (1/0) = ∞ … Sorry, I should've been clearer.

 

[M!$TER-ED]

Life is speculation that is all there is.

 

[unodelacosa]

"So that we are far away the most ancient of all things blest,
And that we are of love’s generation
There are manifest, manifold signs
We have wings."

–Aristophanes

 

[placebonaut]

Very interesting discussion done in a very civilised way, thanks for entering into this in the right spirit!

No, there are an infinite amount of infinities. That's what makes infinity so ungainly to work with philosophically and mathematically.

I was more referencing different types of infinities e.g. positive whole numbers versus real numbers versus primes - back to what drove Cantor mad....

but infinite infinities is another gotcha.

Make a trip to NYC and you'll have one…

I like The Simpsons version of that question: "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself cannot eat it?"

never heard that version before, love it

Not a applicable to God.

interesting response, curious as to what makes you say that?

Now you're applying too many human attributes to the ultimate divinity. Sure we're made in His image, insofar as to say: we, too, are creators on a scaled down level, just like God. But in my opinion, God is far beyond petty human emotions and well beyond Death.

The death point is another version of the Omnipotence Paradox.

Applying human attributes to god as a separate thing is interesting point, the great flood springs to mind if we're referring to the Abrahamic God, but there are other versions of god where this is maybe less relevant, Pantheistic God or Panentheistic God for example.

If you don't mind me asking which god to you believe in? I'm not trying to bait you here, just interested in your perspective.

I'm personally more receptive to the idea of Pantheistic or Panentheistic God, but much more uneasy generally with Monotheism especially when it can be Exclusive or Inclusive Monotheism depending on which religion/god/gods/creatures/entities you happen to pick out of the ~18,000 that have been worshiped through human existence.

I was raised a Christian, baptized, and went to church twice a week until I was a teenager - I firmly do not believe in this version of God, though to quote Ricky Gervais that's just 1 less than people who do believe in it.

Which is exactly why you need to get back up on the horse of tripping, and also precisely why you need to vaporize some DMT and explore… Trust me; there's nothing to fear.

yeah I'm building up to it, should be fun!

 

[unodelacosa]

Very interesting discussion done in a very civilised way, thanks for entering into this in the right spirit!

I know you were trying to grant some levity, but I still think "bullshittery" lends this all a tone of sales/scam, but I will concede that it may be my own American Yankee association, Americans being quite the avid fans of privatization … as well as the use of the letter "z" in words like "civilized" and "privatized". We also call the letter "zee", I think mostly because it rhymes in the alphabet song better that way. However, I find myself saying "XYZ" but pronouncing it "ecks why zed", because I prefer the finality of ending that phrase with a consonant sound. And who's Zed? Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.

Since I'm digressing a bit, please let me just apologise() for America's dumbass version of the date where it goes: MM/DD/YEAR. It's fucking stupid and confusing, and there's no reason why we couldn't just adopt Europe's obviously superior 13 JUN 26 format. It goes in order from least to greatest, which makes sense. As if that weren't bad enough, Yankees make in ordinal numbers, God only knows why… "Today is June 13th 2026" ☜ WTF is that shit? Madness.

Then again, my inner computer nerd sees that and thinks: both are wrong. Date things starting from the year and moving out as far as you need to go. So like 2026-06-13_16:18:33.057. That's fairly granular. I know, I know, yanks say "like" like… like a whole lot. Like, it's bad, because like, it's not the smartest sounding word in the world, and liiiiiiiiiiiiiike…

"Armour", "Colour", "Favour", "Flavour" … these don't need the letter "u", I think the Americans proved that by now. No accounting for the word "glamour" though… I guess it gets to keep it's glamorous "u" just for show. "Programme" doesn't need that terminating "me"; "Tonight's program will be…" works just fine. I know "computer program" is spelled the American way, but why squander letters in silence? It's not French, you know…​

Mots d'Hueres: Gousse, Rames​

​

English	French	Translation
Humpty Dumpty Sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty Had a great fall. And all the king's horses And all the king's men Can't put Humpty Dumpty Together again.	Un petit d'un petit S'étonne aux Halles Un petit d'un petit Ah! degrés te fallent Indolent qui ne sort cesse Indolent qui ne se mène Qu'importe un petit d'un petit Tout Gai de Reguennes.	A child of a child Is surprised at the Market A child of a child Oh, degrees you needed! Lazy is he who never goes out Lazy is he who is not led Who cares about a child of a child Like Guy of Reguennes.

