Exploring Irrational Creation: Atheist/Theist Forum

[sidestreet]

I am participating in an atheist/theist forum and don't have a physics background.

An idea is
- everything we are aware of is within the cosmos
- hence logic, or any process susceptible to logic, also only exists within the cosmos
- ergo the universe was probably created by means we would find irrational, e.g. love
- a creator god is by definition outside the cosmos
- etc.

Whether this is a scientific hypothesis would seem to rely on the possibility of one day creating, from scratch, a universe in a test tube. Depending on any special pleading (starting environment, etc.) it would then be falsified.

Does the idea have a formal name, can it be disproved more easily, and is it madness writ large?

(If this would have been better placed elsewhere then apologies all round)

 

[WaveJumper]

Scientific hypothesis? No, officially no. No way in any secular country.

Do some physicists muse over this as a favourite pastime? Yes, M. Kaku, Einstein, S. Hawking just to name a few. Kaku posits the universe is vibrating strings dancing to the mind of god in a grand symphony. I don't think any rational scientist is actually talking about a religious type of god tough.

Without evidence, this is all pure philosophy.

Whether this is a scientific hypothesis would seem to rely on the possibility of one day creating, from scratch, a universe in a test tube. Depending on any special pleading (starting environment, etc.) it would then be falsified.

Does the idea have a formal name, can it be disproved more easily, and is it madness writ large?

"Turtles all the way down", infinite regress.


The never-ending cause and effect chain is a logical trap for every scientist, so most would say the universe is illogical or unknowable, or everlasting(BB-big crunch) or simply an illusion.

 

[sidestreet]

Agreed. Removing the god bit though, is there any credibility in "logic, or any process susceptible to logic, also only exists within the cosmos". Put another way, does logic work because it is part of the same physical system or because it is 'out there' with Plato?

 

[WaveJumper]

My take on "logic" is that it's finding out the laws that rule the universe and conforming to them, a behaviour generally referred to by humans as "being rational". If the laws of physics, as we know them, were different our logic would probably be different too.

 

[JoeDawg]

I am participating in an atheist/theist forum and don't have a physics background.

An idea is
- everything we are aware of is within the cosmos
- hence logic, or any process susceptible to logic, also only exists within the cosmos
- ergo the universe was probably created by means we would find irrational, e.g. love
- a creator god is by definition outside the cosmos

Everything we are aware of and quite a bit we are not aware of.
Logic is based on, is an abstraction of, experience.
No reason to think the universe was 'created' at all. Infinite regress problem.
Outside of space/time is meaningless. Its like calling a unicorn: invisible and pink. Its a contradiction. If it exists, by defintion, it exists within the universe, since universe basically means 'everything'.

Whether this is a scientific hypothesis would seem to rely on the possibility of one day creating, from scratch, a universe in a test tube. Depending on any special pleading (starting environment, etc.) it would then be falsified.

If you created a universe in a test tube, that new universe would be part of our universe, or both 'our universe' and the 'new universe' would actually be parts of 'the universe'.

Does the idea have a formal name, can it be disproved more easily, and is it madness writ large?

Religion.
Not to someone who believes.
And yes, mad as a hatter.

 

[sidestreet]

Its like calling a unicorn: invisible and pink.

Exactly the subject in the other forum. You've given me a conspiracy theory:)

 

[Redbelly98]

- everything we are aware of is within the cosmos
- hence logic, or any process susceptible to logic, also only exists within the cosmos

You've jumped from "is within the cosmos" to "is only within the cosmos." Those are different, so there is a logical flaw here.

 

[sidestreet]

I think that’s my poor wording. The nub is to treat logic in the same way as everything else - if there is no outside/pre-existence to our universe then ‘logic’ is a member of our universe. The inconsistency is then that somehow god can then be treated differently, existing in some non-dimensional absence, and JoeDawg says no, don’t be so silly.

 

[Redbelly98]

Well, there is also the distinction between physical, real objects vs. abstract ideas.

Yes, all the physical, real objects we're aware of are within the cosmos.

But you can't conclude, from that, that abstract ideas like logic cannot "exist" (whatever that means) outside the cosmos. If there are intelligent beings outside the cosmos, they could be aware of logic.

 

[JoeDawg]

Well, there is also the distinction between physical, real objects vs. abstract ideas.

Yes, all the physical, real objects we're aware of are within the cosmos.

But you can't conclude, from that, that abstract ideas like logic cannot "exist" (whatever that means) outside the cosmos. If there are intelligent beings outside the cosmos, they could be aware of logic.

They would have to be physical in some sense, part of our world, in some sense, or we wouldn't be aware of them.

 

[Karl G.]

An idea is
- everything we are aware of is within the cosmos
- hence logic, or any process susceptible to logic, also only exists within the cosmos
- ergo the universe was probably created by means we would find irrational, e.g. love
- a creator god is by definition outside the cosmos
- etc.

How do you derive the conclusion that the universe was created by 'irrational means'? I don't follow your logic.

 

[JoeDawg]

I think that’s my poor wording. The nub is to treat logic in the same way as everything else - if there is no outside/pre-existence to our universe then ‘logic’ is a member of our universe. The inconsistency is then that somehow god can then be treated differently, existing in some non-dimensional absence, and JoeDawg says no, don’t be so silly.

You are treating logic as a object, which I think is wrong. Our universe seems to follow a certain logic, because our logic has developed by observing the universe. Logic is simply the formalized abstraction of the observed pattern of our universe. It doesn't exist in our universe, it is a description of how things work in our universe.

The inconsistency is that the 'universe', which is everything, by definition, must include any gods, or its not everything. So something creating the universe makes no sense. So the very idea of a god creating the universe is nonsensical.

Saying the universe was therefore created using a different logic or in an irrational manner is like saying the unicorn is pink, but you can't see it because its invisible. You're ignoring the implied contradiction that something that is invisible is by definition, not pink.

 

[Tac-Tics]

The inconsistency is that the 'universe', which is everything, by definition, must include any gods, or its not everything. So something creating the universe makes no sense. So the very idea of a god creating the universe is nonsensical.

Not necessarily. Imagine an automata, like Conway's Game of Life. As humans, we can write emulators for this automata. We can construct patterns and run them. And the rules of the game are Turing-complete, so we could possibly even create an entire virtual world inside the game.

Now, imagine an artificial creature reasoning about his man-made world. What could he ascertain about the "universe". Well, if he is very clever, he might be able to see that there are fundamental laws everything must obey. The smallest measurable distance is a unit. There exists a fixed frame of reference. The fastest an object can move in free space is half the speed of light. The fastest information can propagate is the speed of light itself. The world has perfect symmetry with respect to 90º rotations and mirroring. The creature would perform experiments by smashing gliders and spaceships into each other, often creating familiar forms, such as still life or oscillators, but sometimes more exotic patterns.

But would this artificial creature inside an automata world be able to discover anything about his creators? Surely he has one, because I programmed him myself. I can watch him. I can pause him when I have to take a nap. But he can't see me. I could, if I wanted to, destroy his world, create a new one. I could interfere whenever I wanted to. But assuming I don't, to him, it wouldn't matter one way or another if I exist.

The idea of a creator isn't completely nonsensical. It's just so aesthetically unappealing.

 

[WaveJumper]

The inconsistency is that the 'universe', which is everything, by definition, must include any gods, or its not everything. So something creating the universe makes no sense. So the very idea of a god creating the universe is nonsensical.

The universe is everything that we are and can be aware of. It does not follow that the universe is everything that exists in any form. What about other universes? If there are billions of other universes are they essentially part of our universe? If they are, are you part of me too?

If we create a life form that's not aware of our existence, would this automatically mean that we will cease to exist?

 

[sidestreet]

How do you derive the conclusion that the universe was created by 'irrational means'? I don't follow your logic.

Tac-Tics’ Game of Life analogy is a good one. Can a creature in the game fully determine how its universe came into existence, and would it then find the explanation logically sound? The argument says probably not, since the alien-programmer-god type of solution would be unlikely to comply with the creature's rules of logic.

Although, if I remember correctly, part of Conway's intent was to preclude any appeal for an intelligent creator in any universe.

I naively thought we had busted this, but then you guys come along and...

 

[Moridin]

You could argue that claiming that something made the universe or that something occurred before the universe is like arguing that there is something north of the north pole, that there cannot exist any time before time existed. As mentioned, the universe is defined as everything that exists, so something existing outside the universe is like claiming that something that exists does not exist.

 

[Tac-Tics]

... is like arguing that there is something north of the north pole

There is nothing north of the north pole on the Earth. But if you lay out an atlas of the arctic, you might find just north of the north pole, there is a cup of coffee on a coaster.

As mentioned, the universe is defined as everything that exists, so something existing outside the universe is like claiming that something that exists does not exist.

In my game of life analogy above, I may be placing bets on the artificial world. The outcome of events in the artificial world have an impact on the "real" world. I may lose a lot of money. I may get a lot from my dealings. However, my financial loss or gain has no effect on the artificial world I've created. They are certainly part of MY universe. Am I part of theirs? Again, we are assuming I keep my temper, and absolutely refuse to interfere with their world. Things they do affect me, but things I do do not affect them.

 

[Moridin]

There is nothing north of the north pole on the Earth. But if you lay out an atlas of the arctic, you might find just north of the north pole, there is a cup of coffee on a coaster.

In my game of life analogy above, I may be placing bets on the artificial world. The outcome of events in the artificial world have an impact on the "real" world. I may lose a lot of money. I may get a lot from my dealings. However, my financial loss or gain has no effect on the artificial world I've created. They are certainly part of MY universe. Am I part of theirs? Again, we are assuming I keep my temper, and absolutely refuse to interfere with their world. Things they do affect me, but things I do do not affect them.

You are still stating that the coordinates of a dimension is applicable outside said dimension.

 

[Tac-Tics]

You are still stating that the coordinates of a dimension is applicable outside said dimension.

I'm also stating that the Universe may not be a sphere. It may just be a map of a sphere.

