Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Do you think humans have the ability to see in the mind of god?

  1. Feb 21, 2009 #1
    A lot of humans like Chris Leagan, the man who everyboddy says has the highest IQ on the planet , seems to think so. I disagree with him . I think our intelligence limits us from visualiizing the whole universe as it really is. Just as like an ants mind would limit it from imagining a 3 dimensional environment and a Dog mind wouldn't allow a dog to do basic addition, I believe a humans mind would limit it from seeing a picutre of the whole universe , or as some like to put it, probing into the mind of God. Humans are egostical in that they believe that they have the most intelligent minds in the universe and thehrefore able to visualied the universe in its true form. Well what if there are other creatures that have the cranium that is 10x the size of a human cranium and therefore have a better perception of the universe than we do? Then should we still pursue finding "a theory of everything" and peering into the mind of god.

    Summarzing everything I wrote above, human intelligence clearly has its limit like every other animal on the planet s, and therefore its silly to probe into the mind of god and find grand unified theories.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 21, 2009 #2
    No its not. How do you think those aliens got their big craniums? They would have to evolve them and build their knowledge like the human race is currently doing now. If there is any purpose to life it is to help evolve the human race in order to better know our universe and its laws. Therefore we should be striving for new theories and knowledge all the time.
  4. Feb 21, 2009 #3
    yes , but humans would have to evolved into a whole new species I believe in order to "peer into the mind of God". Therefore , there would be the human species and the highly evolved new species that might have the ability to sense other peoples inner thoughts, and levitate objects and the ability to manipulate weather by just thinking about it. This new species would probably look at the human species the same way the human species looks at chimpanzees. Therefore I think the human race (people like chris langan included) is unable to discovered the ultimate explanation for why the universe exists without evolving into a new species.
  5. Feb 21, 2009 #4
    Well, it's definitely worthwhile to generate some grand unified theory.

    But I do think we inherently miss some aspects that would allow us to understand the universe fully. It would be a miracle if we collectively are able to.
  6. Feb 21, 2009 #5

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What does "the ability to sense other peoples inner thoughts, and levitate objects and the ability to manipulate weather by just thinking about it" have to do with being able to understand the universe?
  7. Feb 22, 2009 #6
    well, I think your mind would have to evolved to a size where you are noe able to performed such feats as telekinesis and telepathy in ord. What makes humans think we can understand the whole universe if our minds can't even pick up objects and sense other people's thoughts? Not trying to imply it is required for you to performed those feats in order to understand the universe, I don't think we have the brain capacity to to visualized the begining of the unverse and the end of the universe, because are brains are not large enough to visualized those stages of the universe. I think there are some species on the planet that can only visualized a two dimensional world and therfore don't have a very accurate due to their brain sized . When humans problably have the best modelof the universe on the planet compared to other earth -bound species . But that does not mean we will eventually discover a complete model of the universe. We might have to visualized higher dimensions in order to have a more accurate description of the universe and our brains only allow us to see the world in 3 dimensions.

    Therefore, I think finding a complete description of the universe is about as likely skipping two generations ahead where your grand kids have minds that have the ability to manipulate physical objects.
  8. Feb 22, 2009 #7
    For the most part, I agree. But I hate to use the word "god". There's too many fantastical implications to that word. So what happens if we, hypothetically speaking, can see the inner workings of the universe? Well heck, so much for learning more, it's the end game. We found everything we need to. What would be the use of going on? And as I mentioned in another comment, we strive to learn and learn about something but why? To understand it, be able to control it. Why? Is the universe doing something wrong and we need to change the inner workings of it? If there's some sort of culmination we could reach that would make us feel good all the time and totally do away with pain or things for which we misunderstand, how would we know we feel good anymore if we no longer have pain to let us know we're feeling good or confusion to let us know that we don't know it all? I'm just saying, if there is a culmination to our learning, would we want to experience it? A culmination to the universe?

    Also, you seem to imply telemanipulation as a possibility. Using what, brainwaves? Brainwaves have no foreseeable way to manipulate objects on a large scale. Sure, we can cause slight variations in them to manipulate a cursor on a screen, so far. But the best way is to convert that energy into a more physical form and we already do that when we think about lifting something and lift it with our muscles. Though we do seem to be making some strides in machines reading minds. I've read lately how in an experiment, the person could see an image, think that image, then record the brain wave sample of when they were thinking of the image, and being able to decode those waves the next time someone thought of that image.

