Whence came the order in the cosmos?

[QED]

Self-organization is a widely recognized and well understood principle. It can operate over a vast range of scales in any dynamic system that is far from thermal equilibrium. One example of this is our biosphere which is driven away from thermal equilibrium by the Suns radiant energy. Self-organization arises from various feedback mechanisms such as those operating within our biosphere serving as a good (and very large) example: the energy output from the Sun has fallen by some 30% while the average temperature within the biosphere has remained far more constant over the same period.

What may not be so widely recognized is that the principles of self-organization extend much further up in scale than our planet: Galaxies are ecology's in their own right within which stars are born and die. Carbon plays a central role in the self-regulation and evolution of galactic systems. So it turns out that we ourselves are riding on this carbon regulated merry-go-round of stellar evolution.

In principle there is no upper limit on the scope of self-organization. Astronomers have started to recognize structure in the distribution of galaxies hinting at higher levels of organization. So, it seems that a sound philosophical conclusion can be drawn here: self-organization is a natural principle within the cosmos as it can be seen operating over some 40 or so orders of magnitude. A few more orders would take this to the entire extent of our universe and, according to Professor Lee Smolin and others, there is good reason to believe that our universe is but one of a vast collection representing yet higher opportunities for self-organisation.

Now, what strikes me about all this is that we have potential answers to some very fundamental questions here. We should not be surprised to find order among the chaos. As a natural principal of the cosmos it should be expected for life to emerge. Now that we're here it is not surprising that we find ourselves looking upon order and chaos and speculating over such matters as good and evil. The simple fact is that goodness and order are prerequisites for our existence and they are born out of nothing more fancy than feedback in systems far from thermal equilibrium.

I would like this to stimulate a debate over the implications this has for the opposing worldviews of theists and atheists.

[harvey1]

I don't know what you mean by 'unnecessary' here.

In other words, we don't have to postulate unseen and unnecessary infinite worlds in order to see that evolution is reasonable. In the case of atheism, we must postulate such unnecessary structures.

A world more complex -- how so? Isn't it the case that complexity is always the product of some sort of evolution? Once again I think you're deliberately curtailing the scope and power of evolution to suit your own argument. I don't think it's possible to exaggerate the role that evolution plays in the development of structure and existence. As a general principle arising from very simple logic evolution is highly ubiquitous. As to where atheism comes into this picture I might simply say that it reflects the point at the base of an inverted pyramid.

Our universe is a very simple structure an attosecond after the big bang. It has very simple laws, it's geometry is very small, it is only an attosecond old, etc.. Now, you wish to say that this simplicity is deceptive. Actually, the Universe is not an attosecond old, it is infinite. Actually, there's not one spacetime geometry, there are potentially an infinite number of geometries that exist, etc, etc.. Now, there might be other universes, however why should we think that something fundamental about all those universes is more complex than our attosecond old universe? If you agree that something should be more fundamental than our attosecond universe, then we're right back to this thread that I'm still waiting for your responses to.

Sure, but all this doesn't really explain how this God-mind came by all the technology required to build a specific universe like ours. As a principle causation lacks direction. You've come up with plenty of generalizations about causality, mind etc. but we're faced with a great number of specifics when we consider all the fine-tuning required to get us here.

I disagree. The philosophical issues raised by the satisfaction principle are enough to justify a belief that the OI is God in the full sense. For example, consider these requirements of an OI:

1. Truth cannot be known to be satisfied as "true" if there is some knowledge that an OI doesn't know: hence, the OI must have all knowledge that could possibly cause a paradox
2. Truth cannot be known to be satisfied as "true" if there is some knowledge in some other universe or future state of a universe that an OI is not present to know: hence, the OI must be all present in any situation that could possibly cause a paradox
3. Truth cannot be known to be satisfied as "true" if there is some knowledge that is based on an unexpected event occurring: hence, the OI must be all powerful in any situation that could possibly cause a paradox
4. Truth cannot be known to be satisfied as "true" if there is some inconsistency in the OI thoughts or actions: hence the OI must be all consistent in all thoughts or actions in all situations that could possibly cause a paradox (including moral thoughts or actions, making the OI all good)
5. Truth cannot be known to be satisfied as 'true" if there is some knowledge that is too complex to be understood: hence the OI must be all-intelligent in any situation that could possibly cause a paradox

As you can see, even if there is one conceivable world out of an infinite number of conceivable worlds where the above conditions hold, this would be the only logically possible world to exist since it is the only world that conforms to the conditions of the causality principle. The world is constrained by the causality principle since whatever conceivable world that isn't constrained would prove inconsistent and unreachable as a real world (i.e., as reality).

Thus, I can argue that this world exists with an all-knowledgable OI because that's the only reality there can logically exist.

I don't buy the 'intelligent like' properties being ascribed to quantum erasure but even if I did there is no explanation for how the God-mind got smart enough to conjure so much more than just a grain of sand.

The properties display a more complex algorithm than is happening in your thermostat example. In other words, from a very simple law (i.e., the which-way requirement), comes an example of high algorithmic complexity that only a computer programmed by humans could do. Even humans could not simulate this action without the use of a computer. Therefore, this demonstrates a certain level of intelligence happening in physics as a result of a law.

[Scrotum]

No, philosophical arguments access reality. Are you suggesting that you think philosophy is just rhetoric? If so, then how can we have a pleasant discussion if we cannot argue the merits of our philosophy?

Vey few people in the world debate for the fundamental meaning of debate. (Evolving would be the keyword i would use).


Philosophy is pure rhetoric. You have your set ways of the world, and then you try to convince the world of your accuracy. Take the simple fact that there is no proof for any "god" or gods in this world. Yet, you seem to proclaim theexistence of it, in one way or another. Why? I myself told you several times, tries to explain to you, it does not exist. (And If it does, no shown evidence for it is in existence.)

So how can you believe it? So either you can be mad, or ignorant (no insult intended in this meaning), or simple just joking about. But to be serious would demand some sort of...... eh, i dont know.



In any case, I am one of the few in this world of 6,5 billion people whom are prepared to change my mind, or as I prefer to call it, Evolve, if sufficient proof for whatever would-be-debated issue would be shown.

Can you honestly say the same? That you are not set in your ways, auto running on the "correct" views you have, using skilled rhetoric as your weapon, and a flawed philosophy (there is no "right" one) as your shield........

[harvey1]

Philosophy is pure rhetoric.

Well, I am puzzled by what brings you here then.

[QED]

I don't know what you mean by 'unnecessary' here.

In other words, we don't have to postulate unseen and unnecessary infinite worlds in order to see that evolution is reasonable. In the case of atheism, we must postulate such unnecessary structures*.

In that case your use of the word "unnecessary" is purely rhetorical -- you keep on using it in place of "unseen". *Look! You did it again! I am well aware of the current crisis in cosmology and the potential this has for a totally different reading of the data that has led to the Standard Model. Rather than pin everything on Big Bangs, Inflation and colliding Branes I think it safer to think in more general terms about the way we see nature working. The most recurrent feature that we see is evolution.

Our universe is a very simple structure an attosecond after the big bang. It has very simple laws, it's geometry is very small, it is only an attosecond old, etc.. Now, you wish to say that this simplicity is deceptive. Actually, the Universe is not an attosecond old, it is infinite. Actually, there's not one spacetime geometry, there are potentially an infinite number of geometries that exist, etc, etc.. Now, there might be other universes, however why should we think that something fundamental about all those universes is more complex than our attosecond old universe? If you agree that something should be more fundamental than our attosecond universe, then we're right back to this thread that I'm still waiting for your responses to.

I have a hard time believing in Prescriptive laws. The other lesson that's been learnt since Leibniz is the relativity of all things. Absolutes are out and that goes for laws too. So I don't buy into your Platonic heaven as heavily as you do. Variety is the spice of life and I think gives us the best philosophical starting point.