 

[sidestreet]

As mentioned, the universe is defined as everything that exists

The issue would be that it is possible to imagine our universe as a bubble of space-time, in which we are trapped forever, that exists within something else that has neither space nor time, i.e. it depends on the definition of the word universe.

Whether that stands-up to inspection by a physicist I can't say, although I suspect she might quote Pauli - not even wrong.

 

[Moridin]

I'm also stating that the Universe may not be a sphere. It may just be a map of a sphere.

So you agree that your position is invalid?

 

[Tac-Tics]

So you agree that your position is invalid?

Of course that's what I'm saying. Why would I take a hard position on nonsense philosophy.

Saying it's like asking "what's north of the north pole" doesn't prove anything. The analogy could very plausibly be a false one.

 

[JoeDawg]

We can construct patterns and run them.

In a medium that already exists. That's not creation, that's manipulation.
All is part of the universe.

Creation has no analogy, because its nonsense.

 

[Tac-Tics]

In a medium that already exists. That's not creation, that's manipulation.
All is part of the universe.

You can create a game of life with an initial state. That's no manipulation.

Creation has no analogy, because its nonsense.

Just because you claim something is nonsense doesn't mean what you're saying isn't.

 

[JoeDawg]

You can create a game of life with an initial state. That's no manipulation.

Sure it is. It has hardware doesn't it. Can't have software without hardware.

 

[Focus]

Not necessarily. Imagine an automata, like Conway's Game of Life. As humans, we can write emulators for this automata. We can construct patterns and run them. And the rules of the game are Turing-complete, so we could possibly even create an entire virtual world inside the game.

Now, imagine an artificial creature reasoning about his man-made world. What could he ascertain about the "universe". Well, if he is very clever, he might be able to see that there are fundamental laws everything must obey. The smallest measurable distance is a unit. There exists a fixed frame of reference. The fastest an object can move in free space is half the speed of light. The fastest information can propagate is the speed of light itself. The world has perfect symmetry with respect to 90º rotations and mirroring. The creature would perform experiments by smashing gliders and spaceships into each other, often creating familiar forms, such as still life or oscillators, but sometimes more exotic patterns.

But would this artificial creature inside an automata world be able to discover anything about his creators? Surely he has one, because I programmed him myself. I can watch him. I can pause him when I have to take a nap. But he can't see me. I could, if I wanted to, destroy his world, create a new one. I could interfere whenever I wanted to. But assuming I don't, to him, it wouldn't matter one way or another if I exist.

The idea of a creator isn't completely nonsensical. It's just so aesthetically unappealing.

This is exactly the same as Aquinas' argument dressed up. The question that's begging to be asked is what created the programmer? If they could talk to you and ask you this question, then they will be in the same place as we are, if there is a God that created God.

The idea of a creator is not aesthetically unappealing, its just that there is no evidence for it. You may have some sort of a personal experience, which is fine, but until I have the same, the burden of proof lies with the people that believe in God to prove his existence. Until they do, I have no reason to believe it. It is not nonsensical, you are right, but it is redundant.

I am participating in an atheist/theist forum and don't have a physics background.

An idea is
- everything we are aware of is within the cosmos

I agree.

- hence logic, or any process susceptible to logic, also only exists within the cosmos

I don't see how logic can exist. It is a tool made by humans to describe the fundamental laws of nature.

- ergo the universe was probably created by means we would find irrational, e.g. love

This is very very vague. What do you mean by irrational? Are you using logic, because I don't see how you can use logic to define rational? Moreover if you present this argument, you clearly don't think its irrational.

- a creator god is by definition outside the cosmos
- etc.

You just shot yourself in the foot. Everything we are aware of is within the cosmos, and now you are aware of God, so he is also within the cosmos which just contradicts what you have said.

 

[apeiron]

Hi Sidestreet - don't you feel that you need to separate the idea of logic from that of the laws of our universe? We would expect the laws we can observe to conform to a logic. But that logic could be more general and so allow for many universes, a variety of particular outcomes. That would be the multiverse approach so popular among evo-devo physicists at the moment.

Personally, I do prefer the alternative idea that one logic spawned only the one universe, the one set of possible laws. But again, the logic has to be larger than the universe in some sense. One is the general, the other the particular. Or equivalently, one would be the initiating conditions, the other the caused outcome.

However, the one logic/one outcome approach cannot work with the mainstream logic used in modern Western thinking - namely the one based on atomism. mechanicalism, monadism, determinism, locality and all those good things. We can see this from all the paradoxes that arise, such as how could something come from nothing, and equally, how could something have existed eternally and uncreated? Neither alternative is permitted by traditional models of logic.

So a different logic would need to be used that does not lead to infinite regresses and other such problems. Such logics were foreshadowed by ancient greek thinkers like Anaximander and Aristotle, and have been more carefully considered in the modern era by CS Peirce among others. Google ontic vagueness or pansemiosis.

But anyway, logic would be the globally general model and the laws of a universe would be a local particular model. Either the only subset (which would be more pleasing) or subset of infinite variety.