    Brain waves are always happening so it seems unlikely we could read them without equipment. Kind of like if I was always talking and you were at the same time, it would be hard to pick out what's noise and what's not. Though I am not well read in Biology, that's my understanding of it.

    Bottom line is, I don't want to know it all. It's the unknown which gives me curiosity to know. It's being unsatisfied which gives me satisfaction. Being unfulfilled intellectually, sexually, culminarily, and in all ways is what gives us reason to go on. I want challenges, I want dissatisfaction, I want enemies as well as friends, I want hunger, I want pain, I want all that makes me want to go on to strive for fulfillment. When we've reached it, what's the purpose?

    We should take bliss in our ignorance. It is one of the foods for life. In a site so set upon education, I think knowledge is over-rated. Sure, I know more than most little kids, but am I all the more happier for knowing? I'd say not. When you truly learn, you learn about both sides. You're no longer one-sided so much. And what's the use of fighting and going on if you have nothing to fight against? You have a lot less fears because the unknown you feared so much is known now and not so scary. So much of being human is based on fears, same for animals also. They don't know or don't seem to care much about why they're going on, they just fear hunger so they eat. They fear pain, so they run from predators. They fear sexual discomfort, so they mate.

    We should take some solace in ignorance just as well as we do academics. Anything that gives me fear, I try to overcome it by understanding. And I can already see, if I keep doing this, my life is going to be so bland and boring, I'm not sure I can tolerate it. My fear was my food for life. Learning more about death, I hardly fear it anymore. If someone annoys me, I often see that if I try to understand them and their conditions, I can see how they arrived at perceiving those actions as acceptable to them. And knowing this, I feel I have to justify ignorance with knowledge. I don't want to be ignorant but I know if we keep learning and learning, it's going to take away so much fear of the unknown in us, life could be so bland and boring.

    Sorry about going off on some boring tangent but I feel it's all inter-related. On a personal level, maybe I'm depressed and it spurs that view or maybe that view spurs my depression. I'm not sure but I do try to view things as logically and openly as possible, no matter how it makes me feel. Some of us having feelings and we set out to endorse those views which support those feelings. I try to have my logical views set out to endorse themselves as what they are despite of what feelings they may condone in the end. But I know that's totally not possible and have a long healthy life. If you try to do away with your instinctive feelings and try to live on logic as much as possible, it can really mess up your life so I see nothing wrong with conveying a point because that's the way you feel as illogical as it may seem. I've seemed to totally shut down that side of my brain that deals with emotion, or tried to, and viewing others as just as important as yourself and your family, it really makes you cold hearted to your family. Viewing death as just something which everyone does and seeing it as just a recycling event weeding out those which are unfit to go on really makes me seem cold hearted to the world. Most people don't like someone who uses too much logic because it makes you appear machine-like and cold. I suppose I've suppressed the emotional side of my brain so long I really don't have much empathy for others. I'm sort of indifferent like a machine. Again, sorry for going off on a tangent. I know this isn't my blog but as I said, if anyone feels bad for not knowing enough, don't feel bad. Just be happy you still have feeling.
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2009
  9. Feb 22, 2009 #8
    Give me a break, what has this crackpot contributed to knowledge ? Any publication, any recognition, any intellectual construction other people have use of ?
  10. Feb 22, 2009 #9
    Promoting intelligent design? :uhh:
  11. Feb 22, 2009 #10
    Oh no not this Langan nonsense. This guy scored really high on an IQ test, but is basically a crackpot. He has a of legion of supporters who go around defending him on forums, but I figured these forums would be immune to that sort of thing.
  12. Feb 23, 2009 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You spelled his name wrong.
    Since no one knows the mind of god, one can only imagine what it would be. So anyone could make the statement I suppose.
    Hence this thread.
    I would imagine our senses limit our visualization of the universe.
    Perhaps if we just try and visualize our living rooms for a moment, we might get a start on this problem. Why start with the infinite.
    So the universe is the mind of god.
    Excellent. That's close to how I define god also.
    I admit that I am an idiot. I am also human. Therefore your statement that humans are egotistical is false.
    Now we are getting into some really semantic hot water.
    The universe is generally considered to be hyperdimensional. As in, not just many dimensions, but more than we can perceive.
    The "true form" of a hyper-dimensional universe therefore wouldn't have a meaning to a layman.
    It could only be described accurately by a mathematician, or imagined by a very smart human.
    And it could only be conveyed to laymen through analogies of familiar, lesser to higher dimensions.
    We would call them big heads.

    Not that we call elephants bigheads, even though they have craniums 3.5x the typical humans.

