I would love to see your answers to this argument.

[Sisifo]

[quote="Mr P]

Another theory suggests that if Laplace's demon were to occupy a parallel universe or alternate dimension from which it could determine the implied data and do the necessary calculations on an alternate and greater time line the aforementioned time limitation would not apply. This is, in fact, mandatory since if a Laplace's demon was in the reality that we occupy it would have to account for itself in addition to every other aspect of matter and energy, and the grand total cannot exceed the smaller portion.

Hope that helps [/quote]

It doesn't: if Laplace's demon were to occupy a parallel universe or alternate dimension from which it could determine the implied data and do the necessary calculations on an alternate and greater time line the aforementioned time limitation would not apply.

[Mr P]

This entity could imply the existence of a specific alternate reality down to the last fluctuation, however it could never test its hypothesis because doing so would generate new information in it's own reality and we're back to the paradox I mentioned earlier.

Also you friend specifies this entitty is subject to physical laws:

Friend: Many of those species aren't bound to terrestrial biological laws, although they are to physics... In that sense we can imagine thinking capacity and sensorial capacities that aren't limited by terrestrial organs-like.

This being the case it's also subject to the restrictions on the flow of information between alternate realities. The physical barrier to this entities existence is raised due to the fact that no information can be exchanged between realities, to do so would generate a third alternative and again we're back to a paradox.

[Clinton Huxley]

Friend: Among those universes, there must be a species of unlimited intelligence and unlimited sensorial capacity, because if you can imagine an species with a higher conscience, that would be the universe we are talking about. In any case, all the statements lead to the fact that according to this theory there is an species in the Quantum spectrum that holds the maximum capacities allowed by physics. Absolute sensorial capacities, absolute intelligence.

What exactly does "unlimited intelligence" mean? What is unlimited sensorial capacity and how does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle apply? I don't know that the laws of physics do allow "absolute sensorial abilities and intelligence"

Friend: And that universe could perfectly be this one. But even if it isn't, Quantum physics allows the existence of an species so developed, that they would be indistinguishable from God, including their capacity to see and influence other universes...

My physics skillz are not great but could "parallel" universes actually influence this one?
Also, just because a being developed "God-like" powers, depending upon how you define a "god" does not make it God in the religious sense. Just something like Q out of Star Trek.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I got in a debate with a woman one time about whether or not God existed. She wanted to start it off by us both agreeing that God existed.

Sisifo, when I was working auto insurance claims the attorneys would use a tactic called "stair stepping".

"So you would agree the claim is worth $XXXX?"

"It could be, if all the information is correct."

"So then you would agree the claim is worth $XXXX+X?"

And so on. They'd try to inch you into a corner that you helped build.

You're signal for that technique is to watch for the points where, if you were writing it out, you'd put "I reluctantly agreed." If you're reluctant, DON'T agree. Clear up that point before going on. They'll try to skate over the SWAGs and then pretend that they've fully addressed them and they are perfectly grounded in fact. It's a dodge.

[FBM]

That guy is doing sloppy inductive inference, and you're letting him get away with it by not calling him on his first, and foundational, errors. Ask for his sources of information, and examine each statement for sleight-of-hand. For example,

Friend: Quantum physics postulates that anything possible that is not happening, happens in a different universe/reality.

I'm no quantum physicist, but I've been keeping tabs on it for a couple of decades now, and I've never read any such statement to the best of my memory. Sounds like something a fundie would say just to get his imaginary/fallacious ball rolling. Ask him where the fuck he came up with this assertion.

"...anything possible that is not happening, happens..."

Ahem. Wherever the fuck it happens it happens; doesn't matter if it's this universe/reality or any other. Self-contradiction.

This looks suspiciously like a 'wedge'. He's very subtly slipping in the assumption that there are other universes/realities (Did he make it sound like those were synonyms? They're not.), while quantum physics, which he pretends to be citing, is specifically limited to the sub-microscopic realm. The greatest problem in physics at the moment is how to unite the physics of the very small with the physics of the very big. If they'd already done it, I think it would have been in the papers, don't you?

He's distracting you with the illusory authority of quantum physicists (as if they were even in consensus on the ultimate nature of things, which they clearly aren't) and helping you assume without examination that there are different universes/realities, so that he's free of the burden of providing support for this (hidden) assertion.

Me: As long as it is physically possible, agreed. It doesn't allow universes where physics laws are different. That's science fiction.

Friend: Agreed.

Well, no shit, he agreed. You just gave him his cookie, ie, that other universes/realities exist. Call him on it. Force him to admit that he's on pure speculation now, and tell him that speculation and 'tree fiddy' will get him a cup of coffee at Starbucks. In the end, he's jumping from SPECULATION, not necessary inference (which is what he's trying to disguise it as), to the assertion that he has proven something to be true.

