Is this possible?
Seriously, what drugs do you ingest? Or are you under medical care?? I am not insulting I just want to know where you are coming from. It would help.
If everything… is an atom… within an atom… within an atom… then perhaps on an atomic level there exists a tiny ILP, where I’m sure that tiny arguments and tiny threats of fisticuffs constantly break out.
Would appreciate a reply on your other thread 
viewtopic.php?style=9&f=25&t=191305
MagsJy, that was so cute.
Who knows. Stranger things have happened right? 
If this little atom considers itself to be an individual - wants to stand alone, and not be part of the greater Borg of the human organism, then perhaps it can be considered to have its own little ILP account.
This is a little atom which strives for autonomy and independence.
So, yes, on its own it has gained the freedom to have its own little account.
Can we even know just how much this little atom called Jeremy lol (my favorite name) has influenced what we write in here. We think that it is our account. Ha - little do we know - it was Jeremy’s account from the beginning.
Haha, thanks That angle worked for me, but I don’t know about Shelley?
I may well add it to my sig…
The logical conclusion is that God is a movie, or an entity watching a movie, and therefore the movie is a wrong reality to exist relative to the universe.
Is it? If God can watch a movie, and feel inspired, is it a perversion that the same reality exists relative to the universe?
Not if he/nature is in the movie too. …you have to assume a duality before arriving at such a conclusion, where nature itself doesn’t have any.
I agree. I don’t believe in atoms, but if atoms are needed for movies to be real, that has to mean that movies aren’t correct either. The same applies to any history of gravity, or electricity, or any shopping mall history, or any political history.
God?
I’m going to go through a process of deductive reasoning:
atoms = creator of life/movies
life = user of movies
atoms = anti-life + movies
movies = need of life/atoms
life = need of atoms/ not need of movies
life = need of what opposes it
If life is meant to understand that movies can simultaneously oppose and need their creator, what is the logic of that?
Deductive logic suggests that movies can be the same identity of life, and yet there is meant to be a divide.
If both movies and life need the same identity, and this need is meant relative to the same source, yet the source also means life to be separate from movies, again, what is the logic?
About God, the idea is whether evolution means it: because I can see my own reflection in a cat, or a horse, yet I’m different, it seems logical to think that the ultimate life form that is God will also be a reflection of myself, only that this time I’ll just be the observed.
God is the observer, yet is it a problem if I am one too relative to God?
Relative to a horse, my expectation is that the animal may or may not be aware of the idea that I’m a upgrade from them, or at least supposed to be an upgrade, in which case if this situation is identical to God, and I can look at God and think that they’re an upgrade from me, ultimately that tells me that life’s source is an insurmountable error.
The only way for life’s source to be capable of resolution is if the whole history of evolution was never intended, and that reflection has always been wrong.
Shelly is an underappreciated genius.
Or/ atoms and movies are both real. Its interesting though, that you could tell the whole story [like a movie] of the world without mentioning the relative positions of particles – as i’ve said before I know. Point being that the movie is independent of the fact that atoms exist. Which possibly means that physics is a partial explanation and not the whole or actual explanation, when really reality has to be able to produce anything we can to make within it. Its a weird way of seeing things I know, but I imagine a steam engine exists in space before we built it, and every space has everything in it. Which is very different to physics.
- reality has to draw and redraw itself [e.g. quantum refresh of universe, ‘the fully drawn picture reveals and empty canvas’], so it has to have everything it needs already at its disposal.
Is personality before a person?
Define what you mean by "before.
- reality has to draw and redraw itself [e.g. quantum refresh of universe, ‘the fully drawn picture reveals and empty canvas’], so it has to have everything it needs already at its disposal.
[/quote]
Is personality before a person?
[/quote]
Define what you mean by "before.
[/quote]
Did the needed personality for AI and Spacecraft to exist exist before the time of Benjamin Franklin? So prior to the American War of Independence, reality was already able to be the internet and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and YouTube and Facebook.
Did the needed personality for AI and Spacecraft to exist exist before the time of Benjamin Franklin? So prior to the American War of Independence, reality was already able to be the internet and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and YouTube and Facebook.
[/quote]
Now I want you to define what you mean by personality. lol
Can you actually use that word to describe Al and Spacecraft?
They are not persons.
Could you substitute another word for "personality? I just can’t see personality here. But maybe that’s just me.
Now I want you to define what you mean by personality. lol
Can you actually use that word to describe Al and Spacecraft?
They are not persons.
Could you substitute another word for "personality? I just can’t see personality here. But maybe that’s just me.
[/quote]
Intelligence. Did the needed intelligence to create the internet and spacecraft exist prior to the 1700’s?