    Sperm whales have brains twice the size of elephants, which should make them 7x smarter than we are. I don't think they are.
    We should ask them what they think. They're aliens! And have made it to Earth! We've only just made it to the moon. Of course they'd be smarter than us. Even if they had kitten sized brains.
    I disagree.

    1. Finite beings can imagine the infinite.(Just ask any mathematician)

    2. God, as described by most religions, is either a father or mother figure.
    Fathers and mothers are usually wiser than their children. Therefore, we should try to understand them. Because if we don't, we'll be just a bunch of daft children.

    3. As for the GUT? I'm waiting for the Lisi, Langan, Kaku movie coming out this summer. Three kooks having dinner, discussing the mind of god. I can't wait. :wink:
  13. Feb 23, 2009 #12
    I agree with most of what you said but you disagree that human intelligence is limited but retort with saying that we can basically imagine something not ending? Human intelligence clearly has its limits. We can codify one or maybe some dimensions into data that we can work with, but only in a general manner. Humans are very good at seeing patterns and compressing essential data.

    For instance, we can compress the data to say a 10'x10' wall is yellow. Forget every minute color variation, but for the data we're working with, it is essentially yellow. That doesn't mean we have it figured out. That we know everything about every molecule, atom, etc that the wall is composed of. All we're doing is putting a label on an arbitrary object. There's a lot that we don't and won't understand unless we know what's going on with every particle in the universe. And even if we were the size of the universe, hypothetically speaking, we would have to have a brain maybe twice as big to understand every particle working within ourself. Then another brain to understand the brain that understands us. If we knew it all, we'd then have to have a way to know about the thing that knows it all.

    "Imagining the infinite" isn't really that, unless we're speaking of it loosely.
  14. Feb 23, 2009 #13
    Do you agree that human intelligence has also evolved and is something dynamic rather than static? If so, then how do we know its limits, much less suggest that it has reached its limit?
  15. Feb 23, 2009 #14
    Yes, it is dynamic. I'm not saying it has reached its limit. And I also don't know its limit. I'm just basically posing the question, is there and end to the fulfillment? Will we know so much that there is nothing left to learn? When we've learned it all, can we not ask ourselves if we have really learned it all? Is there more? More answers only seem to spawn more questions. Is there an ultimate answer? Even the need for food poses questions on how to obtain it and do it more efficiently. Same with our other needs. When we're fulfilled and no longer have needs, will things just totally stop in the universe? Would we have to be the universe to be fulfilled? Even the universe has needs. It needs to have objects manipulate other objects, apparently. It, for some reason, needs to abide by the laws which we observe. Human limits pose these questions.
  16. Feb 26, 2009 #15
    We need some Feynman up in here!

    Replacing scientist with "guy with high IQ".

    On top of that, saying "everybody says that he's so smart" is a case of proof by popularity. Which we all know is a flawed method of proof.

    The human mind is the most intelligent, but the human ego is the softest of any species! People hate feeling dumb. People hate not knowing. A common solution is to simply *decide* to know something, even if you know it falsely. In society, this strategy works pretty darn well, because hard proof is sometimes very hard to come by.

    An interesting case of this is the "theory of everything" which you mentioned. Personally, I think it's stupid to approach science with the hopes of finding such a theory. It's like digging for gold. You can choose to start digging, but you can't choose to start finding gold. In some cases, you might have a good idea where to start digging. Your friend may have given you a tip. But it may turn out you never find any at all. It may be there is no gold. Maybe it's too deep and you don't have the right tools. Maybe the tools required to get it cause world-destroying black holes. Who knows. The important thing is that we keep digging.
  17. Feb 28, 2009 #16
    My best way of trying to inteperet what the universe might be is pretending that it is like a computer ship. I'm not being literal here but if you think about it, it is impossible for anything in the chip to know anything on the outside. I guess you can say it is undefined in math terms. Who knows...
  18. Feb 28, 2009 #17
    How do we perceive the universe and how can we use the brain to get a full understanding of the brain?As tony says we should take bliss in our ignorance.
  19. Feb 28, 2009 #18

    This may be the reason why we are here. And god could be a mad scientist with a mind to write programs for computer simulations.
  20. Feb 28, 2009 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Question is faulty - it assumes God existence and attributes God some higher level of comprehension than humans have. As there is no proof for neither of these, everything you can write in answer to the original question is a pure speculation.
  21. Feb 28, 2009 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In the op, he makes it clear that this is just a metaphor.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook