A logical proof of a creator?

[bur7ama1989]

[Place in correct section if i have not]

This video was brought to my attention to be, as the title suggests, a logical proof of a creator. Although it is obvious as to which religion the speaker associates himself with, it doesn't seem to interfere with his explanation. I am posting this to ask for criticisms of the logic used by the speaker. I am looking for a logical rebuttal. Please keep this based on fact and try to avoid quoting religious scripture. The speaker does not quote any himself.

Click Here For Video (http://www.islamictube.com/watch/a3f572c342dc4bbcda0d/LOGICALLY-PROVING-THAT-THERE-IS-A-CREATOR)

[Evo]

Typical rant without logic that if we exist something had to personally create us. If you were to use his *logic*, and there had to be a creator, who created the creator, did he create himself? What existed before he created himself? Did he create himself from nothing? Do you see how making up "a creator" doesn't solve anything? Also if you believe something exits, the onus is on *you* to prove it, not on those that don't believe you.

[Ivan Seeking]

Typical rant without logic that if we exist something had to personally create us. If you were to use his *logic*, and there had to be a creator, who created the creator, did he create himself? What existed before he created himself? Did he create himself from nothing? Do you see how making up "a creator" doesn't solve anything? Also if you believe something exits, the onus is on *you* to prove it, not on those that don't believe you.

However, we know that the universe had a beginning. God is assumed to be eternal - to exist outside of time.

This idea that everything came from nothing does seem rather silly. That's why I was interested in the ideas of a collision of branes, or a collapse of a hypersurface, to explain the BB. This would presumably mean that the universe or multiverse is eternal, and the problem goes away.

[Evo]

However, we know that the universe had a beginning. God is assumed to be eternal - to exist outside of time.And that's were faith comes in. Which is perfectly fine.

This guy is trying to say that he can prove we had a personal creator with his illogical rant. You can believe that, but you can't prove it, and he can't say that those that don't believe in a creator have to prove him wrong.

[Ivan Seeking]

One of the other great mysteries that he addresses, or at least implicity so, is the question of why the universe works. It is often mentioned that even the slightest deviation in value of some physical constants, would make it impossible for stable atoms to exist. How is it that everything has just the values needed to make the physical universe possible? Based on our current understanding of physics, there is no known reason why this must be the case.

[Ivan Seeking]

And that's were faith comes in. Which is perfectly fine.

This guy is trying to say that he can prove we had a personal creator with his illogical rant. You can believe that, but you can't prove it, and he can't say that those that don't believe in a creator have to prove him wrong.

I'm not defending his thesis, just some of his points.

[Evo]

One of the other great mysteries that he addresses, or at least implicity so, is the question of why the universe works. It is often mentioned that even the slightest deviation in value of some physical constants, would make it impossible for stable atoms to exist. How is it that everything has just the values needed to make the physical universe possible?It was "the accident" that worked. Obviously the accidents that didn't work, didn't work.

Who's to say that the same accident that formed the universe didn't also create life forms which we can't comprehend and which we refer to as "gods"? Instead of placing these creatures before the big bang, perhaps they are the by-product of it. "Prove me wrong!" :tongue2: Ok, I'll infractionate myself for that one. But do you see my point?

[zomgwtf]

One of the other great mysteries that he addresses, or at least implicity so, is the question of why the universe works. It is often mentioned that even the slightest deviation in value of some physical constants, would make it impossible for stable atoms to exist. How is it that everything has just the values needed to make the physical universe possible? Based on our current understanding of physics, there is no known reason why this must be the case.

LOL I absolutely LOVE this type of logic.

To address the post though it's not a mystery AT ALL. People just love to apply mystcs to everything. The universe NECESSARILY must be 'perfect' by it's own standards for existence... It CAN'T be any other way.

It's like the nuts that use the good ole' 'Earth must have been created perfectly to harbour life because it harbours life.' Uhhh... no? WRONGGG!!!! Try again.

[zomgwtf]

However, we know that the universe had a beginning.

I think this isn't factually correct... where did you dig that up? (in the context you are using it i.e. cause --> beginning of universe ENTIRELY not just 'our' universe)

God is assumed to be eternal - to exist outside of time.


Err, isn't our universes existence 'out of our time' necessarily? The universe itself doesn't exist INSIDE itself AFAIK.

Assuming god exists solves no problems of the existence of our universe... and belief in such a god just causes more problems for humanity in general than it solves scientifically speaking.

The universe does not need a cause and it doesn't even need to have a 'beginning' from some cosmological models. (in the context you used previously)

[Ivan Seeking]

LOL I absolutely LOVE this type of logic.

To address the post though it's not a mystery AT ALL. People just love to apply mystcs to everything. The universe NECESSARILY must be 'perfect' by it's own standards for existence... It CAN'T be any other way.

It's like the nuts that use the good ole' 'Earth must have been created perfectly to harbour life because it harbours life.' Uhhh... no? WRONGGG!!!! Try again.

You shouldn't be so cocky when making such elementary errors. Yes, clearly we do exist, but the question is, why? The fundamental problem is that we don't know what determines the values of the constants. We don't know if they are driven by some underlying physics that we don't understand, or if they happened by chance. If you look back on the talk about Heim Theory, he claimed to have a model that predicted the values of the constants. Had that been true it would have been been revolutionary.

[Ivan Seeking]

I think this isn't factually correct... where did you dig that up? (in the context you are using it i.e. cause --> beginning of universe ENTIRELY not just 'our' universe)

We have no physics to go beyond the first few microseconds or so, of time. There is no known cause for the BB.

Err, isn't our universes existence 'out of our time' necessarily? The universe itself doesn't exist INSIDE itself AFAIK.

Space and time necessarily coexist.

Assuming god exists solves no problems of the existence of our universe...

Really? Why not?

The universe does not need a cause and it doesn't even need to have a 'beginning' from some cosmological models. (in the context you used previously)

Ah, please provide a source for that one.

[Ivan Seeking]

I have heard the suggestion made [no idea if this relates to any formal theory] that universes are constantly bubbling up out of the multiverse, with perhaps millions or billions of failed universes for every one that works. Again, I have no idea if this is anything more than wild speculation; if there is any scientific basis for this idea. It did come from a physicist, that's all that I can say for sure.

[GeorgCantor]

LOL I absolutely LOVE this type of logic.

To address the post though it's not a mystery AT ALL. People just love to apply mystcs to everything.



Do you understand that there is ABSOLUTELY NO reason WHATSOEVER, why anything should be understandable, i.e. NOT being mystical??



The universe NECESSARILY must be 'perfect' by it's own standards for existence... It CAN'T be any other way.



Sorry, but this makes as much sense as Dart Vader dancing ballet. Why should the universe be perfect by its own standards? What are these standard of the universe? Is the univese alive and conscious that it sets standard for itself? Sounds like a load of crap.

[GeorgCantor]

The universe does not need a cause and it doesn't even need to have a 'beginning' from some cosmological models. (in the context you used previously)


You can make any untestable model that will fit all the data we currently have(not much) and conclude almost anything.

[pallidin]

Luke, I am your Father...

[pallidin]

You can make any untestable model that will fit all the data we currently have(not much) and conclude almost anything.

