Is Omniscience Compatible with the Laws of Physics?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
The whole point of God is to introduce a loophole that breaks the laws of the universe.[/color] 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.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
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.

It remains to be seen if science offers us infinitude (gee, that sounds awfully like the exaggerated beliefs of the religious), but regardless, contentment is not the opposite of infinitude. You are not talking about contentment; you might be talking about apathy or despair or some other giving-up-on-life attitude, but not contentment.

Maybe you've never experienced contentment, or maybe you've never experienced a significant portion of your life without it. What tastes I've had of contentment make me want more of it, lots more. It enhances everything I do, including my appreciation of simply being alive to enjoy all life has to offer. And rather than encouraging me to waste my consciousness, it makes me want to use it more. So whatever it is you are talking about, it doesn't jive with my experience with contentment. Of course, if you prefer a discontent life, by all means have a go at it.

 

[Hurkyl]

... I don't go out of my way to share my beliefs, unlike the people on other side of the fence. ...

Don't you find it odd, then, that you felt the need to go off on a tangent about your childhood experiences, so you could label as a "lie" the beliefs you learned as a child?

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It remains to be seen if science offers us infinitude (gee, that sounds awfully like the exaggerated beliefs of the religious), but regardless, contentment is not the opposite of infinitude. You are not talking about contentment; you might be talking about apathy or despair or some other giving-up-on-life attitude, but not contentment.

Maybe you've never experienced contentment, or maybe you've never experienced a significant portion of your life without it. What tastes I've had of contentment make me want more of it, lots more. It enhances everything I do, including my appreciation of simply being alive to enjoy all life has to offer. And rather than encouraging me to waste my consciousness, it makes me want to use it more. So whatever it is you are talking about, it doesn't jive with my experience with contentment. Of course, if you prefer a discontent life, by all means have a go at it.

Of course you address none of my points because you have no substances in which to refute them with.

Then you point out how happy your life is, how much joy you have, and its like you believe that everybody has to be just like you in order to be happy. You sound like a commercial trying to sale some sort of drug.

If basing my decisions on factual data will cause me to have a discontent life, so be it.

 

[Deeviant]

I would still really like to hear more input about the possiblity of a god.

I would like to refine my statements slighty to:

How could a god possibly exist our physical universe according to our present laws of physics(speed of information, impossibility of knowing all states of a system with prefect precision, etc)

If you want to claim a god would have to exist outside of our physical reality I would like to know how you could possibly have any sort of experience with something completely outside our realm of experience.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Don't you find it odd, then, that you felt the need to go off on a tangent about your childhood experiences, so you could label as a "lie" the beliefs you learned as a child?

No, I don't find it odd. But I do find it odd that that is the only possible point you could bring up with my post that had a great many of more interesting points in it.


It was a pretty obvious statement if you take it in context. I was simply stating I do not feel the need to evangelicaly promote my belief structure in order validate it.

 

[FZ+]

What tastes I've had of contentment make me want more of it, lots more.

But that merely illustrates my point, does it not? You can never be content - in your case, content with your degree of contentment. Even in your case, complete fulfillment is something that is ultimately unacheivable, and the purpose to your life is stated as seeking this contentment. Science accepts that knowing everything is impossible, but that continuing to attempt it is meaningful. This is the opposite of religions, which preach an absolute level of happiness, or contentment, or so on, that it is impossible to go beyond.

They do not increase your degree of happiness, but tell you to expect less, to look for less, not to "want more of it, lots more". This I consider a betrayal of what people desire from their faith.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
Of course you address none of my points because you have no substances in which to refute them with.

Then you point out how happy your life is, how much joy you have, and its like you believe that everybody has to be just like you in order to be happy. You sound like a commercial trying to sale some sort of drug.

If basing my decisions on factual data will cause me to have a discontent life, so be it.

I addressed none of your points in that particular response because I was answering FZ+, not you.

I personally don't care whether you investigate contentment or not. My point about that was in reference to things science doesn't provide for a human being. I was trying to say that on the one hand science gives us a powerful intellectual tool, and yes, we can develop our minds quite nicely through learning the skills necessary to do science. However, I believe happiness, contentment, appreciation of life, etc. are developed not through the mind, but through another, more "inner" part of us; and, as far as I've seen in my 57 years of life, my science abilities have not contributed to that inner development in me one iota.

You know, it is you who seem to want to make some competition between empirical and inner pursuits. Personally I have no problem giving ample room to both in my life. Each has its own rules, and that means each requires specialized study to understand. I don't try to grasp empirical truths with my inner understanding, and I don't try to develop my inner abilities with science. You however want to make it all one thing and one way. Quite a few years ago I started moving away from that view and toward broadening my horizons, so I am not interested in going backwards now. For that reason I'll leave you to discuss this with individuals who find the subject more rewarding than I do.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
But that merely illustrates my point, does it not? You can never be content - in your case, content with your degree of contentment. Even in your case, complete fulfillment is something that is ultimately unacheivable, and the purpose to your life is stated as seeking this contentment. Science accepts that knowing everything is impossible, but that continuing to attempt it is meaningful. This is the opposite of religions, which preach an absolute level of happiness, or contentment, or so on, that it is impossible to go beyond.

They do not increase your degree of happiness, but tell you to expect less, to look for less, not to "want more of it, lots more". This I consider a betrayal of what people desire from their faith.

FZ+, sometimes I wonder if you have lived at all! All you seem to express is theory, and it's bad theory too. Do you really think I am still so confused about contentment? I think we should talk a few decades from now after you've had time to live your theories.

The biggest problem I see with this forum is that people don't have to reveal how experienced they are with the ideas they advocate. There is a big difference in how seriously one takes a statement from someone who has tried it over time, and from someone who is merely theorizing.

Everything you say about contentment is so contrary to my experience I can you don't know what you are talking about. And tell me one thing I said about religion. How did that get in there? Just because I enjoy an inner experience, or because I suspect there might be something other than physics at work in the universe, doesn't mean I am religious. In fact, I am not religious and never have been. Your problem is that you can't stop pigeon holing anyone who expresses interest in "something more" than physics. You might consider opening your mind a little, and setting aside your own opinions long enough to understand an intelligent person's reasons for interest in God.

But to help me answer your question about never achieving total contentment, let me first ask you if realizing you can never know everything prevents you from seeking knowledge? Or, does realizing that make learning not fun? Personally I can't stop seeking knowledge, and the more I know the more I want to know. Contentment is similar in that the better one gets at it, the more one wants it. I don't know if I will achieve total contentment or not, but what I have achieved is precious to me. So far as I can see, there is no down side to it whatsoever.

 

[FZ+]

There is a big difference in how seriously one takes a statement from someone who has tried it over time, and from someone who is merely theorizing.

I am... theoretically... still alive.

And tell me one thing I said about religion. How did that get in there?

I am sorry. I must have been confused by the fact that the title of the thread is "Is God Possible?", which led me to presume we were talking religion.

Your problem is that you can't stop pigeon holing anyone who expresses interest in "something more" than physics.

No. My problem is that I believe that whenever anyone talks of "something more" than physics, the reality is that they wish to see physics as something less. I don't buy the statement that science does not offer "fulfillment", at least, any less than anything else.

But to help me answer your question about never achieving total contentment, let me first ask you if realizing you can never know everything prevents you from seeking knowledge?

I was asking a question? I thought I was just ranting randomly.

But... I think confusion has crept in somewhere. It is my point that we should accept that no state as "full contentment", or "full knowledge" exists, or is attainable, and incorporate the idea that despite this, additional knowledge or happiness is a good thing. I agree completely with what you say in the final paragraph. I simply believe (and you may point out how inaccurately) that many faiths, by installing an ultimate truth, or ultimate purpose, work counter to the previous principle. They prevent the continuous search for knowledge, or happiness, or wisdom, by setting up a false dead end.

I believe that seeking out happiness, or knowledge, is neccessarily an external process that involves opening up to the universe, and utilising your (philosophically hard to explain) faculty of consciousness. To listen, you must first be silent.

I am not saying we should be unhappy. My use of "discontent" would mean that we must never say that we are happy enough, or smart enough, or so on.