The philosophical issues raised by the satisfaction principle are enough to justify a belief that the OI is God in the full sense. For example, consider these requirements of an OI:

1. Truth cannot be known to be satisfied as "true" if there is some knowledge that an OI doesn't know: hence, the OI must have all knowledge that could possibly cause a paradox
2. Truth cannot be known to be satisfied as "true" if there is some knowledge in some other universe or future state of a universe that an OI is not present to know: hence, the OI must be all present in any situation that could possibly cause a paradox
3. Truth cannot be known to be satisfied as "true" if there is some knowledge that is based on an unexpected event occurring: hence, the OI must be all powerful in any situation that could possibly cause a paradox
4. Truth cannot be known to be satisfied as "true" if there is some inconsistency in the OI thoughts or actions: hence the OI must be all consistent in all thoughts or actions in all situations that could possibly cause a paradox (including moral thoughts or actions, making the OI all good)
5. Truth cannot be known to be satisfied as 'true" if there is some knowledge that is too complex to be understood: hence the OI must be all-intelligent in any situation that could possibly cause a paradox

As you can see, even if there is one conceivable world out of an infinite number of conceivable worlds where the above conditions hold, this would be the only logically possible world to exist since it is the only world that conforms to the conditions of the causality principle. The world is constrained by the causality principle since whatever conceivable world that isn't constrained would prove inconsistent and unreachable as a real world (i.e., as reality).

Are you saying that this is the only possible universe then? That seems like an extraordinary claim in the light of the work done on 'the numbers'. Sure this might be the only universe to be exactly like ours, but there are plenty of potential variations as Smolin and others have calculated.

Thus, I can argue that this world exists with an all-knowledgable OI because that's the only reality there can logically exist.

I'm convinced that you have a problem here. You need to show apriori how this OI had to end up satisfying all the specifics leading to what we see around us without such an appeal to final causes.

[harvey1]

Are you saying that this is the only possible universe then? That seems like an extraordinary claim in the light of the work done on 'the numbers'. Sure this might be the only universe to be exactly like ours, but there are plenty of potential variations as Smolin and others have calculated.

No, I'm saying that the principle of causality is the only possible principle. What stems from that one principle could be an infinite number of worlds. However, this is different than your use of infinite worlds since my potential infinite number of worlds are a result of some fundamental principle. Whereas, your potential infinite number of worlds is to be taken as brute fact without reason. I showed the problems with this concept in this thread.

'm convinced that you have a problem here. You need to show apriori how this OI had to end up satisfying all the specifics leading to what we see around us without such an appeal to final causes.

Here, let me give you the flow of events as I see them:

1. Real worlds require a principle of causality in order to be a "real" world (i.e., cause brings about an effect). Worlds without this principle are not real (i.e., they do not exist)
2. In order for a cause to bring about an effect, the cause and effect relation must be satisfied (e.g., the "cause is sufficient for the effect" condition is satisfied, the "effect is necessary for the cause" condition is satisfied)
3. Satisfaction requires comprehension that the cause and effect relation is satisfied
4. Comprehension requires mind, or an Omniscient Interpreter (OI) (from 2 & 3)
5. OI interpretation cannot be false from lack of data, lack of intelligence, lack of power, or lack of being present, lack of comprehension, or lack of being consistent (from 2, 3, 4)
6. Therefore, the OI is the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God (from 5)
7. God is in all realities that can possibly exist (from 1, 4, 6)

Now, your objection seems to be that (5) can only be true after the fact. That is, if I understand you correctly, God wouldn't be an antecedent of the cause-effect relation since God's existence is not a priori to the principle of causation. Is that right?

If so, then I don't think this objection is valid. The premise in (1) states that those realities that don't have a functioning principle of causation cannot exist. However, (5) shows that a functioning principle of causation can only be the case if God exists. Therefore, God is an a priori an antecedent condition to any cause-effect relation since there are no possible worlds where God is not an antecedent condition to any cause-effect relation. Now, there are conceivable worlds where God does not exist (i.e., there are worlds that don't have a functioning principle of causation), however those worlds even though they "exist" as conceptions do not have any real existence since they do not have a functioning principle of causation (i.e., (1)). Of all the conceptual worlds that exist, only the real one exists--that is, the one that God exists. The others are merely conceivable but not possible, thus not real.

[QED]

I'm saying that the principle of causality is the only possible principle. What stems from that one principle could be an infinite number of worlds. However, this is different than your use of infinite worlds since my potential infinite number of worlds are a result of some fundamental principle. Whereas, your potential infinite number of worlds is to be taken as brute fact without reason.

So once again you get up extra early in the morning and grab all the good principles for your self Anyway, I'm going to interrupt your flow here with a few comments of my own (in red):

Here, let me give you the flow of events as I see them:

1. Real worlds require a principle of causality in order to be a "real" world (i.e., cause brings about an effect). Worlds without this principle are not real (i.e., they do not exist)
2. In order for a cause to bring about an effect, the cause and effect relation must be satisfied (e.g., the "cause is sufficient for the effect" condition is satisfied, the "effect is necessary for the cause" condition is satisfied)
3. Satisfaction requires comprehension that the cause and effect relation is satisfied
   
   This always looks weird to me. What's wrong with material satisfaction?
4. Comprehension requires mind, or an Omniscient Interpreter (OI) (from 2 & 3)
   
   Sure, comprehension would require a mind but those two things are intimately related so your choice of words is not as neutral as you might like it to appear.
5. OI interpretation cannot be false from lack of data, lack of intelligence, lack of power, or lack of being present, lack of comprehension, or lack of being consistent (from 2, 3, 4)
6. Therefore, the OI is the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God (from 5)
   
   Another case of careful selection of words? Where, for instance does omnibenevolence find its way in here? I can imagine there being great consistency in the opposite of benevolence.
7. God is in all realities that can possibly exist (from 1, 4, 6)

Now, your objection seems to be that (5) can only be true after the fact. That is, if I understand you correctly, God wouldn't be an antecedent of the cause-effect relation since God's existence is not a priori to the principle of causation. Is that right?

If so, then I don't think this objection is valid. The premise in (1) states that those realities that don't have a functioning principle of causation cannot exist. However, (5) shows that a functioning principle of causation can only be the case if God exists. Therefore, God is an a priori an antecedent condition to any cause-effect relation since there are no possible worlds where God is not an antecedent condition to any cause-effect relation. Now, there are conceivable worlds where God does not exist (i.e., there are worlds that don't have a functioning principle of causation), however those worlds even though they "exist" as conceptions do not have any real existence since they do not have a functioning principle of causation (i.e., (1)). Of all the conceptual worlds that exist, only the real one exists--that is, the one that God exists. The others are merely conceivable but not possible, thus not real.

No, the problem I was trying to highlight was how you're able to show a priori why God turns out to be such a nice guy. You say that the OI interpretation cannot be false from lack of this and that -- but it says nothing about many of the other properties commonly ascribed to God and his divine plan. For your hypothesis to be better than mine you have to be able to show a priori why we must end up with a universe like this.

[harvey1]

[*] Satisfaction requires comprehension that the cause and effect relation is satisfied

This always looks weird to me. What's wrong with material satisfaction?

There's no such animal. Satisfaction is a semantic/metaphysical concept. If you treat truth semantically (e.g., a la Alan Tarski), then satisfaction is a semantic concept. If you treat truth as a realist such as myself, then you need a metaphysical notion of satisfaction. If you treat truth in an antirealist sense, which is how extreme reductionists would see the concept, then you don't need a satisfaction concept. That is, an antirealist about truth (i.e., a deflationist account of truth) reduces just to a material state of affairs. To say something is "satisfied" would be a pseudo-term to a deflationist. It would be equivalent of saying that the object is a rock because the rock satisfies the definition of a rock. The phrase "because the rock satisfies the definition of a rock" isn't saying anything because the material entity that was referred to in the phrase: "the object is a rock" already tells you that the object referred to is a rock. If it is a rock, then the semantics do not change the fact of the matter. If it is not a rock, then the semantical satisfication concept does not magically make it a rock. The object is what it is. Period.

Comprehension requires mind, or an Omniscient Interpreter (OI) (from 2 & 3)

Sure, comprehension would require a mind but those two things are intimately related so your choice of words is not as neutral as you might like it to appear.

It really doesn't matter. I can scratch comprehension and shortcut to mind. Either case, satisfaction is a semantic term. If treated as a metaphysical term then it requires a semantic interpreter which is a mind capable of comprehension of whatever it is that needs satisfaction.

Therefore, the OI is the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God (from 5)

Another case of careful selection of words? Where, for instance does omnibenevolence find its way in here? I can imagine there being great consistency in the opposite of benevolence.

We just discussed this issue here. I'm still waiting for your response to my post here.

No, the problem I was trying to highlight was how you're able to show a priori why God turns out to be such a nice guy. You say that the OI interpretation cannot be false from lack of this and that -- but it says nothing about many of the other properties commonly ascribed to God and his divine plan. For your hypothesis to be better than mine you have to be able to show a priori why we must end up with a universe like this.

I don't think any of us can show why the universe must be like it is. However, there are good reasons to believe this universe is better understood as a result of an omniscient interpreter being present. If you are interested, then please start a new thread on that subject...

[QED]

[*] Satisfaction requires comprehension that the cause and effect relation is satisfied

This always looks weird to me. What's wrong with material satisfaction?

There's no such animal. Satisfaction is a semantic/metaphysical concept. If you treat truth semantically (e.g., a la Alan Tarski), then satisfaction is a semantic concept. If you treat truth as a realist such as myself, then you need a metaphysical notion of satisfaction. If you treat truth in an antirealist sense, which is how extreme reductionists would see the concept, then you don't need a satisfaction concept. That is, an antirealist about truth (i.e., a deflationist account of truth) reduces just to a material state of affairs. To say something is "satisfied" would be a pseudo-term to a deflationist. It would be equivalent of saying that the object is a rock because the rock satisfies the definition of a rock. The phrase "because the rock satisfies the definition of a rock" isn't saying anything because the material entity that was referred to in the phrase: "the object is a rock" already tells you that the object referred to is a rock. If it is a rock, then the semantics do not change the fact of the matter. If it is not a rock, then the semantical satisfication concept does not magically make it a rock. The object is what it is. Period.

Well this seem more suited to another hot topic. I'm sure I've just argued there that satisfaction of truths can arise from material interactions.

Comprehension requires mind, or an Omniscient Interpreter (OI) (from 2 & 3)

Sure, comprehension would require a mind but those two things are intimately related so your choice of words is not as neutral as you might like it to appear.

It really doesn't matter. I can scratch comprehension and shortcut to mind. Either case, satisfaction is a semantic term. If treated as a metaphysical term then it requires a semantic interpreter which is a mind capable of comprehension of whatever it is that needs satisfaction.

You do get an awful lot of mileage out of this concept of an OI. It's a trivial enough concept alright, but why should we accept it as being any more than an abstract piece of philosophy? I can't make any useful connection between it and the world I live in. It's pretty clear that I'm not alone in this either. If it was as sure-fire an argument as you claim it to be then every scientist would be compelled to drop everything and scurry around looking for the OI himself. Sounds like it's still firmly stuck in the religion department to me.

We just discussed this issue here. I'm still waiting for your response to my post here.

Rats -- I'm sure I replied to that. I remember doing so quite clearly. Oh well, back to the drafting board.

I don't think any of us can show why the universe must be like it is. However, there are good reasons to believe this universe is better understood as a result of an omniscient interpreter being present. If you are interested, then please start a new thread on that subject...

