40 ms·
Is God a Strange Loop?
- benreesman 2y agoAxioms are necessary to have discussions on the basis of logic. The choice of those axioms and the interpretations about what those axioms might imply is a fascinating and at times outright beautiful conversation. It’s an opportunity for people to connect in a way that’s difficult to describe. But it’s because for the most part, when dealing with others, we can understand if we agree on the axioms (whether that’s ZFC or whatever) and therefore logic is going to inevitably unite us. Or if our axioms contradict, in which case the best outcome is peaceful disagreement.
- bobrobpr 2y agoQuestions of God are all answered by God Himself in the Bhagavad-gita 1972 Srila Prabhupada.
- bamboozled 2y agoGod is a dude?
- namaria 2y agoYou know, every sacred book club says the same
- bobrobpr 2y agoLol. It is not a book but an excerpt of 700 verses from a gigantic book that was orally transmitted before humans turned into idiots.
- mock-possum 2y ago“I did psychedelics and now I think I know what god is” is an exhausting premise for me.
- c22 2y agoI had similar experiences on psychedelics. Ergo god is a structure of the human brain. Checks out.
- utkarsh858 2y agoYes God is a strange loop. According to Bhagavad Gita. This creation is God's energy and it's part. So equation is more like this: God = God + Creation Or God + Creation = God. So everything is part of God but not God at same time.
- Vecr 2y agoI kind of have a feeling that you, the author, and a lot of people on here don't really know what a strange loop is. It's inherently just self modifying code. Or, instruction and data mixed, if you like. That's it. There's nothing to do with magic or consciousness involved. Except that it's Hofstadter's explanation for why consciousness does not exist.
- armitron 2y ago> I disagree with Hofstadter that consciousness and free will are illusions. But I wholeheartedly agree with his most original, profound claim: at the bottom of everything, something is doing something to itself. This is a ridiculous claim, on the order of quantum woo. He disagrees with a cascade of data from neuroscience because it doesn't fit his preconceived notions about "god" and "consciousness" and chooses to believe in mystical unfalsifiable bullshit. Amazing what passes for "science writing" these days.