True, but isn't it so much fun!
After all, wars are started over this.

Yummy!!!!! :devil:

[zomgwtf]

Do you understand that there is ABSOLUTELY NO reason WHATSOEVER, why anything should be understandable, i.e. NOT being mystical??


Yeah exactly so why apply mystics to it? To pretend we understand? Give me a break. That was the entire point. Regardless of if we can understand 'causation of our universe' or not we do not need to invoke mystics. PERIOD Why make unnecessary assumptions???

Sorry, but this makes as much sense as Dart Vader dancing ballet. Why should the universe be perfect by its own standards? What are these standard of the universe? Is the univese alive and conscious that it sets standard for itself? Sounds like a load of crap.
I guess I should have said by it's own standards of it's own existence. It NECESSARILY exists the way it exists because it does exist is the whole point. This is not an elementry mistake as Ivan would like to believe. The elementary mistake is presuming that there is a reason for it being this way. (shown in his question 'why?')
They answer simply is: Because it is.


You can make any untestable model that will fit all the data we currently have(not much) and conclude almost anything.
I'd love for you to cite for me peer review articles from well known scientific journals where a cosmological model was presented which is 'untestable' and demonstrates that 'cosmology can conclude anything given the data'.

It's also pretty ironic you posted that last post considering in your last post you defended mysticism.

[zomgwtf]

You shouldn't be so cocky when making such elementary errors. Yes, clearly we do exist, but the question is, why? The fundamental problem is that we don't know what determines the values of the constants. We don't know if they are driven by some underlying physics that we don't understand, or if they happened by chance. If you look back on the talk about Heim Theory, he claimed to have a model that predicted the values of the constants. Had that been true it would have been been revolutionary.

Well then, I always love posts that start off with a bit of ad hominem.

Why do we exist? Because that's how the universe played out necessarily so because we exist! DUH! (circular reasoning FTW?!?!?!) The question itself is an argument from ignorance I think. Nothing is known about existence why should we assume it has a purpose or reason?

First off what constants are you talking about? No the fundamental problem to the question of causation of our universe is not that we may not be able to understand the underlying physics.

I thought Heim Theory is non-mainstream, isn't this a mainstream science ONLY forum??? Wow though. Really! Him being able to predict the value of 'the constants (whatever ones your talking about) would have been revolutionary to science! Way to add something usefull in regard to the OP!!!

[zomgwtf]

We have no physics to go beyond the first few microseconds or so, of time. There is no known cause for the BB.

Oh, really? Way to make it look like this is an apparent contradiction to what I had stated:


The universe does not need a cause


Space and time necessarily coexist.
What does this have to do with what I posted exactly... I can't see any correlation between space/time existing in our universe and the fact that our universe exists outside that scope. The universe is EVERYTrHING including space and time. I posted that as a rebutle to your statement that: God is assumed to exist outside space/time.
I posed the counter: Why can't our universe exist outside space/time? You have not answered this at all. Simple.

Really? Why not?
Name a few problems that assuming existence of God will solve. Just replace all questions about the universe and shove them on to the concept you have of God. They still work; nothings changed!


Ah, please provide a source for that one.
What abouuut: Cyclic universe models, Ekpyrotic universe models or the new quantum bounce models??? What about Inflationary models pre-big bang?

Just as a side: When was the last time you actually studied cosmology or do you just have a average Joes understanding of the universe? I assume the latter because you seem to be under the impression that Big Bang = universe coming into existence.

It's not, it's the initial conditions and the accelerated expansion that occured. The universe already existed.

Big Bang theory = The universe started off much hotter and denser than it is today and has expanded over a finite amount of time (13.7 billion years ago) This says nothing about the origin of it all. Maybe it was one of those quantum possibilities that sprung into existence?

[thack45]

We've all heard the "something must have created everything" logic. But wouldn't a more "logical" reason for faith in a creator be evolution?

[GeorgCantor]

Yeah exactly so why apply mystics to it?

Because you admit that you don't have an answer why the universe should NOT be mystical.
Everything is still mystical, we don't understand the universe, NOBODY does and this is exactly 100.00% certain.


To pretend we understand? Give me a break. That was the entire point. Regardless of if we can understand 'causation of our universe' or not we do not need to invoke mystics.


You fail to understand that you DO NOT understand the universe. At all. Your belief that you understand the universe and that it's not longer mystical is completely and totally unfounded. Really, it involves too much faith.



Why make unnecessary assumptions???


Who dictates which assumptions are necessary and which are unnecessary? Why is the assumption that you understand the universe a 'necessary' one? Why should i believe your assumption?



I guess I should have said by it's own standards of it's own existence. It NECESSARILY exists the way it exists because it does exist is the whole point.


You are going in circles and circular reasoning has never been a particularly good method for laying out a thesis.


This is not an elementry mistake as Ivan would like to believe. The elementary mistake is presuming that there is a reason for it being this way. (shown in his question 'why?')


As far as i can see, Ivan said Cause, not reason. How do you know there was not a cause? You assumed it, and you can assume anything, we all do at times. While there can or can't possibly be a creator, your reasoning does not in any way turn out to be superior to that of Ivan.



They answer simply is: Because it is.


So you have found the final answer to the biggest question of all times? Sound like faith to me.



I'd love for you to cite for me peer review articles from well known scientific journals where a cosmological model was presented which is 'untestable' and demonstrates that 'cosmology can conclude anything given the data'.


You mean the Big Bang theory is testable and is now beyond any doubt? Would you test it for me please?
Do you understand that the BB theory will not hold wil at least half of the interpretations - MWI, CI, the Relational interpretation, etc.


It's also pretty ironic you posted that last post considering in your last post you defended mysticism.


Which part of it didn't you understand? Those models involve a high degree of error margin, due to the fact that our basic physoical models don't work together. They are still speculative and tentative, though they are accepted by the majority. This doesn't mean however, that the minority that rejects them is wrong, as there is no way to test those models rigorously. Do you understand this point?

[zomgwtf]

Georg. I think your missing the point completely. There is no need to invoke mystics because it doesn't solve anything. It just brings up the same questions applied to the mystics. No new understanding and better yet: it leads no where. To believe in that requires faith, to utilize science requires evidence. I never once stated I understand everything in the universe. I clearly understand enough to see that it's pointless to invoke mystics though. That's not based on faith, it's based on deduction.

EDIT: As well yeah, I did use circular logic. Why not? The question is completely useless, just like the answer.

ERGO: To conclude by some logic that there is necessarily a creator and the universe necessairly had a cause and purpose is wrong.

As well @ Georg. You seem to be applying the False dilema fallacy towards me. If I say it's not this or this isn't necessary it must necessarily mean I think option 'B' 100%. WRONG! Truth being: I don't know about the 'cause' of the universe, and that's why I don't invoke mystics about it without evidence.(know in the philosophical sense which means it is a true belief.)

Invoking mystics or a creator means, necessarily, that you think you KNOW about the causation/'birth' of the universes existence as a whole. Nothing I have stated concludes, as some are trying to portray it as, that I know about this. Only that it is pointless to invoke mystics because it is not necessary.

Did I get my point accross well enough through reptition or do I need a follow-up?