Everything that followed just gradually drifted further and further away from anything based on empirical evidence, because you let him have his first cookie.

[Hermit]

Quantum physics postulates that anything possible that is not happening, happens in a different universe/reality.

Fucking metaphysics again. Look at mathematics for a moment. Mathematically speaking, there is an infinite number of numbers, simply because you can always add another 1 to the highest number you can think of. Does this mean that there actually exists an infinite number of universes?

What your friend is ultimately arguing is that anything that can be imagined is ipso facto true. Ask him that very question: "If something can be imagined, does that make it true?"

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Another thing to point out is that, if his argument stands (a fucking huge IF), there exists not a single universe containing a godlike entity, but an infinite number of such universes, in which all possible gods exist. So how would one decide between them?

[Pappa]

Quantum physics postulates that anything possible that is not happening, happens in a different universe/reality.

Fucking metaphysics again. Look at mathematics for a moment. Mathematically speaking, there is an infinite number of numbers, simply because you can always add another 1 to the highest number you can think of. Does this mean that there actually exists an infinite number of universes?

What your friend is ultimately arguing is that anything that can be imagined is ipso facto true. Ask him that very question: "If something can be imagined, does that make it true?"

The many worlds hypothesis is just bunk. It's a ridiculous get out clause as bad as goddidit.

[FBM]

Whatever happened to the sum over histories approach? I liked that one!

Many world hypotheses? We don't need no stinkin' many world hypotheses!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Another thing to point out is that, if his argument stands (a fucking huge IF), there exists not a single universe containing a godlike entity, but an infinite number of such universes, in which all possible gods exist. So how would one decide between them?

All omniscient and omnipotent. It would give a new spin to MMA.*


*Mixed Metaphysical Arts.

[Sisifo]

Ok guys. Thanks a lot. With your ideas, I'm going to elaborate an answer based on these points. Let me know if I am making any faux pas.

About the Hypothesis.
- The Quantum multiverse is a theorical scenario, as valid and real as the zero-dimensional attribute of a point. Actually it just opposites that concept. As such, working in that scenario doesn't make it scientific. We are working in a science-fiction frame. Not a scientific one. We could be working in faster-than-light, time-travelling paradoxes mind games...
- Even the multiverse does not accept infinite universes, but a certain number of them. Thus, not all possibilities can take place.

About the Species.
- Absolute sensory capacity, doesn't mean absolute perception. It will be always limited by physics, such as speed of light. The species can't see on real time what's going on further than an light-instant distance, for example.
- Absolute intelligence, as the capacity of understanding everything is a fallacy. The species cannot understand itself in the future, but can understand itself in the past, thus it evolves, improves, hence, is never absolute.
- Absolute intelligence and absolute capacity doesn't mean omniscience. Random events will be always out of the knowledge and prediction, and the limit of available data (according to the sensory point) and intelligence limit, excludes omniscience.
- Absolute intelligence does not grant omnipotence. It is still bound to materials and time.
- There is a big problem about how that conscience accumulates knowledge up to an infinite level. It can be only by immortality or transmitting information perfectly. Both ideas are against the law of entropy.

Conclusion:
- That universe fails the requisite of physical reality, and the species fails the requisites of omnipotence, omniscience, universality and eternal, not to mention that fails to be the primum mobile of itself and its universe. Hence, it doesn't satisfy Any requisite of godness.

Moral:
- Even in a science fiction scenario, the idea of a God within the physics law, is inviable. As the physics laws are the description of Reality, the Reality of God is hence ousted.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

One point you missed there Sisifo was the argument against omniscience given by a few posters.

This can be summarised as follows:

1. Assume that an entity exists that knows everything about the universe that it inhabits.
2. Specifically, as it inhabits that universe, it knows everything about itself.
3. Following from 2, it knows everything about its own knowledge.
4. Therefore, its thoughts contain, as a subset, their own totality. This is a logical impossibility and so, by reductio ad absurdum, no such being can exist.

[Trolldor]

First off, you allowed yourself to be painted into a corner. You agreed to his conditions without challenging them. It's a common trap.

Second, multiple branching don't guarantee every possible outcome. String theory allows for 10500 possible alternate universes. If each and every action was binary we'd have used those up a few billion years ago.

Third, every time he says "there must be", it means he's assuming something that "might be". Then he's taking that as gospel and building his next assumption on that.

Your aquaintence basically stated that a being in this multiverse created a universe, meaning it created a universe within a universe.
Also, where did this creator come from and how did it evolve to the point where it could manufacture matter and energy out of nothing? You have to explain how before you can say it's possible.

[charlou]

Your aquaintence basically stated that a being in this multiverse created a universe, meaning it created a universe within a universe.
Also, where did this creator come from and how did it evolve to the point where it could manufacture matter and energy out of nothing? You have to explain how before you can say it's possible.

Ayep.

angrychimp, I believe, already mentioned the turtles ...