I was more referencing different types of infinities e.g. positive whole numbers versus real numbers versus primes - back to what drove Cantor mad....

Right but then there is the imaginary number, i, which is equal to the square root of -1. So i = √-1, and it's said to be imaginary because a negative times a negative number is always positive, so what number times itself could possibly give you a negative number? Right? So that number doesn't exist; it's imaginary. Yet watch what happens to it when we raise the power of i, in other words increasing the exponent like so:

i = √-1 ☜ (i equals the square root of negative one)
i² = -1 ☜ (squaring the square root of negative one renders simply negative one)
i³ = -i ☜ (i³ is just i² * i¹, so subbing from above gives -1 * i, or simply -i)
i⁴ = 1 ☜ (i⁴ is just i² * i², so subbing again gives -1* -1, or, elegantly: 1)

I always thought that shit's flyAF.

but infinite infinities is another gotcha.

I suspect infinity is so strange it's incomprehensible.

No cap; I mean it. I realize that a trip to NYC isn't the cheapest holiday (btw, much better word than "vacation"), but the offer stands, just lmk.

interesting response, curious as to what makes you say that?

Certain things aren't applicable to "God", whatever God may be, in a manner analogous to how it makes no sense to perform algebra on "∞".

The death point is another version of the Omnipotence Paradox.

Sure, but to me the more compelling paradox lies in the idea of Satan and eternal damnation. If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and existent outside the realm of time, as we imagine He must be, why would a benevolent God create beings He already knows He will have to damn forever, knowing as He already does the answer they will choose with their supposed free will? Either He's not beneficent or God does not eternally damn human souls. Ok, so then that must mean there is no Hell. And without the risk of eternal damnation, what reason does anyone have to believe in God? Whether you believe in God or not, there's no risk associated in not having faith if Hell doesn't exist.

But then more recently, I've rethought this position a bit. I figure if death isn't the end of us, as I suspect, we just cross over after death and we're transported by a psychopomp from the DMT realm to review our lives where we either move on to the next realm or we're sent back to reincarnate,

Applying human attributes to god as a separate thing is interesting point, the great flood springs to mind if we're referring to the Abrahamic God, but there are other versions of god where this is maybe less relevant, Pantheistic God or Panentheistic God for example.

My favorite deity might be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) and the Church of Pastafarianism.

I think the word, "God" should not default to Abrahamic God. If I'm talking about Abraham's God, I usually point that out. Otherwise, I'm talking about the Godhead concept and a looser interpretation of the word…

If you don't mind me asking which god to you believe in? I'm not trying to bait you here, just interested in your perspective.

I'm fairly agnostic. Like I said before, I think of God as an ultimate complexity represented in the idea of Infinity. I feel like maybe "God" both as a word and as a concept, needs to be taken back from Abrahamic religions.

I'm personally more receptive to the idea of Pantheistic or Panentheistic God, but much more uneasy generally with Monotheism especially when it can be Exclusive or Inclusive Monotheism depending on which religion/god/gods/creatures/entities you happen to pick out of the ~18,000 that have been worshiped through human existence.

Wow, that was a great article. Thank you for sharing that. Today I learned.

I was raised a Christian, baptized, and went to church twice a week until I was a teenager

Twice a week? Holy shit, that's a lot of holy shit… I like the sense of community church's foster, though, despite certain ppl being very judgmental

I firmly do not believe in this version of God, though to quote Ricky Gervais that's just 1 less than people who do believe in it.

Ricky is so heavy-handed in the way he attacks that subject, and it honestly get a little old. He's funnyAF on most other subjects though…

yeah I'm building up to it, should be fun!

and enlightening… possibly your new favorite drug.