[pallidin]

Well, when humans can even begin to understand God, I'm all ears.

[Leptos]

There are certain formulations of "creator" that are logically inconsistent. Could some sort of "creator" exist? Sure. Just not the kinds most people think of.

[apeiron]

Do you understand that there is ABSOLUTELY NO reason WHATSOEVER, why anything should be understandable, i.e. NOT being mystical??


What do you actually mean by "understandable"?

A scientist's position since the Enlightenment would be that we can model the world even if we cannot "know" the world. A model is a representation of some framework of causality - a logical, and normally mechanical, representation. It would seem to be an "understanding", and one that excludes any mysticism (as maths makes models crisp, not vague).

[chiro]

Well, when humans can even begin to understand God, I'm all ears.

Absolutely, we can barely understand ourselves let alone an entity like God.

[GeorgCantor]

Georg. I think your missing the point completely. There is no need to invoke mystics because it doesn't solve anything.

Really? How come?


It just brings up the same questions applied to the mystics. No new understanding and better yet: it leads no where.


Aha, you make the assumption that you MUST understand the hypothetical creator. You like making assumptions, don't you?


To believe in that requires faith, to utilize science requires evidence.


Ultimate questions REQUIRE faith, always, anytime, 24/7, 365 days per year. You just don't realize that the models you've chosen also require faith.


I never once stated I understand everything in the universe.


But you did state that a creator is UNnecessary. This means that you THINK you understand the universe and how everything works. This is simply hilarious and couldn't be further from the truth. A creator/designer is by default compatible with absolutely all the evidence that there might ever be. Whatever evidence you can bring up, there is no way to disprove that it wasn't the creator's will that things had to be exactly that particular way. You can believe that a creator is unnecessary, but those ultimate questions will always remain unanswerable and highly debateable. When it comes down to your beliefs vs someone else's, it becomes similar to the fights between religions.



I clearly understand enough to see that it's pointless to invoke mystics though. That's not based on faith, it's based on deduction.



No, you don't understand enough. This is ridiculous. Nobel prize winners never claim they know enough to disprove a creator, and you with you 113 times lesser knowledge claim this. Hmm...


EDIT: As well yeah, I did use circular logic. Why not? The question is completely useless, just like the answer.


ANd how do you know it's a useless question? You assumed so. You can assume anything, it's rather easy but also kind of pointless.


ERGO: To conclude by some logic that there is necessarily a creator and the universe necessairly had a cause and purpose is wrong.


While this may or may not be the case, it doesn't follow from anything you said above.



As well @ Georg. You seem to be applying the False dilema fallacy towards me. If I say it's not this or this isn't necessary it must necessarily mean I think option 'B' 100%. WRONG! Truth being: I don't know about the 'cause' of the universe, and that's why I don't invoke mystics about it without evidence.(know in the philosophical sense which means it is a true belief.)



Whenever you make statements that a creator is not required, you are making a bold assertion that reveals that you hold a high level of faith for the models you've chosen that you cannot falsify.


Invoking mystics or a creator means, necessarily, that you think you KNOW about the causation/'birth' of the universes existence as a whole.


I said it's one of the options. There may or may not be a creator, this is the default position for me, as i don't have faith of the religious or atheist kind.


Nothing I have stated concludes, as some are trying to portray it as, that I know about this.


Quite to the contrary, and this is rather obvious. Anytime you throw around statements that god is obsolete, means that you think you understand the universe. You are of course wrong, as are probably those of the religious camp.


Only that it is pointless to invoke mystics because it is not necessary.


God is not necessary, because God is not necessary. The Bible is right, because the Bible says so.


Did I get my point accross well enough through reptition or do I need a follow-up?



No. You are repeating the same old mantra - god is not neceassry because it's not necessary and given that the thread will be locked, i am not too enthusiastic about writing a lengthier response.

[GeorgCantor]

What do you actually mean by "understandable"?

A scientist's position since the Enlightenment would be that we can model the world even if we cannot "know" the world. A model is a representation of some framework of causality - a logical, and normally mechanical, representation. It would seem to be an "understanding", and one that excludes any mysticism (as maths makes models crisp, not vague).


Aren't the laws of nature that we are discovering drawing us closer to understanding the universe? This is a philosophical question and my position, as with most scientists, is that they slowly are. But this could be an illusion or misunderstanding and the whole model that we are scientifically building could collapse at any time. The foundations of science are nowhere near rock-solid. The fundamental knowledge that every physicist is after is simply not there yet.

[apeiron]

Aren't the laws of nature that we are discovering drawing us closer to understanding the universe? This is a philosophical question and my position, as with most scientists, is that they slowly are.

Which I agree with. But that does not seem to fit with you saying there is no reason things should be understandable. If things ARE understandable, as you say, then why should we think it us UN-reasonable that this is so. It may be possible that reality MIGHT have not been understandable. But in practice, that seems a moot point on the evidence.


Whenever you make statements that a creator is not required, you are making a bold assertion that reveals that you hold a high level of faith for the models you've chosen that you cannot falsify.

But surely, just as there can be logical attempts to prove that creators must exist (if there are creations), so there can be logical attempts to prove that they cannot exist.

A standard rebuff is the infinite regress argument. If we need a creator for a creation, then who created the creator? Given the infinite regress, it is more parsimonious just to say creation exists (because that is what you are going have to say about a god - he just exists - so positing a god buys nothing of explanatory interest).

And in fact, it is a "faith" in regular models of causality that make people feel so desperate to find the local efficient cause of reality - the prime mover who could be its first cause. A bolder move is to say, well, "it just exists". But that is also then "illogical" as logic demands the cause that produces the effect.

So logic says there must be a first cause, and also that there cannot be one. Which is when people really ought to be wondering whether they are employing the best logic available.

[GeorgCantor]

Which I agree with. But that does not seem to fit with you saying there is no reason things should be understandable. If things ARE understandable, as you say, then why should we think it us UN-reasonable that this is so.


I don't follow you. Are you saying that it's reasonable that if the universe is understandble, we must be slowly building an understanding of it? If so, how does that answer the question why the universe is understandable in the first place?

zomgwtf insisted that our explanations of the universe should not be mystical, yet neither he nor anyone else could show the reason why the universe must not be mystical and incomprehensible. In short, I zomgwt, or I apeiron think the universe should not be regarded as mystical but as totally comprehensible because:

1...............
2...............
3...............



It may be possible that reality MIGHT have not been understandable. But in practice, that seems a moot point on the evidence.


OK, i'll concede that reality in the not so near future might be totally comprehensible and no more mystical. How does that prove that there is no creator? I'd say it tips the scales in favor of the idea of a creator, than vice versa. What's the other option? That reality is in our heads only and hence the totality of the explanatory power of the human mind?



But surely, just as there can be logical attempts to prove that creators must exist (if there are creations), so there can be logical attempts to prove that they cannot exist.



I agree. But there is a boundary between philosophy and religion. Anytime your assumptions start looking like pure 'facts' to you, your doctrine is leaving philosophy-land for good.



A standard rebuff is the infinite regress argument. If we need a creator for a creation, then who created the creator? Given the infinite regress, it is more parsimonious just to say creation exists (because that is what you are going have to say about a god - he just exists - so positing a god buys nothing of explanatory interest).



I think it's silly to assume that we can understand a hypothetical creator god. I am not certain that it's not silly to assume that we can understand our reality, let alone god. We have a long way to go before we can look that high.



And in fact, it is a "faith" in regular models of causality that make people feel so desperate to find the local efficient cause of reality - the prime mover who could be its first cause. A bolder move is to say, well, "it just exists". But that is also then "illogical" as logic demands the cause that produces the effect.

So logic says there must be a first cause, and also that there cannot be one. Which is when people really ought to be wondering whether they are employing the best logic available.


I am also questioning both our logic or what we think is logical in the universe. Or maybe it's that there seems to be something missing - some driving principle for the organization found in our universe - from the physical constants and subsequent formation of matter to the arrival of emergent conscious, self-aware life in a comprehensible and mathematically consistent environment(if this is even how things really took place)

[Descartz2000]

However, we know that the universe had a beginning. God is assumed to be eternal - to exist outside of time.

This idea that everything came from nothing does seem rather silly. That's why I was interested in the ideas of a collision of branes, or a collapse of a hypersurface, to explain the BB. This would presumably mean that the universe or multiverse is eternal, and the problem goes away.

I agree. The issue however then becomes if eternal and there were no initial conditions from the Big Bang, then how do the properties and configurations of the Universe look the way they do today? In other words, this model allows for no logical explanation for why objects and relationships we see today are the way they are. At least with initial conditions we can make more sense of the structures we identify today. But, then again - if there were initial conditions and the BB was the start of all that we see today, and this was in fact the first cause, then what caused the BB? Some will say: "nothing caused the BB, as there was no time or space prior to the BB, there were no prior states". But, logically it seems we must always regress back to an earlier state in order to explain the current state we observe. There is no logical explanation any way that you look at it. At least none identified today.

[Descartz2000]

Which I agree with. But that does not seem to fit with you saying there is no reason things should be understandable. If things ARE understandable, as you say, then why should we think it us UN-reasonable that this is so. It may be possible that reality MIGHT have not been understandable. But in practice, that seems a moot point on the evidence.



But surely, just as there can be logical attempts to prove that creators must exist (if there are creations), so there can be logical attempts to prove that they cannot exist.

A standard rebuff is the infinite regress argument. If we need a creator for a creation, then who created the creator? Given the infinite regress, it is more parsimonious just to say creation exists (because that is what you are going have to say about a god - he just exists - so positing a god buys nothing of explanatory interest).

And in fact, it is a "faith" in regular models of causality that make people feel so desperate to find the local efficient cause of reality - the prime mover who could be its first cause. A bolder move is to say, well, "it just exists". But that is also then "illogical" as logic demands the cause that produces the effect.

So logic says there must be a first cause, and also that there cannot be one. Which is when people really ought to be wondering whether they are employing the best logic available.


Good insight

[zomgwtf]

There you go with the False dilema again. Just because we should not invoke mystics does NOT mean that the universe is comprehensible.

You look at it as belief in:
God = incomprehensible universe
No God = comprehensible universe.

Not true as I've stated many times. You're asserting my beliefs in how we can understand the universe based off the fact that I say it is not necessary to invoke something that we can not understand further. I never said that I KNOW no god exists, only that it is a pointless proposition and belief to hold because it leads no where at this current point in time. That is just the 'creator' type God from the OP. If the God has stories that if you don't follow his will he'll put you on a spike and repeatedly burn you or shove pineapples up your *** for an eternity then you might have a point in your belief in that God. This isn't the case in this thread however.

So the question is specificly about the cause of the universe.
God caused the universe and God needs no cause.
This is based on HUGE assumptions and false knowledge. (which isn't true knowledge hence it leads no where)

OR what I'm saying:
The universe exists and the cause (God) can not be fully understood so there's no point in making leaps of faith to attempt to conclude a creator must exist.
This has the minor assumption that we can not understand the cause of the universe WHY should we assume that? Because we live inside the universe so can not be 100% certain of anything that might occur or had occured outside of our universe. Even if we end up making 'test tube' universes it wouldn't show conclusively that our universe was made in a similar way.

I show this point by changing around what Ivan had stated to show that the universe can be given all the defintions of a 'first cause' creator so why should we jump to mystics? To say that we should not invoke mystics isn't a firm stance on whether or not God does in fact exist as you like to think Georg.

[GeorgCantor]

I mostly agree with your latest statement zomgwtf, it seems to be a toned down version that's much harder to shoot down.

Reality is still pretty much incomrehensible and mystical, so anytime you or I or anyone else makes a definite statement, it's simply crying out loud - 'take me down, take me down, it's so easy'.

Reality could be a fluke or just as easily be divinely inspired(that should, in principle and philosophically speaking, include all possible creation events - advanced alien races, simlulations, brains in vats, bolzmann brains and the such).

[zomgwtf]

ANd how do you know it's a useless question? You assumed so. You can assume anything, it's rather easy but also kind of pointless.

It's useless because the definitive answer will always involve circular logic. Which was what I was showing. Here we have
'The universe exists necessarily because it exists' It's not really a perfect example of circular logic but hey... you wanna call me out here:

'God exists because the universe exists and god created the universe' That's a PERFECT example of circular reasoning is it not??? It's what's necessary to make assumptions about the universe. I'm of the position that no assumptions should be made as such because they don't add anything other than same set of questions on to the new concept (God in this case).

[GeorgCantor]

It's useless because the definitive answer will always involve circular logic. Which was what I was showing. Here we have
'The universe exists necessarily because it exists' It's not really a perfect example of circular logic but hey... you wanna call me out here:

'God exists because the universe exists and god created the universe' That's a PERFECT example of circular reasoning is it not??? It's what's necessary to make assumptions about the universe. I'm of the position that no assumptions should be made as such because they don't add anything other than same set of questions on to the new concept (God in this case).



I don't think you are justified in making the assumption that our reasoning is something extremely special that can even comprehend god. Our human logic is rooted in causality, so we will always look for first causes. If you don't make the assumption that your human reasoning is something exteremely special, you simply conclude - God/Nature has not given us reasoning skills to comprehend absolutely everything about the reality we are in. If, on the other hand, you assume you have such skills, you have to put forward evidence why you think you should understand god/nature and ALL of its ultimate questions. I am very very skeptical of such claims as i think the human mind is not limitless. I do hope however that time proves me wrong on this.

[Evo]

George, why do you think the universe is mystical? What is mystical about it? Isn't it only mystical to those that don't understand, or choose not to believe the science involved? It's not mystical to me. The fact that we don't have all of the answers does not make it "mystical".

[GeorgCantor]

George, why do you think the universe is mystical? What is mystical about it? Isn't it only mystical to those that don't understand, or choose not to believe the science involved? It's not mystical to me. The fact that we don't have all of the answers does not make it "mystical".



The fact that we have a dozen very different, competing models of what space, matter and time are, is a pretty good reason to state that we don't know what these concepts truly are. If Nobel prize winners don't know, why do you suppose science does?

Is reality a collection of mathematical fields? Or is it pure maths? Or is it something totally incomprehensible? Who's to say? Einstein? Hawking? Weinberg? Kaku? Witten?

I've never seen them claim they knew what reality is.

[Evo]

The fact that we have a dozen very different, competing models of what space, matter and time are, is a pretty good reason to state that we don't know what these concepts truly are. If Nobel prize winners don't know, why do you suppose science does?

Is reality a collection of mathematical fields? Or is it pure maths? Or is it something totally incomprehensible? Who's to say? Einstein? Hawking? Weinberg? Kaku? Witten?

I've never seen them claim they knew what reality is.This has nothing to do with my post. I asked you to explain why you think the universe is "mystical".

Definition of mystical

oxford Dictionary

mystical

• adjective 1 relating to mystics or mysticism. 2 having a spiritual significance that transcends human understanding. 3 inspiring a sense of spiritual mystery, awe, and fascination.

[GeorgCantor]

This has nothing to do with my post. I asked you to explain why you think the universe is "mystical".


If you don't understand how reality(the universe) works or what it is, how is it(the universe) NOT mystical? How is that even possible? The only way for you to know how reality works is if you make assumptions. This isn't science, as you know quite well. It's philosophy, and your personal philosophy is just as good as the next by default.

[Evo]

If you don't understand how reality(the universe) works or what it is, how is it(the universe) NOT mystical? How is that even possible? The only way for you to know how reality works is if you make assumptions. This isn't science, as you know quite well. It's philosophy, and your personal philosophy is just as good as the next by default.So, anything you don't know about is mystical to you? What is your definition of mystical, and where did you get the definition?

I posted my definition above. Part of the rules for posting here is to clearly define terms so that everyone has the same understanding. Since PF is a science forum, our guidelines for Philosophy may be different from what you are used to doing on other forums.

[GeorgCantor]

This has nothing to do with my post. I asked you to explain why you think the universe is "mystical".

Definition of mystical

oxford Dictionary

mystical

• adjective 1 relating to mystics or mysticism. 2 having a spiritual significance that transcends human understanding. 3 inspiring a sense of spiritual mystery, awe, and fascination.



It's in the sense of 'enigmatic', 'mysterious'. According to the first dictionary i could find:


"adjective
1.mystic; occult.
2.of or pertaining to mystics or mysticism: mystical writings.
3.spiritually symbolic.
4.Rare. obscure in meaning; mysterious.

—Synonyms
1. See mysterious."



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mystical







So, it's got to be number 4, as well as its synonym "mysterious"



The choice of that word was not mine but i am fine with it, so maybe you should state the forum rules to the first member that used it on the previous page "zomgwtf". I was merely quoting his words 1:1.

[Evo]

So, it's got to be number 4, as well as its synonym "mysterious"Ok, well that makes more sense to me.

The choice of that word was not mine but i am fine with it, so maybe you should state the forum rules to the first member that used it on the previous page "zomgwtf". I was merely quoting his words 1:1.Then I will have to devise a cruel and unusual punishment for him.

I find that when disagreements start, it is often because of different definitions of key words.

[apeiron]

I don't follow you. Are you saying that it's reasonable that if the universe is understandble, we must be slowly building an understanding of it? If so, how does that answer the question why the universe is understandable in the first place?


OK, you have two separate questions.

1) Is the universe understandable? Yes, we seem to agree - even if complete understanding or direct understanding are also in principle NOT likely.

2) Why is the universe understandable (given that prima facie it is)? Well this might be that it behave "logically" and so it is possible to model it with logic-based models. Or to put it more naturalistically, the universe behaves regularly.

Now then, why is this? Why is it regular?

My answer of course is the systems approach. Reality is a self-organised system which has developed into being. Out of a foam of pure possibility - the ill-regularity of vagueness - has emerged an organising set of global constraints (physical law, platonic form) and a set of constructing materials (the fields, the particles, the local substances.

This is a logic-based view of why systems are regular rather than irregular. And hence understandable.

Now a god-based approach would appear to say reality is regular because god chose it to be so. But then we are justified to ask why is god regular? Which starts the infinite regress.

Or we could be instead mystical and say reality just is regular (or god made it so, and he in turn "just is" regular, with no attempt at further justification). The mystical is where we abandon the constraints of logic and naturalness.

As you say, once you start doing this, it is "religion" and not really worthy of further reasoned discussion.


I think it's silly to assume that we can understand a hypothetical creator god.

Our understanding depends on there being regularity we can then model logically, agreed?

A creator god is already an illogical option due to the infinite regress argument (I'm not seeing anyone focusing on finding a reason why god-ness is exempt from this constraint in this thread so far).

So it is in fact illogical and unreasonable to expect that we could "understand" - logically model - this notion of a creator.

The ontological argument says that creations must have creators. The infinite regress argument says even creators must be created.

The systems approach says both these understandings seem to have necessary truth and supplies the answer that systems are self-creating.

[GeorgCantor]

My answer of course is the systems approach. Reality is a self-organised system which has developed into being.


Out of a foam of pure possibility - the ill-regularity of vagueness - has emerged an organising set of global constraints (physical law, platonic form) and a set of constructing materials (the fields, the particles, the local substances.

This is a logic-based view of why systems are regular rather than irregular. And hence understandable.


If this is possible, then anything is possible. This is an almost all-powerful explanation that could potentially explain anything but violates the foundations of our knowledge - the assumptions of realism, causality, determinism, etc.





Now a god-based approach would appear to say reality is regular because god chose it to be so. But then we are justified to ask why is god regular? Which starts the infinite regress.

Or we could be instead mystical and say reality just is regular (or god made it so, and he in turn "just is" regular, with no attempt at further justification). The mystical is where we abandon the constraints of logic and naturalness.


Logic falls apart one way or another, so you shouldn't worry about that too much. There is no proposed model of existence and coming into existence that is logical and i fear there will never be.





Our understanding depends on there being regularity we can then model logically, agreed?


Sure, but would you push those models to reveal truths? Or are they simply working models that let us make progress? This is a pretty significant point. As soon as you try to push our "regularities" and the models we build on them, you are assuming that those models could reach truths. Are you justified to make that assumption? I am not too sure.



A creator god is already an illogical option due to the infinite regress argument (I'm not seeing anyone focusing on finding a reason why god-ness is exempt from this constraint in this thread so far).

So it is in fact illogical and unreasonable to expect that we could "understand" - logically model - this notion of a creator.

The ontological argument says that creations must have creators. The infinite regress argument says even creators must be created.


What if the creator emerged in exactly the same fashion as the one you laid out a paragraph ago out of pure potentiallity? That mode of coming into existence - vagueness-crispness can bring about anything, right? Who's to say it didn't bear another civilization before ours?
Most of the possible models of the universe are rejected on aestetic grounds, i.e. they do not conform to the tastes of those who propose them and could be detrimental to society's goals(i.e. look at muslim societies with the Sharia law).



The systems approach says both these understandings seem to have necessary truth and supplies the answer that systems are self-creating.


Where would you draw the line as to what self-creating systems are possible to arise? If those systems are created in a guiding framework of physical laws, aren't you re-inventing the infinite regress of infinite sets of laws?

