Can a god exist within the limitations of physics and the pursuit of knowledge?

[Deeviant]

One thing that most gods have in common is omniscience, I have a huge problem with this because omniscience is not possible. In order to know everything about everything you would have to gather information of the entire universe instaneously. This would break one of the most accepted, tested and fundamental laws of physics: Enstien's theory of relativity. We have proof that information can not travel faster than C(the speed of light).

I guess one could say that a god would circumvent the laws of nature but one treads thin ice with that argument as if it does follow the laws that govern our univrese, it has no bearing on our reality.

I would rather not look into if there is a god in this discussion, but rather, IS A GOD POSSIBLE?

 

[olde drunk]

laws of physics apply to the physical. without a definition of god, we assume that s/he/it exists in the realm of non-physical. hence no limitations.

in QM information is transmitted immediately. faster than "C".

peace,

 

[FZ+]

The whole point of God is to introduce a loophole that breaks the laws of the universe. The whole point of scientific research (usually) is to explain those breaks in the laws of the universe as new complexities, subclauses to the laws we are still discovering.

 

[Deeviant]

And my whole point is that something completely outside of our physical reality can only be introduced by our imagination. And thus anything outside of our physical reality has no meaning other then what we conjure for it.

As far as quantum information traveling faster then light, you are probably talking about quantum entanglement, this process does not allow the transfer of information. Anything that does not carry information is allowed to travel faster then light without breaking causality(and thus our understanding of physics)

edit: spelling

 

[phoenixthoth]

can you prove that light is necessary to transmit information and that the transmission of information is somehow necessarily entangled with the properties of light?

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
can you prove that light is necessary to transmit information and that the transmission of information is somehow necessarily entangled with the properties of light?

Lets see, no I can not "prove that light is necessary to transmit information" but then again I never claimed such and I don't really see the significance. It is not light we are talking about here but the speed of light.

I believe you are confused on the physics I was explaining. Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanic in which information could "possibly" be transmited faster then the speed of light. But it turns out although quantum particles in entanglement do share states over any distance instantly, they are still creatures of the uncertainty principle and thus completely random and chaotic and no information is shared between them.

 

[Hurkyl]

In order to know everything about everything you would have to gather information of the entire universe instaneously This would break one of the most accepted, tested and fundamental laws of physics: Enstien's theory of relativity. We have proof that information can not travel faster than C(the speed of light).


This isn't disproof of omniscience. For example:


(a) Assume Big Bang Theory.

In other words, the past light-cone of the observable universe was once packed into a small volume.


(b) Assume determinism of physical evolution.

Note: this is not disproved by QM!


(c) Observe the entire universe.

If the entire observable universe occupies a sufficiently small volume for a sufficient duration, it would be possible, in principle, to gain complete knowledge of it.


(d) Compute the future of the universe.

Becasue of determinsm of physical evolution, the complete knowledge gained around the big bang would allow an entity to compute the state of anything in the universe at any time.


I think with a little more cleverness, you don't even have to assume said entity was present at the big bang!

 

[elwestrand]

Originally posted by Deeviant
I have a huge problem with this because omniscience is not possible. In order to know everything about everything you would have to gather information of the entire universe instaneously.

I disagree. Religions personify God. Omniscence is possible for God if God IS the information itself. There is no question of gathering anything if God is omnipresent. :) God is possible if information is an aspect of God.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Hurkyl

In order to know everything about everything you would have to gather information of the entire universe instaneously This would break one of the most accepted, tested and fundamental laws of physics: Enstien's theory of relativity. We have proof that information can not travel faster than C(the speed of light).


This isn't disproof of omniscience. For example:


(a) Assume Big Bang Theory.

In other words, the past light-cone of the observable universe was once packed into a small volume.


(b) Assume determinism of physical evolution.

Note: this is not disproved by QM!


(c) Observe the entire universe.

If the entire observable universe occupies a sufficiently small volume for a sufficient duration, it would be possible, in principle, to gain complete knowledge of it.


(d) Compute the future of the universe.

Becasue of determinsm of physical evolution, the complete knowledge gained around the big bang would allow an entity to compute the state of anything in the universe at any time.


I think with a little more cleverness, you don't even have to assume said entity was present at the big bang!

The uncertainty principle makes it impossible to know the exact state of a system, past, present or future.

Once again, the only way to make a god is to go outside our physical universe, our phsyical reality and when you do that you lose are credablity. We might as well go back to a flat word resting on the top of a tutle's back with the night's stars caused by little holes poked in really big blanket the covers the sun during the night.

 

[elwestrand]

Why does God have to be totally outside of the physical universe and why do we have be totally inside of it? This is a solipsistic argument. Moreover, why do you assume that there is a clear distinction between a physical universe and a nonphysical one like they are two rooms in a house? I never personally refer to "universes," only existence.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by elwestrand
Why does God have to be totally outside of the physical universe and why do we have be totally inside of it? This is a solipsistic argument. Moreover, why do you assume that there is a clear distinction between a physical universe and a nonphysical one like they are two rooms in a house? I never personally refer to "universes," only existence.

A god would have to be totally outside of our physical universe because a god could not exist in our physical reality according to our best observations(laws of physics). Omniscience is not possible, and certainly not probable.

Anything outside our reality is fiction because we do not have a clear picture of it, and thus have no mechanism to describe it.

 

[cookiemonster]

Originally posted by Deeviant
Anything outside our reality is fiction because we do not have a clear picture of it, and thus have no mechanism to describe it.

That's a winner. "I can't see atoms, therefore they don't exist." Probably heard that a good bit a century or two ago.

Who's to say that a God must be centralized? Why couldn't it exist everywhere, each instance in each location all-knowing with respect to whatever's within the light cone of it?

Either way, I still don't understand why you're opposed to the concept of a God existing beyond physical laws. If a God created the laws, then surely it can uncreate them per convenience. I think it's kind of illogical to think that a God would be subject to physical laws. It seems like an unreasonable limitation for an all-powerful being.

cookiemonster

 

[elwestrand]

Why you ignore my commentary that God is possible if God is the information itself? Do you really want to know if God is possible or are you actually biased to believe that it is not regardless of what other prespectives say?

 

[elwestrand]

Originally posted by Deeviant


Anything outside our reality is fiction because we do not have a clear picture of it, and thus have no mechanism to describe it.

Hi. The consciousness that we use to comprehend the above thought is outside of our physical reality. We have no mechanism to descibe conciousness in an objective manner since it is a paradox that we cannot remove ourselve from our consciousness to do so. Consciousness cannot be fiction because the concept of fiction cannot exist without consciousness to comprehend it.

 

[Hurkyl]

The uncertainty principle makes it impossible to know the exact state of a system, past, present or future.

Try again.

The uncertainty principle makes it impossible to exactly describe the system in terms of duals (e.g. in terms of position and momentum). The HUP says nothing about the impossibility to exactly describe the system in some other fashion. (e.g. in QM you can exactly describe a system by its wavefunction)

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Try again.

The uncertainty principle makes it impossible to exactly describe the system in terms of duals (e.g. in terms of position and momentum). The HUP says nothing about the impossibility to exactly describe the system in some other fashion. (e.g. in QM you can exactly describe a system by its wavefunction)

As soon as you produce a wave function of the initial big bang conditions that gives an 100% accurate predictability of the entire universe then you might be on to something here. Until then, I think you are perhaps applying the wrong physics here. The HUP DOES say that if certain variables are known that THERE IS NO WAY to find the value of another set of varibles(This is especially true of the extremely quantum nature of the iniatial Big Bang conditions). This reduces the prediction to statistical averages, not a single, perfectely-defined path.

Oh yeah, although the big bang is part of the standard model, there are some things it doesn't correctly explain, and there is a chance is it just completely wrong. In science, we can admit to the possibility of being wrong without invalidating ourselfs.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by elwestrand
Hi. The consciousness that we use to comprehend the above thought is outside of our physical reality. We have no mechanism to descibe conciousness in an objective manner since it is a paradox that we cannot remove ourselve from our consciousness to do so. Consciousness cannot be fiction because the concept of fiction cannot exist without consciousness to comprehend it.

There is no part of consciousness that is outside of our phyiscal reality because consciousness IS our physical reality.

"We have no mechanism to descibe conciousness in an objective manner since it is a paradox that we cannot remove ourselve from our consciousness to do so."

This is exactely my point, seeing into anything outside of our reality is impossible, therefore we have no way of validating anything from an outside reality. Anybody can claim anything about an outside reality, these claims and neither be proved or disproved, in science, it means that these claims are false until proven.

Originally posted by elwestrand
Why you ignore my commentary that God is possible if God is the information itself? Do you really want to know if God is possible or are you actually biased to believe that it is not regardless of what other prespectives say?

I ignored it because it made no sense. If god is information that would mean there is no god, just information.

 

[Hurkyl]

As soon as you produce a wave function of the initial big bang conditions that gives an 100% accurate predictability of the entire universe then you might be on to something here.

I would rather not look into if there is a god in this discussion, but rather, IS A GOD POSSIBLE?

I thought you were looking for an argument of possibility, not an argument for existence.


Anyways, there's an interpretation of QM that the indeterminacy inherent in the position-momentum (or any other pair of duals) description of the universe is simply because that's the wrong way to describe it.

Here's a very simplistic analogy:

Suppose the universe is an exact real number that undergoes a deterministic law of evolution.

However, we always try to measure the universe as an integer.

We may still be able to formulate a probabilistic model of this universe in terms of integers, and it will be right.

We may eventually recognize that the universe is a real number and be able to formulate a theory that explains the universe exactly. However, even with this exact theory, answers will always be probabilistic when we try to translate them into the integer world.

If god is information that would mean there is no god, just information.

Just like there is no Deeviant, just atoms and electromagnetic fields?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by elwestrand
I disagree. Religions personify God. Omniscence is possible for God if God IS the information itself. There is no question of gathering anything if God is omnipresent. :) God is possible if information is an aspect of God.

Sometimes I think about the concept of God similarly. I like to start with what we know. If our ability to be conscious of ourselves and the universe is accepted as real, then we know we and the universe exist. We know we had nothing to do with establishing the conditions which brought the universe and ourselves about. We are also fairly certain that the universe had a beginning, and, based strictly on the information we have now, it appears the universe will end at some point.

From that knowledge we can reason that since nothing can exist in time which was not preceded by the potential to do so, then we and the universe emerged from some sort of potentiality which possessed all the conditions (or “information” if you prefer) necessary to produce the physical universe, life and consciousness. Some of us are fascinated by that potentiality, as well as what it is capable of beyond what we now know, and like to call it “God.” What is the problem with that? That potentiality still produced us and the universe, and by any standards, that is a pretty amazing cache of potentiality!

In any case, the question this thread asks doesn’t make much sense. So what if one of the potentials God lacks is omniscience? How does that affect whether God is or is not possible? Similarly, Deeviant’s statement, “A god would have to be totally outside of our physical universe because a god could not exist in our physical reality according to our best observations (laws of physics)” doesn’t necessarily follow. He has assumed a truth not yet proven, which is that the universe is only physical. What we seem to have proven instead is that empirical investigation can only expose the physical universe. What we don’t know is what empirical investigation is incapable of exposing, which is why Deeviant’s next statement also doesn’t follow: “Anything outside our reality is fiction because we do not have a clear picture of it, and thus have no mechanism to describe it.” The inability to describe something simply makes it indescribable; it does not make it fiction, even if it renders it inaccessible to empirical investigation. I say some thinkers here are already devoted to physicalism; they are prematurely concluding that the “truth” is only physical, and are now reasoning with that assumption clearly in place (i.e., rather than openly acknowledging the big ontological questions are still unanswered, and reasoning from an objective position).

Part of the problem, as I see it, is people talking about God who haven’t thought very deeply about the subject, who instead mostly react to inconsistencies in religion. But why assume the religious know what they are talking about when it comes to God? Just because they claim they know doesn’t mean they really do, and it also doesn’t mean there isn’t something more than physics which some people label “God.” To many reasoning persons, God isn’t what FZ+ claimed, “. . . to introduce a loophole that breaks the laws of the universe.” God is the laws.

 

[elwestrand]

You may be interested in Chris Langan's CTMU. I have not read it, I am probably not intelligent enough to understand it. here is a sample:
Among the most exciting recent developments in science are Complexity Theory, the theory of self-organizing systems, and the modern incarnation of Intelligent Design Theory, which investigates the deep relationship between self-organization and evolutionary biology in a scientific context not preemptively closed to teleological causation. Bucking the traditional physical reductionism of the hard sciences, complexity theory has given rise to a new trend, informational reductionism, which holds that the basis of reality is not matter and energy, but information. Unfortunately, this new form of reductionism is as problematic as the old one. As mathematician David Berlinski writes regarding the material and informational aspects of DNA: “We quite know what DNA is: it is a macromolecule and so a material object. We quite know what it achieves: apparently everything. Are the two sides of this equation in balance?” More generally, Berlinski observes that since the information embodied in a string of DNA or protein cannot affect the material dynamic of reality without being read by a material transducer, information is meaningless without matter.



The relationship between physical and informational reductionism is a telling one, for it directly mirrors Cartesian mind-matter dualism, the source of several centuries of philosophical and scientific controversy regarding the nature of deep reality. As long as matter and information remain separate, with specialists treating one as primary while tacitly relegating the other to secondary status, dualism remains in effect. To this extent, history is merely repeating itself; where mind and matter once vied with each other for primary status, concrete matter now vies with abstract information abstractly representing matter and its extended relationships. But while the formal abstractness and concrete descriptiveness of information seem to make it a worthy compromise between mind and matter, Berlinski’s comment demonstrates its inadequacy as a conceptual substitute. What is now required is thus what has been required all along: a conceptual framework in which the relationship between mind and matter, cognition and information, is made explicit. This framework must not only permit the completion of the gradual ongoing dissolution of the Cartesian mind-matter divider, but the construction of a footworthy logical bridge across the resulting explanatory gap.



Mathematically, the theoretical framework of Intelligent Design consists of certain definitive principles governing the application of complexity and probability to the analysis of two key attributes of evolutionary phenomena, irreducible complexity and specified complexity. On one hand, because the mathematics of probability must be causally interpreted to be scientifically meaningful, and because probabilities are therefore expressly relativized to specific causal scenarios, it is difficult to assign definite probabilities to evolutionary states in any model not supporting the detailed reconstruction and analysis of specific causal pathways. On the other hand, positing the “absolute improbability” of an evolutionary state ultimately entails the specification of an absolute (intrinsic global) model with respect to which absolute probabilistic deviations can be determined. A little reflection suffices to inform us of some of its properties: it must be rationally derivable from a priori principles and essentially tautological in nature, it must on some level identify matter and information, and it must eliminate the explanatory gap between the mental and physical aspects of reality. Furthermore, in keeping with the name of that to be modeled, it must meaningfully incorporate the intelligence and design concepts, describing the universe as an intelligently self-designed, self-organizing system.



How is this to be done? In a word, with language. This does not mean merely that language should be used as a tool to analyze reality, for this has already been done countless times with varying degrees of success. Nor does it mean that reality should be regarded as a machine language running in some kind of vast computer. It means using language as a mathematical paradigm unto itself. Of all mathematical structures, language is the most general, powerful and necessary. Not only is every formal or working theory of science and mathematics by definition a language, but science and mathematics in whole and in sum are languages. Everything that can be described or conceived, including every structure or process or law, is isomorphic to a description or definition and therefore qualifies as a language, and every sentient creature constantly affirms the linguistic structure of nature by exploiting syntactic isomorphism to perceive, conceptualize and refer to it. Even cognition and perception are languages based on what Kant might have called “phenomenal syntax”. With logic and mathematics counted among its most fundamental syntactic ingredients, language defines the very structure of information. This is more than an empirical truth; it is a rational and scientific necessity.

Of particular interest to natural scientists is the fact that the laws of nature are a language. To some extent, nature is regular; the basic patterns or general aspects of structure in terms of which it is apprehended, whether or not they have been categorically identified, are its “laws”. The existence of these laws is given by the stability of perception. Because these repetitive patterns or universal laws simultaneously describe multiple instances or states of nature, they can be regarded as distributed “instructions” from which self-instantiations of nature cannot deviate; thus, they form a “control language” through which nature regulates its self-instantiations. This control language is not of the usual kind, for it is somehow built into the very fabric of reality and seems to override the known limitations of formal systems. Moreover, it is profoundly reflexive and self-contained with respect to configuration, execution and read-write operations. Only the few and the daring have been willing to consider how this might work…to ask where in reality the laws might reside, how they might be expressed and implemented, why and how they came to be, and how their consistency and universality are maintained. Although these questions are clearly of great scientific interest, science alone is logically inadequate to answer them; a new explanatory framework is required. This paper describes what the author considers to be the most promising framework in the simplest and most direct terms possible.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Sometimes I think about the concept of God similarly. I like to start with what we know. If our ability to be conscious of ourselves and the universe is accepted as real, then we know we and the universe exist. We know we had nothing to do with establishing the conditions which brought the universe and ourselves about. We are also fairly certain that the universe had a beginning, and, based strictly on the information we have now, it appears the universe will end at some point.

From that knowledge we can reason that since nothing can exist in time which was not preceded by the potential to do so, then we and the universe emerged from some sort of potentiality which possessed all the conditions (or “information” if you prefer) necessary to produce the physical universe, life and consciousness. Some of us are fascinated by that potentiality, as well as what it is capable of beyond what we now know, and like to call it “God.” What is the problem with that? That potentiality still produced us and the universe, and by any standards, that is a pretty amazing cache of potentiality!

In any case, the question this thread asks doesn’t make much sense. So what if one of the potentials God lacks is omniscience? How does that affect whether God is or is not possible? Similarly, Deeviant’s statement, “A god would have to be totally outside of our physical universe because a god could not exist in our physical reality according to our best observations (laws of physics)” doesn’t necessarily follow. He has assumed a truth not yet proven, which is that the universe is only physical. What we seem to have proven instead is that empirical investigation can only expose the physical universe. What we don’t know is what empirical investigation is incapable of exposing, which is why Deeviant’s next statement also doesn’t follow: “Anything outside our reality is fiction because we do not have a clear picture of it, and thus have no mechanism to describe it.” The inability to describe something simply makes it indescribable; it does not make it fiction, even if it renders it inaccessible to empirical investigation. I say some thinkers here are already devoted to physicalism; they are prematurely concluding that the “truth” is only physical, and are now reasoning with that assumption clearly in place (i.e., rather than openly acknowledging the big ontological questions are still unanswered, and reasoning from an objective position).

Part of the problem, as I see it, is people talking about God who haven’t thought very deeply about the subject, who instead mostly react to inconsistencies in religion. But why assume the religious know what they are talking about when it comes to God? Just because they claim they know doesn’t mean they really do, and it also doesn’t mean there isn’t something more than physics which some people label “God.” To many reasoning persons, God isn’t what FZ+ claimed, “. . . to introduce a loophole that breaks the laws of the universe.” God is the laws.

"From that knowledge we can reason that since nothing can exist in time which was not preceded by the potential to do so, then we and the universe emerged from some sort of potentiality which possessed all the conditions (or “information” if you prefer) necessary to produce the physical universe, life and consciousness."

You can reason whatever, whenever, however you want, but it does not make it valid or correct unless you have conclusive data to support the fact. The pre-universe is a mystery to science(and thus humanity) because we do not have the ability to observe any characteristic of it, science does not in turn, attempt to fabricate possibilites although theories are passed(Theories are not fact.) and theories that very well may remain forever unless mankind lasts long enough to find the real answer.

 

[elwestrand]

Originally posted by Deeviant

valid or correct unless you have conclusive data to support the fact.

Why is it important to have "facts" which are validated and correct?

 

[Organic]

An old man once said: "If the horses have a god he must looks like a horse".

If we take the deep side of the above then I think that any dialog about God
Is first of all limited (or maybe I have to say fits) to our own properties and
abilities as human beings.

So if there is a god all we can get is its sides that fit to ours.

The best case is that God is in our form and not vise versa.

Someone can say that we are not limited within us, but in this case knowing
God is a personal experience that cannot be carried out by any form of communication unless two different things become one.

But then we don't have information or communication and we are in timeless placeless state.

Shortly speaking, we cannot run to our friends and tell them about our meeting with God.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
The pre-universe is a mystery to science(and thus humanity) because we do not have the ability to observe any characteristic of it

Tell me, what observation of yours (or anybody's) explains your interest in the means and meaning of your existence? Which observation explains your ability to appreciate? What observation explains your ability to care, to know, or to understand? While you might need observation to explain the physics/mechanics of the universe, other of its qualities have not yielded explanations through observation. Yet although one can explain these qualities with observed facts, you seem perfectly willing to posit authoritatively reality must be observable or propositions about it are fiction.

Originally posted by Deeviant
You can reason whatever, whenever, however you want, but it does not make it valid or correct unless you have conclusive data to support the fact.

True, so does that mean are ready and able to dispute my statement, ". . .since nothing can exist in time which was not preceded by the potential to do so, then we and the universe emerged from some sort of potentiality which possessed all the conditions . . . necessary to produce the physical universe, life and consciousness"? I challenge you to do so.

You know, this is the philosophy area of PF, and here reasoning is what we do. I agree we need to reason from facts, but who are you to say facts must be limited to observation? What "conclusive data" do you have that allows you to assume observation is the only avenue to knowing? Maybe it is all YOU know, but why assume your skills set the standards for all consciousness?

If you choose to focus only on that which can be observed, guess what effect that will have on your perspective? Is it not likely you will come to say, "observation is all there is"? And if observation only produces physical/mechanistic knowledge, is it not likely you will come to say, "all that exists is physics/mechanics"?

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Tell me, what observation of yours (or anybody's) explains your interest in the means and meaning of your existence? Which observation explains your ability to appreciate? What observation explains your ability to care, to know, or to understand? While you for all consciousness?

If you choose to focus only on that which can be observed, guess what effect that will have on your perspective? Is it not likely you will come to say, "observation is all there is"? And if observation only produces physical/mechanistic knowledge, is it not likely you will come to say, "all that exists is physics/mechanics"?

First of all, I don't have to justify my interest in anything, and my interest has no relevance to this discussion.

Appreciation, like all emotions, comes from the brain. Most likely, on the course of human evolution, a trait in which a human would feel good about acomplishment would have been nutured as it would motivate that human to acomplish more, thus have stronger survival characteristics.

Caring is social feeling that promotes team work in humans, team work was imperative in our early survival. "to know" it too broad of a subject and is beyond the scope of this discussion. "To Understand" falls under "to know".

"While you for all consciousness? " I can't make any sense of this.


The reason that observation is important is because it validates theory. If your theory can never be validated it will forever remain a theory. A theory that is incapable of being validated is incapable of describing any real event or aspect, in or of, our reality.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
First of all, I don't have to justify my interest in anything, and my interest has no relevance to this discussion.

That's a funny thing to say. It is you who made assertions about the possibility, or not, of God, so I've assumed you are ready to defend your position. Anyway, I wasn't asking about your personal interests, I was asking about the ability of a human being to experience interest in general, and pointing out that it, along with other qualities of consciousness, cannot yet be explained by anything yet observed. By the way, you might relax a little. Having your ideas challenged in a debate, in a philosophy forum, is nothing to take personally.

Originally posted by Deeviant
Appreciation, like all emotions, comes from the brain. Most likely, on the course of human evolution, a trait in which a human would feel good about accomplishment would have been nurtured as it would motivate that human to accomplish more, thus have stronger survival characteristics.

Ha! Aren't you the one who said we need "conclusive facts" to proceed with our reasoning? Show me the conclusive facts which prove the basis of appreciation and caring are emotions. I wasn't referring to the sentimentality often associated those qualities, I meant the ability of consciousness to appreciate or care in general. Why should we appreciate (in the sense of deeply valuing) music, a sunset, food, wine, etc.? We don’t need appreciation to survive, as animals wolfing down a rotten carcass often demonstrate. Again, by “caring” I meant the trait of some human beings to care about every single thing they do -- to do things with great care and attentiveness, to care about every living thing, to care about all relevant issues of existence. That sort of caring is not necessary for personal survival, but rather seems done so the individual more deeply enjoys his own existence. And enjoyment too is another one of those strange traits unexplained by anything thus far observed.

Originally posted by Deeviant
"While you for all consciousness?" I can't make any sense of this.

That’s because you didn’t quote me correctly. I said, “While you might need observation to explain the physics/mechanics of the universe, other of its qualities have not yielded explanations through observation. . . .”

Originally posted by Deeviant
The reason that observation is important is because it validates theory. If your theory can never be validated it will forever remain a theory. A theory that is incapable of being validated is incapable of describing any real event or aspect, in or of, our reality.

The term “observation” is commonly interpreted to mean sense experience, and it is the exclusive role you give sense experience that I am challenging. We know, beyond all doubt, that observation combined with judicious hypothesizing (empiricism) produces knowledge. We also know that the only sort of knowledge empirical endeavors produce is physical/mechanical.

A relevant question to ask is: are there valid human experiences other than sense experience? For example, there have been a great many individuals throughout history who have practiced withdrawing from the senses, and turning their attention inward. In fact, it is from these practitioners of inner experience that we get the most consistent reports about a realm other than the physical realm. Now, those enthralled with empiricism tend to either summarily wave off such reports as deluded, or attempt to subject them to empirical standards. In the case of subjecting them to empirical standards, how can that work? Empiricism is based on external observation through the senses, while the true inner experience is based on withdrawal from the senses. It’s like the radiologist saying he is going to study the subtleties of fine music with his x-ray machine.

So often I’ve debated the empirical-minded at this site who neither have the slightest understanding of the inner experience (or its long and venerated history), nor are they willing to consider the possibility that observation may not be the only legitimate human experience which can produce knowledge. Because they’ve decided the senses are the only experiential avenue to knowledge, and because sense experience only reveals physical knowledge, they conclude they can explain everything in empirical or physicalistic terms, and if they can’t then the aspect of reality being scrutinized is “fiction,” as you put it. This is exactly what you are doing when you insist observation and conclusive facts (i.e., external observations and facts) are the only way to establish the veracity of a hypothesis.

 

[Deeviant]

A relevant question to ask is: are there valid human experiences other than sense experience?

Relating observation data to senses its not a very fruitful exercise. Ie, images through x-ray space telescopes are meaningful because they provide something our senses can not. Direct human senses are not even needed to do the analysis at times, with the sophistication of our electronics.

The people like me do not try to claim that we can explain everything using science, but many of us hold that eventually we will be able to. So we make our theories then wait for data to prove or disprove it, if it can't be proven or disprove then its just a mental exercise.

So often I’ve debated the empirical-minded at this site who neither have the slightest understanding of the inner experience (or its long and venerated history), nor are they willing to consider the possibility that observation may not be the only legitimate human experience which can produce knowledge. Because they’ve decided the senses are the only experiential avenue to knowledge, and because sense experience only reveals physical knowledge, they conclude they can explain everything in empirical or physicalistic terms, and if they can’t then the aspect of reality being scrutinized is “fiction,” as you put it. This is exactly what you are doing when you insist observation and conclusive facts (i.e., external observations and facts) are the only way to establish the veracity of a hypothesis.

Humans have most likely asked questions since the beginning, however, it wasn't until the scientific method was invented that we began to get proficient at getting those answers correct.

Your mysticism or whatever you reference to in other "legitimate human experiences" doesn't seem to be nearly as useful at generating correct answers to questions as the scientific method is. There is currently a ongoing challenge that offers a million dollars to any who can use there other senses(esp) in a controlled enviroment. Despite the fact there are thousands of self-proclaimed psychics, not one has claimed the million dollar prize.


If there were any sort of evidence to support your claim I would be happy to here it. I would be happy if it turns out humans had other sources of information other then theories confirmed by observational data. Please, share your knowledge with me that has been gleaned by extra-sensory preception.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
Relating observation data to senses its not a very fruitful exercise. Ie, images through x-ray space telescopes are meaningful because they provide something our senses can not. Direct human senses are not even needed to do the analysis at times, with the sophistication of our electronics.

There is absolutely NO WAY to escape reliance on the senses at some point, no matter what sort of machinery one inserts between oneself and the object under investigation. In fact, without the sense experience component, an empirical proof is impossible.

Originally posted by Deeviant
The people like me do not try to claim that we can explain everything using science, but many of us hold that eventually we will be able to. So we make our theories then wait for data to prove or disprove it, if it can't be proven or disprove then its just a mental exercise.

The problem is, the mental position you have assumed necessarily results in the loss of your objectivity. If you first decide that all explainable phenomena can eventually be accounted for through empiricism, you also are deciding that anything unavailable to empirical investigation is "fiction." That filter you've attacted to your intellect will automatically exclude the "non-approved" from consideration.

Originally posted by Deeviant
Humans have most likely asked questions since the beginning, however, it wasn't until the scientific method was invented that we began to get proficient at getting those answers correct.

What questions are these? You mean how the physical universe works? If so, then you are correct. But if you mean questions about the meaning and purpose of life, how to achieve inner peace, how to be happy, content, fulfilled . . . well, there I am afraid science has added nothing to humankind, and I don't believe it ever will.

Originally posted by Deeviant
Your mysticism or whatever you reference to in other "legitimate human experiences" doesn't seem to be nearly as useful at generating correct answers to questions as the scientific method is. There is currently a ongoing challenge that offers a million dollars to any who can use there other senses(esp) in a controlled enviroment. Despite the fact there are thousands of self-proclaimed psychics, not one has claimed the million dollar prize.

Useful for what? Again, if you mean useful for physical applications, that is true. If you mean useful to the inner life of a human being (and I am not referring to human psychology either), then science is about as useful as tits on a bull.

Originally posted by Deeviant
There is currently a ongoing challenge that offers a million dollars to any who can use there other senses(esp) in a controlled enviroment. Despite the fact there are thousands of self-proclaimed psychics, not one has claimed the million dollar prize.

This is exactly the fallacy I claimed in my previous post those of the physicalist persuasion make. So, you want to evaluate the inner, sense-withdrawn experience using a method that is "outer" and sense-dependent. How exactly is that going to work? That strategy is so transparent. It is like those men who demand their wives explain something they feel in precise terms so they can translate the feeling into an idea. Such men refuse to accept the feeling as real until the wife does so. Of course the feeling can never be adequately defined; to understand the feeling, what the man must do is feel what the wife is indicating, not think about it. Similarly, you and others demand the inner-oriented experience should meet the standards of outer-oriented experience before you are willing to give it any consideration for legitimacy. Again I have to say, you've severely compromised your objectivity with that perspective.

Originally posted by Deeviant
If there were any sort of evidence to support your claim I would be happy to here it. I would be happy if it turns out humans had other sources of information other then theories confirmed by observational data. Please, share your knowledge with me that has been gleaned by extra-sensory preception.

There is 3000 years of evidence supporting my claim, but I am not going to undertake educating you in what I consider to be your responsiblility to investigate if you are really serious about understanding how the universe works. I have made the complaint many times here about the narrowness of education of scientism devotees, who seem to study only that which supports what they already believe to be true. As far as I am concerned, talking to scientism devotees is as bad as talking to Bible thumpers . . . they all have abandoned true objectivity and comprehensive truth-seeking in order to maintain their "faith."

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
There is absolutely NO WAY to escape reliance on the senses at some point, no matter what sort of machinery one inserts between oneself and the object under investigation. In fact, without the sense experience component, an empirical proof is impossible.



The problem is, the mental position you have assumed necessarily results in the loss of your objectivity. If you first decide that all explainable phenomena can eventually be accounted for through empiricism, you also are deciding that anything unavailable to empirical investigation is "fiction." That filter you've attacted to your intellect will automatically exclude the "non-approved" from consideration.



What questions are these? You mean how the physical universe works? If so, then you are correct. But if you mean questions about the meaning and purpose of life, how to achieve inner peace, how to be happy, content, fulfilled . . . well, there I am afraid science has added nothing to humankind, and I don't believe it ever will.



Useful for what? Again, if you mean useful for physical applications, that is true. If you mean useful to the inner life of a human being (and I am not referring to human psychology either), then science is about as useful as tits on a bull.



This is exactly the fallacy I claimed in my previous post those of the physicalist persuasion make. So, you want to evaluate the inner, sense-withdrawn experience using a method that is "outer" and sense-dependent. How exactly is that going to work? That strategy is so transparent. It is like those men who demand their wives explain something they feel in precise terms so they can translate the feeling into an idea. Such men refuse to accept the feeling as real until the wife does so. Of course the feeling can never be adequately defined; to understand the feeling, what the man must do is feel what the wife is indicating, not think about it. Similarly, you and others demand the inner-oriented experience should meet the standards of outer-oriented experience before you are willing to give it any consideration for legitimacy. Again I have to say, you've severely compromised your objectivity with that perspective.



There is 3000 years of evidence supporting my claim, but I am not going to undertake educating you in what I consider to be your responsiblility to investigate if you are really serious about understanding how the universe works. I have made the complaint many times here about the narrowness of education of scientism devotees, who seem to study only that which supports what they already believe to be true. As far as I am concerned, talking to scientism devotees is as bad as talking to Bible thumpers . . . they all have abandoned true objectivity and comprehensive truth-seeking in order to maintain their "faith."

"The problem is, the mental position you have assumed necessarily results in the loss of your objectivity. If you first decide that all explainable phenomena can eventually be accounted for through empiricism, you also are deciding that anything unavailable to empirical investigation is "fiction." That filter you've attacted to your intellect will automatically exclude the "non-approved" from consideration."

It is I that hold objectivity, just go look up the word and you will find:

2. Having actual existence or reality


I have been championing reality in this whole thought exercise, keeping as true it to as our humanistic nature allows.

There is absolutely NO WAY to escape reliance on the senses at some point, no matter what sort of machinery one inserts between oneself and the object under investigation. In fact, without the sense experience component, an empirical proof is impossible.

Yep you totally missed the point there. Of course we have to use our sense to analyse data, but it hardly means that everything we analyse is useless because something about our senses is somehow related to your mysticism.

What questions are these? You mean how the physical universe works? If so, then you are correct. But if you mean questions about the meaning and purpose of life, how to achieve inner peace, how to be happy, content, fulfilled . . . well, there I am afraid science has added nothing to humankind, and I don't believe it ever will.

Actually the science of pychology has quite a bit to say about what makes us happy, content, and fulfilled. And speak for yourself. Science, knowledge and expansion of humanity's knowledge gives MY life meaning, it makes me happy. My understanding of what we do and do not know about the world around use gives me MY inner peace. So I'm afraid you are quite wrong about science not being about to serve humanity in this respect(unless of course you wish to argue that I am not a human, which would be the topic of a entirely different thread).

 

[Shahil]

Originally posted by Deeviant
As soon as you produce a wave function of the initial big bang conditions that gives an 100% accurate predictability of the entire universe then you might be on to something here. Until then, I think you are perhaps applying the wrong physics here. The HUP DOES say that if certain variables are known that THERE IS NO WAY to find the value of another set of varibles(This is especially true of the extremely quantum nature of the iniatial Big Bang conditions). This reduces the prediction to statistical averages, not a single, perfectely-defined path.

Doesn't this kinda mean that God probably is possible but is not the all-powering, all-knowing being we think exists?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
The whole point of God is to introduce a loophole that breaks the laws of the universe. The whole point of scientific research (usually) is to explain those breaks in the laws of the universe as new complexities, subclauses to the laws we are still discovering.

The "physical" universe that is.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Shahil
Doesn't this kinda mean that God probably is possible but is not the all-powering, all-knowing being we think exists?

I would have to concede to the point that a god could still exist in the form of an extremely advanced intelligence. Just not the omniscience, infinitly powerful being that so many think of one as. This god would be more of a alien intelligence, who went through a similar evolutionary process as we did, following the exact same laws of physics as we observe to hold true throughout our universe.

This being would be a god to us only because their level scientific and technological abilities are so much higher than ours, they look like magic.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
It is I that hold objectivity, just go look up the word and you will find:

2. Having actual existence or reality

A dictionary seldom serves to enlighten when it comes to philosophical definitions. It is instead meant to help with everyday language. The term "objective" in philosophy has a number of meanings, and the one you chose from the dictionary doesn't apply to our discussion.

Originally posted by Deeviant
I have been championing reality in this whole thought exercise, keeping as true it to as our humanistic nature allows.

You have been championing the aspects of reality that show up through empirical investigation, and it turns out that is physical features of reality. My objection to your view is that you don't care much about the distinct possibility that there might be elements of humanness which don't reveal themselves through empiricism. If such aspects of a human do exist, then you are not championing reality, but rather you are championing those areas of reality that interest you most. To me, that would be okay if it weren't for the fact that part of your message is to imply or outright state non-empirical reports are "fiction."

Originally posted by Deeviant
Yep you totally missed the point there. Of course we have to use our sense to analyse data, but it hardly means that everything we analyse is useless because something about our senses is somehow related to your mysticism.

I missed the point eh? You have it backward sir. I did not say a single word about the analysis of sense data being useless. I did not say anything about the senses being related to mysticism. What I was pointing out was the premier role of sense experience in the scientific method. That, in fact, the addition of the experience rule to analysis--i.e., that what is hypothesized must be verified by sense experience--is precisely what has made empiricism so successful.

If you think I don't respect the accomplishments and abilities of science, you are wrong. What I don't buy yet is that science can reveal all revealable truths. Since you seem to be saying science can do that, and that other beliefs are fiction, I am challenging your assertions.

Originally posted by Deeviant
Actually the science of pychology has quite a bit to say about what makes us happy, content, and fulfilled. And speak for yourself. Science, knowledge and expansion of humanity's knowledge gives MY life meaning, it makes me happy. My understanding of what we do and do not know about the world around use gives me MY inner peace. So I'm afraid you are quite wrong about science not being about to serve humanity in this respect(unless of course you wish to argue that I am not a human, which would be the topic of a entirely different thread).

We are not talking about the same thing. Happiness, contentment, and meaning have lots of interpretations. A heroin addict, for example, might tell you his morning shot brings him all those things. A person going from door to door preaching his/her religion might say it, or maybe a person working 18 hours a day to make money. Often I think a person needs to live with their values into later life to see just how much happiness, contentment, and meaning they really bring over the long haul. When we are young and full of our ideals, or while we are caught up in trying to make things happen, or when we are lifted by the excitement of our successes . . . all of that can make it difficult to know how deeply the happiness, contentment, and meaning of our pursuits is going penetrate our being over time. All the activity of living our dreams can mask something deeper which is longing to be satisified.

 

[Deeviant]

Yes I do hold that science is the most effective tool in which to find any answer. You seem to think that science is some sort of machine, it is not. It is a organic process created by humans to find answers. I challenge you, find me a better process in which to find answers.

Often I think a person needs to live with their values into later life to see just how much happiness, contentment, and meaning they really bring over the long haul.

When I said science made me happy, you simply brushed that off and held that my way of thinking would not make me happy. That type of arrogance is exactely the motivating force behind my conviction that truth(actual) is something to be strived for. I feel we don't have to lie to ourselfs to be happy. I do think we have a purpose, to master our enviroment, to master ourselfs and to survive as a race.

And if you want to get completely off topic(this thread was to discuss only if a omniscience god was possible according to our understanding of the universe) then let me add something else.

I don't need a god to be a good boy. I see the value of morality in and of itself. I find happiness in discovery, art, music and love. I don't understand why people need to blame some sort of evil force as cause of everything bad that humans do, and I feel flustrated whenever some god is given credit for the action of a person.


I never understood why people felt better by lying to themselves, accepting things that are hardly(read: not) possible let alone real, as fact. Perhaps its because I suck a lying. I was never able to tell my mother a lie without immeadiately being found out and I run into the same problem while trying to tell myself a lie.

When the concept of a god was introduced to me as child, I was never told "And Zeb, all this stuff we are telling you may or may not be the truth, and in fact Zeb, most the evidence we find is contrary to our beliefs"

In my most fragile stage of development I was told a lie, not because it was neccesary for me, but it was necessary for those that told it. The greater the number of people that believe something, the easier it is to believe(mob mentality 101) and it does not matter if that thing is correct or not. Their motivation was to simply to validate their own believe stucture. Case in point, when I finally broke rank and file, followed shortly by my sister, my whole immeadiate family found the whole god thing hard to accept.

People like me are dangerous to people who want their beliefs to be unquestionably validated by everyone else(Once again, psychology has a lot to say about this human trait) and I have met a lot resistance, even violence when I try to express my ideas to others. And although I am not afraid of telling others about my philosophy, I don't go out of my way to share my beliefs, unlike the people on other side of the fence. For some reason its okay to be outwardly pro-god but it is definitely NOT okay to be outwardly atheistic. And yes, I did test this in a empirical fashion.


One last thing,

A dictionary seldom serves to enlighten when it comes to philosophical definitions. It is instead meant to help with everyday language. The term "objective" in philosophy has a number of meanings, and the one you chose from the dictionary doesn't apply to our discussion.

If you want to use a definition of a word other than any of its commonly accepted definitions, it may be best to clearly define what you mean by saying it. I could find no reference to what objective means "in philosophy". I would hold however, in every possible definition of objective, that taking a look at all the facts and basing your decision identifiable correlations of facts would clearly be called objective. I also hold that using factual data to make a discision rather then using data from mythological sources would be clearly be more objective then using mythological data.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The "physical" universe that is.

Nope. The universe. If I meant the physical universe, I would have said so. The whole point of God is to introduce an irrational element. Limiting the irrational element of God is invalid, as God is supposedly not subject to your rationalisation. Can you name any non-physical laws a transcendent God cannot break?
Let me claim this: The physical universe does not distinctly exist.

And my whole point is that something completely outside of our physical reality can only be introduced by our imagination. And thus anything outside of our physical reality has no meaning other then what we conjure for it.

It is arguable that all of our theories are introduced by our imagination. I do not think God is placed outside reality. God is merely flaws in our reality which we have given up on.

To many reasoning persons, God isn’t what FZ+ claimed, “. . . to introduce a loophole that breaks the laws of the universe.” God is the laws.

Perhaps. Maybe I am arguing that the laws themselves are a loophole that breaks their own rules. Or maybe we are talking of different aspects of the concept called God.

What "conclusive data" do you have that allows you to assume observation is the only avenue to knowing?

I do not assume that. I define knowing as the internalisation of that which is observed. If by some method I come to know something, then that method may be called an observation. As an observation, it should be judged by typical observational evaluation - eg. repeatability, demonstrability of introducing new information... and so on. Here, many "non-sense" observations have been found insufficient, or inconclusive.

But if you mean questions about the meaning and purpose of life, how to achieve inner peace, how to be happy, content, fulfilled . . . well, there I am afraid science has added nothing to humankind, and I don't believe it ever will.

Let me continue my nihilist ramble. I assert that nothing has added to humankind in this respect. I assert (though I am liable to change my mind when I am more sober) instead that religion, god, spirituality has in history systematically betrayed the idea of meaning and purpose in life, by cheating us with superficiality (eg. certain religions which talk of an actual heaven), or by construing to make such knowledge unattainable. (eg. transcendent God belief systems)

The net product of all such things has been to place the deep questions of "why" out of human hands into some high, divine shelf where it is accepted without question, without thought, without, ironically, the same conscious free will they supposedly venerate. In practice, content and happy are incompatiable. Inner peace is attained, traditionally, only at the expense of change or desire, and so the unfulfillment of man's nature.

The wonder of science comes from its infinitude, and so it is the opposite of contentment - and all the better for it. If you are content, I assert that you have wasted your consciousness.