Mathematical proof for God

[4201]

I've been pretty liberal with the bounds for the inputs/outputs of the neural network (traditionally always between 0 and 1 rather than any number on the real line) but I'm sure this can be easily fixed with some sigmoid and anti-sigmoid functions.

Otherwise I'm using the simplest form of neural networks, of which you can learn about here: 

 

This doesn't prove anything about god's infinite intelligence, but it proves that you and the universe is equivalent to a neural network of infinite size, but you could also be equivalent to a neural network of some size, as well as the entirety of the universe. I like doing this little thing though, although it doesn't really prove much in practice it was interesting.

 

Also I need to figure out what to do with time. Not sure what time would be, some extra parameter? One more output of the universe/input of the mind? I don't know.

Edited December 28, 2019 by 4201

[ajasatya]

@4201 Neural networks map R^m to R^n (from an m-dimensional hyper-space to an n-dimensional hyper-space).

If you want your proof to be complete, you will have to prove that Reality is mathematically equivalent to R^k, for some integer k, in the first place. Personally, I find such hypothesis quite smelly to begin with.

Here's some candy: Enlightenment cannot be touched by the mind.

[remember]

  the beauty about the infinite intelligence of the universe and the learning process of the universe is that it is even far more complex and this model is only a simulation of what it is, within consciousness, by simulating one aspect of consciousness.

[Leo Gura]

The best proof for God is to snort 30mg of 5-MeO-DMT.

Case closed

[4201]

1 minute ago, ajasatya said:

@4201 Neural networks map R^m to R^n (from an m-dimensional hyper-space to an n-dimensional hyper-space).

I you want your proof to be complete, you will have to prove that Reality is mathematically equivalent to R^k, for some integer k, in the first place. Personally, I find such hypothesis quite smelly to begin with.

Here's some candy: Enlightenment cannot be touched by the mind.

I don't think I need to. From the perspective of the mind, Reality is just some function, of possibly infinite complexity that maps your output neurons to your inputs by physical phenomenons of any sort. This function is equal to some neural network if the assumption is true. Perhaps that my assumption would prove your statement and perhaps the assumption is totally false. I have a "feel" that the assumption is not too crazy though.

@Leo Gura That's what I did except my mind didn't want anything to do with looking at Truth. It kept looking away until it found a good enough distraction to get me to look away for good. This distraction was this proof.

It's kind of frustrating though. I live my entire life pretending I'm all about awareness and Truth, yet when it comes to look at it I just voluntarily look away.

[remember]

@4201 the factor time is the parameter for consolidation and integration and change. if you would take 5meo that would probably speed the information upload up but the consolidation would probably still take time. to integrate and organize the information into the existing system. if you could not look away, what would change?

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, 4201 said:

It's kind of frustrating though. I live my entire life pretending I'm all about awareness and Truth, yet when it comes to look at it I just voluntarily look away.

Yes, well, as least you're honest about that.

Keep chipping away at it. You will crack at some point.

[4201]

2 minutes ago, remember said:

@4201 the factor time is the parameter for consolidation and integration and change. if you would take 5meo that would probably speed the information upload up but the consolidation would probably still take time. to integrate and organize the information into the existing system. if you could not look away, what would change?

Sure, I like you answer and I think it has a healthy, positive change oriented mindself toward growth and self actualization.

However, it doesn't define what time is exactly. (as a mental construct). Sure time is a construction of God but then if you were God how would you invent time.

[4201]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, well, as least you're honest about that.

Keep chipping away at it. You will crack at some point.

Thanks, will keep at it!

[remember]

@4201 process sweetheart it`s a parameter for process although in sense of learning it can not be measured like a constant, probably more exponential or so - i`m not very good in math so i would not know how to integrate that in this language.

[Arcangelo]

I proved to myself the existence of god through the most simple electrical circuit that can be built.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Can God even be quantified with numbers?

Not only can God not be quantified, God cannot be qualified either.

[electroBeam]

If you want to toy with this sort of reasoning about God, a much more productive direction would be to 'prove' properties and qualities of God, like infinite intelligence, properties of the evolution of God, etc. This would be much more beautiful because you will actually get somewhere, and contribute to the creative process God exhibits. 

[Leo Gura]

Georg Cantor proved absolute infinity at the level of set theory. That's about as close as you'll get from within the domain of mathematics and logic.

[Sempiternity]

 

@4201    You're talking mathematics, the ultimate fundamental Truth, and you're name is 4201.

42, in the popular The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, is the "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything".

01 is One.

So your name, numerically, means the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is 'One'.

42=01.

Was this done intentionally?

Edited December 29, 2019 by Jed Vassallo

[Meetjoeblack]

7 hours ago, ajasatya said:

@4201 Neural networks map R^m to R^n (from an m-dimensional hyper-space to an n-dimensional hyper-space).

I you want your proof to be complete, you will have to prove that Reality is mathematically equivalent to R^k, for some integer k, in the first place. Personally, I find such hypothesis quite smelly to begin with.

Here's some candy: Enlightenment cannot be touched by the mind.

Be still and know, i am god. 

[Tanz]

If or when they find an equation for super string theory then it would be an equation that shows that we are all one. Physicist do not talk about it in that way but they should. 

Still there is a big difference between experiencing the oneness and understand it intellectually through numbers. Scientists have been guilty of trying to monopolize the truth by becoming an authority as has religion has.

 

[John Doe]

A Neural Network is basically just a very very complicated function enabling domain mapping as @ajasatya has specified. It is a useful tool which can enable us to fit models which are very 'fine tuned' involving heavy parameterization. A useful statistical tool, that's about it.

I see "Machine Learning" being thrown around too much these days. In many cases, simple multiple regression can do the trick, the small problem-scale doesn't call for the use of ML at all. Yet I see it being used mostly as a buzz-word.

Now we have a "Mathematical Proof for God" using Machine Learning? LOL. What is even your hypothesis? What assumptions are being made? "Neural Network" is a methodology, but the OP appears to be trying to fit a problem to a tool, rather than the other way around.

I agree with @ajasatya and @Leo Gura on the matter. God cannot be understood using our framework of logic/reason. I am extremely convinced with this. The universe is not confined to our Logic, it's the other way, our Logic is confined within the Universe. Take the case of the simple question, "Why does the Universe exist?" answered by Swami Sarvapriyananda on YouTube. He says that the question is simply logically incorrect - refer to the video on YouTube for why this is the case. Just one example where logic is pushed to the limit.         

[Leo Gura]

There are higher dimensions of logic which are simply above the heads of most rationalist materialistic scientists. Mystical logic. But such things are not allowed to be talked about in academia.

[from chaos into self]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Not only can God not be quantified, God cannot be qualified either.

Sure god can, god can be anything, even a boat! He can and he can't, at the very least...