[apeiron]

If this is possible, then anything is possible. This is an almost all-powerful explanation that could potentially explain anything but violates the foundations of our knowledge - the assumptions of realism, causality, determinism, etc.


It is certainly a powerful approach :cool: but in what way does it violate the foundations of our knowledge - especially as the systems approach is the oldest philosophical approach (cf: Anaximander, I Ching, pratitya-samutpada)? Notions such as determinism, for example, derived from the more ancient dichotomy of chance and necessity.

So you will have to spell out how it violates these things. And why if we can strongly assume one thing, why we can't also assume its opposite (thesis and anti-thesis, as Hegel says, becoming again finally a synthesis).


Logic falls apart one way or another, so you shouldn't worry about that too much. There is no proposed model of existence and coming into existence that is logical and i fear there will never be.


But how much have you studied Peirce, Anaximander, systems science, self-organisation? I'm hearing you say it cannot be done, but have yet to see any specific critique of these actual ideas of how it can be done.



Sure, but would you push those models to reveal truths? Or are they simply working models that let us make progress? This is a pretty significant point. As soon as you try to push our "regularities" and the models we build on them, you are assuming that those models could reach truths. Are you justified to make that assumption? I am not too sure.


They are always just working models, and also I would always be pushing them, so as to see if further progress can be made.

The justification here is that what has worked in the past (making an effort) justifies a continued effort.

And even in my own lifetime I have witnessed tremendous progress. So where does the pessimism come from?


Where would you draw the line as to what self-creating systems are possible to arise? If those systems are created in a guiding framework of physical laws, aren't you re-inventing the infinite regress of infinite sets of laws?

No, really it is about re-inventing the notion of law. Laws do not exist before things become organised, they emerge as part of the process of self-organisation. They exist in the future of systems as attractors, not in the past as initial conditions.

The systems approach also does draw clear lines as to what can arise. The necessary mutuality or synergy of global constraints and local constructions is the central principle that limits what can in fact develop.

If the two scales of emergent regularity are not mutually reinforcing, then they are part of the vast class of "worlds" that are illogical and cannot exist in principle.

[GeorgCantor]

They are always just working models, and also I would always be pushing them, so as to see if further progress can be made.

The justification here is that what has worked in the past (making an effort) justifies a continued effort.

And even in my own lifetime I have witnessed tremendous progress. So where does the pessimism come from?


On a fundamental level as this discussion is going, absolutely everything is an assumption in this universe. I don't mean to invoke unnecessary drama, but the ultimate truths you are after will always be clouded in assumptions. We are limited to perceiving reality indirectly, so take those fundamental "truths" for what they really are.


No, really it is about re-inventing the notion of law. Laws do not exist before things become organised, they emerge as part of the process of self-organisation.


How could laws emerge from something that is not yet organized, but will organize itself(?) and then laws will emerge? How would "things" become organized without physical laws? And how is this considered a logical beginning? It violates both determinsm, causality and realism.


They exist in the future of systems as attractors, not in the past as initial conditions.


So you say laws exist in the future of things. So there is cauation at play(pre-determination that laws must emerge), but laws themselves are not bound to causality(i.e. they are not caused)? It doesn't make sense to me or i am missing something truly dramatic.


The systems approach also does draw clear lines as to what can arise. The necessary mutuality or synergy of global constraints and local constructions is the central principle that limits what can in fact develop.


Who/what sets the global constraints? They emerge too? Is there a concise summery of the main ideas of systems science, so that i can see if want to devote time to it?


If the two scales of emergent regularity are not mutually reinforcing, then they are part of the vast class of "worlds" that are illogical and cannot exist in principle.


Strong emergence is simply a label for something that we do not yet understand. I don't think you are justified in building a model of the universe around something that's not really clear. It could still be the case, but it doesn't sound right, as strong emergence is still one of the least understood aspects of reality.

[apeiron]

On a fundamental level as this discussion is going, absolutely everything is an assumption in this universe. I don't mean to invoke unnecessary drama, but the ultimate truths you are after will always be clouded in assumptions. We are limited to perceiving reality indirectly, so take those fundamental "truths" for what they really are.


Yes of course it is all a great pile of assumptions. How may times must this be agreed?

But the argument is that only certain assumptions about the nature of reality will prove to be self-consistent and thus logically regular over time. So metaphysics is about finding the least number of assumptions to generate a realistic model of the reality we experience.

The invariances of nature as Nozick put it.

There need be nothing cloudy about the principles on which we chose our assumptions (and reject others).

A journey not yet completed is not the same as a journey that cannot even be started - which is what you keep falsely attempting to argue.


How could laws emerge from something that is not yet organized, but will organize itself(?) and then laws will emerge? How would "things" become organized without physical laws? And how is this considered a logical beginning? It violates both determinsm, causality and realism.


Because even the first vague stirrings of organisation, of a fruitful direction, of an emergence of a global regularity or law, becomes self-reinforcing.

This is the way phase transitions work. Once the dipoles of a cooling iron bar begin to line up in some global orientation, then swiftly all dipoles must line up according to this orientation.


Strong emergence is simply a label for something that we do not yet understand. I don't think you are justified in building a model of the universe around something that's not really clear. It could still be the case, but it doesn't sound right, as strong emergence is still one of the least understood aspects of reality


Who is this "we" that does not understand? I have spent many years with those active in systems science who do understand these basic ideas. Agreed a physics forum almost by definition is the least likely place to find any systems thinkers :tongue:. You have to hang out with neuroscientists, neural networkers, theoretical biologists and ecologists.

[zomgwtf]

Just to make it absolutely clear my definition of mystics fell more in line with Evo's posted definition.

[Shalashaska]

Yes of course it is all a great pile of assumptions. How may times must this be agreed?

But the argument is that only certain assumptions about the nature of reality will prove to be self-consistent and thus logically regular over time. So metaphysics is about finding the least number of assumptions to generate a realistic model of the reality we experience.

The invariances of nature as Nozick put it.

There need be nothing cloudy about the principles on which we chose our assumptions (and reject others).

A journey not yet completed is not the same as a journey that cannot even be started - which is what you keep falsely attempting to argue.



Because even the first vague stirrings of organisation, of a fruitful direction, of an emergence of a global regularity or law, becomes self-reinforcing.

This is the way phase transitions work. Once the dipoles of a cooling iron bar begin to line up in some global orientation, then swiftly all dipoles must line up according to this orientation.



Who is this "we" that does not understand? I have spent many years with those active in systems science who do understand these basic ideas. Agreed a physics forum almost by definition is the least likely place to find any systems thinkers :tongue:. You have to hang out with neuroscientists, neural networkers, theoretical biologists and ecologists.

The idea of an endless search for knowledge, always getting closer and believing that the whole is ultimately understandable (if not by people) sounds pretty good to me. That's what attracted me to medicine instead of one of the pure sciences. I like your view apeiron, that vastness or complexity aside, there is a starting point and a place to aim for, not to mention that the process itself is deeply rewarding on a personal and societal level.

[GeorgCantor]

Yes of course it is all a great pile of assumptions. How may times must this be agreed?

But the argument is that only certain assumptions about the nature of reality will prove to be self-consistent and thus logically regular over time. So metaphysics is about finding the least number of assumptions to generate a realistic model of the reality we experience.


You mean the assumption of free-will will ever be proved or disproved? How?
Or the assumption of a mind-independent reality will be falsified? How?
Or it will be falsified that other minds, beside mine exist? How?
Or the assumption that we are able to understand reality? How?

Are any of these "self-consistent assumptions"? Or "regular over time"?



It's perfectly alright to make assumptions as a starting point for our investigations and as a foundation on which we will build our scientific theories. It's only when you reach for some fundamental truths like the origin of the universe, something out of nothing, creators, etc. that those assumptions become problematic.



The invariances of nature as Nozick put it.

There need be nothing cloudy about the principles on which we chose our assumptions (and reject others).

A journey not yet completed is not the same as a journey that cannot even be started - which is what you keep falsely attempting to argue.



There is nothing cloudy really about the "principles on which we chose our assumptions", and i never claimed otherwise. I did claim however that we are choosing our assumptions mainly on aestetic grounds, as to remove god from the equation. This is quite understandable in a secular society and wouldn't make sense had it been otherwise. However, we should be aware that those assumptions are taken for granted and not examined(and they couldn't be anyway). They could all be wrong.


Because even the first vague stirrings of organisation, of a fruitful direction, of an emergence of a global regularity or law, becomes self-reinforcing.


This is how nothing becomes something? "vague stirrings of organisation" means exactly nothing without a context. You need a context and a set of laws for anything to be starting a "vague stirrings of organisation". The "emergence of a global regularity or law, becomes self-reinforcing" is no different than the "emergence of a universe with laws as a self-reinforcing system". It's simply no explanation at all.




Who is this "we" that does not understand? I have spent many years with those active in systems science who do understand these basic ideas. Agreed a physics forum almost by definition is the least likely place to find any systems thinkers :tongue:. You have to hang out with neuroscientists, neural networkers, theoretical biologists and ecologists.



No, you do not understand strong emergence. That's why you are so exceptionally vague about potentiality, indeterminancy, vaguness and the "phase transition" to crispness. How did you answer my question about the "global constraints"? What are these constraints and where do they come from? You are basically applying a watered down version of reductionism to a vague idea of nothing becoming something. I can find you neuroscientists and biologists that will make all kinds of weird claims, but when you push them into a corner their understanding of such phenomena quickly turns to personal philosophies.

Human logic requires causality and determinism at minimum and as soon as you posit that some vaguesness is going into a phase transition and becoming something actual, it's no different than magic. Maybe this is how the world works, but you are not justified in assuming that you understand the process involved. You are describing the phenomenon as you observe it, you are not explaining the actual causal chain that leads to strong emergence. That's why a phenomenon is said to "emerge" as opposed to being "resultant" and I am very very skeptical of claims that "strong emergence" has been understood.

[apeiron]

Sorry Georg but this is a just a bunch of questions and assertions, not an argument.

You have not studied the particular logic in question, as you admit, so it is clearly premature to be passing judgement.

[Shalashaska]

Sorry Georg but this is a just a bunch of questions and assertions, not an argument.

You have not studied the particular logic in question, as you admit, so it is clearly premature to be passing judgement.

Really? He seems to make points worth responding to, I think.

[apeiron]

Really? He seems to make points worth responding to, I think.

No, he really isn't making points, just misunderstanding and contradicting.

For example,


You mean the assumption of free-will will ever be proved or disproved? How?
Or the assumption of a mind-independent reality will be falsified? How?
Or it will be falsified that other minds, beside mine exist? How?
Or the assumption that we are able to understand reality? How?

Are any of these "self-consistent assumptions"? Or "regular over time"?

If we are modelling, we are free to assume anything. Then the act of measuring a model's prediction proves its utility to us. So the "how" here is already obvious. And the extent to which we can really know the world is plain - never absolute, always pragmatic.

Now which of these working assumptions have not proven their worth over time, and which did I claim could not also in principle be doubted?

And then all this was written as a "response" to my concrete point that metaphysics is about the minimisation of assumptions. (Or in physics, the same information minimisation principle is expressed as a desire for a Theory of Everything). Georg did not make any counter-point to this point, just made some angry noises and confused protest.

So you see how real arguments run. You keep moving along from one consequence to another. 1) We cannot know the world, but we can model it pragmatically. So what are the principles behind good modelling? 2) The minimisation of assumptions (finding models of greatest possible generality). 3) And then the next interesting question is how do we actually minimise assumptions, and what does the minimal set look like?

Georg is not willing to move on, so I simply lose interest in rehashing the initial step of the argument.

There are good books people can go read, like Tor Norretranders' The User Illusion for a popular introduction.

[GeorgCantor]

No, he really isn't making points, just misunderstanding and contradicting.

For example,



If we are modelling, we are free to assume anything. Then the act of measuring a model's prediction proves its utility to us. So the "how" here is already obvious. And the extent to which we can really know the world is plain - never absolute, always pragmatic.

Now which of these working assumptions have not proven their worth over time, and which did I claim could not also in principle be doubted?

And then all this was written as a "response" to my concrete point that metaphysics is about the minimisation of assumptions. (Or in physics, the same information minimisation principle is expressed as a desire for a Theory of Everything). Georg did not make any counter-point to this point, just made some angry noises and confused protest.



Apeiron, I was merely sticking to the topic. Just to remind you the topic is "A logical proof of a creator?", so we are discussing everything within the context of a hypothetical creator. I was objecting to the idea that our models will lead us to some fundamental truths(i.e. disprove god), because those models could well be flawed by the unprovable assumptions that we are forced to make. Even if you minimized the number of asumptions, you will still be stuck with a few indispensible ones. We always think of something within the context of something else. Before we can even begin to form and express a thought, we are building a context for it. With the fundamental questions, that context is our assumptions and they are here to stay. You assume that the laws of nature haven't changed in the past, you assume that time flows, that there is an observer-independent reality, that the universe wasn't created yesterday with our memories fixed as they, that we have free-will and are free in our decisions and thoughts, that the beginning must be understandable, that determinism and causality must have hold around that time(13 billion years ago or more), that we are not in a software program, that we can reach the smallest constituents of the world and build up ALL the phenomena we observe from their interactions, and so on and so forth. We haven't made any real progress on the fundamental questions; the universe(i will call it reality as it sounds less ambiguous) is much more incomprehensible than it was a century ago and the models that you are mentioning in the above quote are on shakier ground than they were in the 19th century. All this is in the context of what is mysterious and what is not about our reality and what conclusion can be drawn on a hypotetical god based on the current knowledge we have.




So you see how real arguments run. You keep moving along from one consequence to another. 1) We cannot know the world, but we can model it pragmatically. So what are the principles behind good modelling? 2) The minimisation of assumptions (finding models of greatest possible generality). 3) And then the next interesting question is how do we actually minimise assumptions, and what does the minimal set look like?

Georg is not willing to move on, so I simply lose interest in rehashing the initial step of the argument.

There are good books people can go read, like Tor Norretranders' The User Illusion for a popular introduction.


