Proof of God and explanations for everything with Deleuze/Guattari S1E6

Now this is content.

fantastic video, i still think there is a possibility for rebellion, as with all concepts of "god", and what form that rebellion takes is based on ones understanding of "god", afterall, one can't rebel against something one doesn't fully understand, because one might play right into its grasp

Best deleuze video i've ever seen thank you

Great video ❤❤❤😍

Well time to make a response video to this! I hope you will check it out, it will be long because I must explain things, but it will be packed with logic, and also my own humor. Sit back and strap in, I shall call it "No proof of God offered by Duleuze/Guttari/Zentapir"

Now, this is some good gnosis.

I love how you skip the "and is to be understood as impossible". 'Bit mad are we huh? 😁

Please upload bibliographies. Excellent video by the way.

can you name the book you are talking about so i can look it up please? My brain hurts now.

...as you probably know, the video here went online briefly by mistake during the week (https://youtu.be/DO-AJr_O_HY). In a nutshell: I'm helping with moderation here now. And also saved Jason's comments. We here on the team really appreciate every comment, so it would be a shame if those were lost.

Jason wrote also:Concerning the quantum mathematics, yes there are symmetries but there is also randomness is space. The are particles (minus and plus charge) are getting created everywhere, that rush towards one another and annihilate themselves. We can only observe this random pattern but there is no Symmetrie in it, well that's at least what physicsts say about it. To be frank, the other argument where you created multiple version of yourself "breaking space and Time" isnt right in my opionion. To trancende space and time has to actually refer to yourself in your physical body and not through some imaginary figure of yourself. I find the rizom idea quite fascinating because there is definitely fractal nature in this world, yet I would stay agnostic about any judgements concerning what's behind our universe. This checklist approach seems to me to be using an established liertaly method of investigating, yet using it on something that is by definition without meaning, I mean this in a early widgensteinien sense. Happy Montag!

God is a lobster. 🦞

Hmm.

What do you mean when you say you dont know how much we have? Are you in danger or ill?
Instead of unrealistically trying to write and essay in a YouTube comment I'll just say that I'm disagreeing with a lot of statements yet I enjoy the video rather as thought experiment.
The double articulation is something that interests me though. I don't think I understood it properly. But I don't have the time nor the energy at this point in my life to read anti Ödipus for a year. I'd love to see that method of understanding in comparison to others, in order to highlight its difference.

i am on too much sativa for this rn

Ich habe gerade vergeblich auf deinem Youtube Kanal nach irgend einer Möglichkeit gesucht dich privat zu kontaktieren. Email vielleicht?

Wow, going to have to counter this video. (Don't worry, I'm an atheist. Nothing weird is coming)
The fractal that you show is a framing of relationships. Some of those relationship are used to help our own understanding, and are therefore not concrete. But the very description you give of a God, it's unfalcifiable as it is external to reality, but its influence is felt.

So, the lobster idea mostly deals with how we conceptualize reality, our sense of what green is, how green interacts with other things. But did you see it, green is an attribute and not a thing, an interpretation. The thing is an energy transfer to the rods and cones of our eyes, everything else is us attempting to create "organs" out of that experience.

So within the definition of a God, there is normally the concept of miracles, and something that is not natural happening (supernatural being a misnomer). Natural is expected results that line up with experiment and observation. What we have seen, at the macro scale, is predictive. At smaller, the quantum, there is predictive quanitization (packets) but with probablistic predictibility. Whithin that work, the Feynam diagrams, include the concept of "virtual photons" coming into and out of existance to be used as a concept to understand quantum electron dynamics, which is the most accurate predictive theory. Does this means there are things coming into and out of existence? No, they have not been observed, but they nees to be a factor at that level. (It's happening right now within you, but you will notice it as no observable effect on yourself).

So, this is now mindless. There probabilities don't change and the aggregate is predictable. Sounds like a better understanding of the natural state of the world.

And now to tackle "multiverse". This is an unfalcifiable model by its very action, as you will continue down your time line of existence. There is no concrete identification where there is any branching of universes (eg. Did that virtual photon self-anialate, as part is matter and part is anti-matter, or did one part fall into that black hole and the other continues to exist (which is the basis of theory of Hawkin Radiation). So, if multiverse is just a mental model to try to make an understanding around how, at a really really low level, reality is probablistic (based upon observe experiment), rather than deterministic, how can we move to a determinst model to sooth our discomfort.

I would simply argue, based upon what has been observed and tested, and based upon hoe humans misremember and attempt to make reality fit our understanding, we will go through many length (eg 4 or 20 year) to keep things in our mental model. Your explaination reminds me of my Christian fundamentalist days justifying that a God existed, instead of recognizing I was primed for that (and it was just confusing or god woukd sort it out)

In our probablistic universe, there is probably not a god. The probability of life is a combination of formed chemicals under electical conditions forming and doing what they do. Sure, low probability but everything operating and combining as it always has. Emergent properties of survivability and flurishing happened, both with increased and decreased oxygenation on the planet. (Look at sea vents and the history found evident in the earth). To ultimately move to what we consider animals that have emergent properties of movement, socialization and community. (We are not unique to the animal kingdom in this regard).

We just happened to have the emergent propertt of over thinking and pattern matching, and we have this sense of an external parent that lingers. (And more than likely, that parent is cruel becauae we see that reality does not care, but the evolution of compassion and love for our in group has lead the species to survive).

So, have I suffienctly explained that it is highly unlikely there is no god, and that by using blanket statement (that we all are unforntunately prone to), leads to faulting and/or convoluted reasoning and a poor result.

Yes, conceptual thinking may help reframe ideas, as philosphy does. But I think you've attempted to fit an entity that has no evidence of existence (barring human feelings and interpretations of hallucinations and dreams (which I had as a fundy christian)), into a theortical mental framework to get the answer you are looking form.

It's ok for God not to exists. You don't need to code them into your mental modes.

“Double articulation” sounds an awful lot like Aristotle’s hylomorphism with a dollop of Spinoza’s expressionism on top. And because Aristotle has been (doubly) articulated by Aquinas and the scholastics as well as anybody, I think we’re a lot closer to the God of Abraham than we can even understand.

Order isn’t so much in decay as it is in flux—decay being compost that makes the ground of Being as fecund as it, out of which grow rhizomes and lobsters and everything else.

"don't expect a miracle". OK, I'm leaving...

Jason wrote: My men. Bevor I watch it. You are like a artifical intelligence that was trained to try to convey komplex information. That reminds me, do you know the robotics and AI scientific advances. Haha it's not long, with quantum technology we can simulate 3 dimensional through direct interpendence of states. The simultaneous calculations of bit are n^2 but with quantum technology it's 2^n which results in a direct super exponential curve towards infinity. Chances we are simulated, because we will soon to be able to do it, are quite high.