That's the scientific view and very few scientists are interested in truths, as that would clearly be a philosophical question. The scientific view doesn't have an answer as to how the universe became whatever it is now. It has competeing models and heated arguments whose model is better. The sad part is that they could all be wrong and this is not some freaky possibility, but a very real one. Those questions still lie deep into the field of philosophy, though there are modest to moderate attempts by cosmology to pull topics out of it. But cosmology moves in sync with the rest of physics, so whatever developments and revolutions take place in the other fields of physics, they take their toll on the models in cosmology. This is how fashion is born in physics, the prevalent model is kept in high regard until new developments and findings require adjustments to the old theory. If experiments no longer confirm said theory, the theory goes to the trash(just look how fast the assumption that the universe was a fixed structure went to the trash bin, when GR came to light). Within these periods there are jumps(revolutions) that propel physics suddenly forward, but lots of times they force us to reassess the assumptions we made earlier. In such times, which happens to be the time of our lifetime now, it's good to keep an open mind to the possibility that the assumptions might be wrong, incl. the assumption that we will understand the universe and thus make existence seem less mystical and mysterious. So getting back to my first post in this thread, the idea that the universe might have been created is definitely not out of the question, though it may be countered that science deals only with the natural(i don't very much agree with this) and such questions should be relegated to philosophy. The bottom-line is this - your proposed models are too deeply rooted in assumptions and are not a good tool for making fundamental discoveries of truths. You can surely use science to disprove god and build models of how the universe might have hypothetically come here, but the assumptions just shine through to the unbiased. And they could all be right or they could all be wrong.

[apeiron]

Again a bunch of stuff that is your mistaken assumptions about my position than anything that resembles it.

To understand the points I have been making, you would need to read CS Peirce on semiotics and pragmatism. Then Robert Rosen on modelling theory. And also have a good working knowledge of developmental processes and self-organisation.

If you want to believe reality is mysterious, then that is your choice in life. But to me it seems quite surprisingly comprehensible.

You just seem to have a completely backwards take on things. When GR and QM came along, they did not make Newtonian mechanics wrong. Instead they expanded our view by increasing our appreciation of the deeper symmetries that lay beyond this first level of modelling. We knew more about reality as a result, not less.

Again, modelling is logic + measurement. ie: the scientific method. So assumptions are always there to be changed, played around with. They are never "right" in the first place, just pragmatic choices which seemed useful because they demonstrably got us somewhere when plugged into our modelling relationship with the world. And if they were never "right", then neither can they later be "wrong", just improved upon, more general choices made.

God, like anything else, is a fact about the world we would want to model - which means theory AND measurement. That is the only way we could KNOW (as opposed to believe, hope, fool ourselves).

Now the OP was indeed about logical arguments for god. And I pointed out how the standard reductionist approach to logic (which you of course employ) is self-contradictory on the question of creators and creations.

You have failed to respond coherently on that basic issue.

I then said there is another tradition of logical thought based on systems - notions of development, self-organisation, holism, semiosis, etc - where creators and creations become instead stories of self-creation (out of vagueness).

You don't seem to know enough about this alternative to address it. You just dismiss it angrily.

[Shalashaska]

That's the scientific view and very few scientists are interested in truths, as that would clearly be a philosophical question.

Oh come on, do you really believe that?! What is science if not a search for truth without filling in the blanks with assumptions and speculation? You're making me regret saying anything in your defense. :grumpy:

[GeorgCantor]

Oh come on, do you really believe that?! What is science if not a search for truth without filling in the blanks with assumptions and speculation? You're making me regret saying anything in your defense. :grumpy:


You could say that it is, as long as you realize what assumptions you are making and assess whether you consider them to be truths.

[GeorgCantor]

Again a bunch of stuff that is your mistaken assumptions about my position than anything that resembles it.

To understand the points I have been making, you would need to read CS Peirce on semiotics and pragmatism. Then Robert Rosen on modelling theory. And also have a good working knowledge of developmental processes and self-organisation.

If you want to believe reality is mysterious, then that is your choice in life. But to me it seems quite surprisingly comprehensible.



I was looking up the author you referenced when i noticed the last bolded sentence above and gave up. How did you anser my questions about your understanding of reality? How did you answer my question about the global constraints and where they come from? Your response was - read X, Y, Z...
Seeing that you now claim you understand reality, it's quite de-motivating for me to read books that didn't catch the attention of Greene, Kaku, Hawking, Witten, Wheeler, Zeilinger, Davies, Penrose etc. top physicists who never make claims they understand reality.





You just seem to have a completely backwards take on things. When GR and QM came along, they did not make Newtonian mechanics wrong. Instead they expanded our view by increasing our appreciation of the deeper symmetries that lay beyond this first level of modelling. We knew more about reality as a result, not less.



We know more, but we understand reality FAR less. And by far, i mean really far. And yes, that holds for you too, though your ridiculous claims that you have understood it. You have not and that is at least 99.99999999% certain and the above claim reveals that you are failing to grasp conceptually what GR and quantum theory are saying about the world and especially our understanding of it(and even about our ability to understand it). Ok, since you will spout some model that you believe is "true", it's time for me to make a definitive statement - Nobody understands the reality that comes out of GR and QM. And so that you can be absolutely certain about it - that includes you apeiron. The fact that you seem to think otherwise, only proves that you have failed to conceptually realize said theories.


Could you devise an experiment that proves that all of reality is somehow emergent through decoherence or a similar principle? Even that would not be "understanding", but a description, as strongly emergent phenomena are merely described, not understood and your inability to provide contrary evidence, despite my demands, is conclusive of this. "Read a,b,c,d... authors" is not evidence that you understand it, it's rather evidence to the contrary.




Now the OP was indeed about logical arguments for god. And I pointed out how the standard reductionist approach to logic (which you of course employ) is self-contradictory on the question of creators and creations.



It's not if you don't consider your reductionist logic to be applicable to god. You first need to be able to comprehend your own reality, then move on to higher targets like a hypotetical creator. I said this a couple of times now, but yet you seem to think you understand reality. It would have been funny if it wasn't sad. Philosophers need to keep up with the developments in physics, otherwise they'd be fooling themselves even beyond the level of their own skepticism.




You have failed to respond coherently on that basic issue.


That's misinformation. I responded with "It's not if you don't consider your reductionist logic to be applicable to god. You first need to be able to comprehend your own reality, then move on to higher targets like a hypotetical creator." Go to page number 3 and see for ourself. You have failed to show why your logic needs to be applicable to god.




I then said there is another tradition of logical thought based on systems - notions of development, self-organisation, holism, semiosis, etc - where creators and creations become instead stories of self-creation (out of vagueness).

You don't seem to know enough about this alternative to address it. You just dismiss it angrily.



This model is more vague than the vagueness that you keep saying gives birth to our universe. As i've said and you couldn't provide evidence to the contrary - your vagueness model could have given birth to anything - from black-hole eating dolphins to non-visible i-pods. Your theory even fails to explain why we observe our universe as it is, and not in a different form. And if you are going to push "the global constraints" thing, be specific what they are, where they come from and why they are the way they are. And why are they not in a different shape and of different kind?

[apeiron]

Seeing that you now claim you understand reality....

Yeah, I say reality is surprisingly comprehensible and you jump to this version of what I said. You are still whaling away at straw men of your own imagination.