If only poor Donald Davidson was alive and able to see what you're doing with his baby. I'm not all that interested, but I might be if you can show me other people taking this seriously as a way of understanding the universe.

[harvey1]

I can't make any useful connection between it and the world I live in. It's pretty clear that I'm not alone in this either. If it was as sure-fire an argument as you claim it to be then every scientist would be compelled to drop everything and scurry around looking for the OI himself. Sounds like it's still firmly stuck in the religion department to me.

Science generally doesn't bother much with metaphysics. In any case, you asked me for my views and that's why I shared those views with you. If you think the concept is wrong, then show me in logical form how that argument is wrong. Just saying so does not make it so.

If only poor Donald Davidson was alive and able to see what you're doing with his baby.

Since he's dead, you don't have to feel sorry for him. I haven't said that these are his ideas, so I don't see how this is related to his particular philosophical concerns. I used aspects of his philosophy in application to metaphysics because I think it applies. This should never be interpreted as a perversion of his thoughts since I make it clear that these are my thoughts, not his.

I'm not all that interested, but I might be if you can show me other people taking this seriously as a way of understanding the universe.

Well, what I've done with the OI is bring in multiple ontological arguments into the heading of an omniscient interpreter. For example, Alvin Plantinga provided a half dozen (or so) ontological arguments for God's existence. The OI provides an interpretation function, and this is what is required to some extent in each of those ontological arguments.

Although, I think it is important to construct a view of ontology from first principles. Something simple that doesn't require unlikely possibilities (e.g., a Universe full of infinite universes that exist for no reason). In my opinion, we can always imagine a world that began 5 minutes ago stocked with memories, but it is unparsimonious to propose such a thing.

[QED]

Well, what I've done with the OI is bring in multiple ontological arguments into the heading of an omniscient interpreter. For example, Alvin Plantinga provided a half dozen (or so) ontological arguments for God's existence. The OI provides an interpretation function, and this is what is required to some extent in each of those ontological arguments.

Although, I think it is important to construct a view of ontology from first principles. Something simple that doesn't require unlikely possibilities (e.g., a Universe full of infinite universes that exist for no reason). In my opinion, we can always imagine a world that began 5 minutes ago stocked with memories, but it is unparsimonious to propose such a thing.

I've just sat and read through that entire A to Z of theistic arguments you linked me to Harvey. I would guess that you'd reject all but a couple of them yourself. What's left amounts to a couple of debates we've been engaged in here (but please indicate to me if there's anything relevant that we haven't been over before).

But what in the name of all that is good has a 5 minute old universe stocked with memories got to do with anything I'm proposing? You obviously see it as a damming indictment against multiple universes as you keep on bringing it up over and over again but I can never get my head around it. The improbability of all the atoms acquiring their exact quantum sates (position, spin velocity etc.) out of all the other possible states they might otherwise have is what tells us that it is unlikely that we might find ourselves living in a 5 minute old universe stocked with memories.

But this is not the case with the sort of universal origins I'm considering. You are proposing some process whereby our (the one and only) universe is created. I say a process because we must both agree that there is something (ultimately a brute fact) which transforms nothingness into somethingness. You propose a hyper-intelligence that is capable of rigging-up a process such that it delivers the precise tuning we all know about. I don't like this on account of not being able to see where the smarts come from in order to get the interesting universe we do (Galaxies etc.). I don't buy that only goodness can drop out of your OI on account of consistency or whatever.

I can't see any good reason for this particular universe to be the only inevitable one such that you could claim a priori it to be the one that God would create. I'm therefore proposing a process which is freed from these problems by virtue of it following from the universal principles of evolution that we are already comfortable with. The only requirement is that the process delivers a prototyping area from which embryonic universes can form and evolve. I think you ought to realise that more sophisticated state spaces can in turn evolve with these universes meaning that working backwards, we will expect to see lesser and lesser sophistication of state spaces. The selection criteria is what gives the universes their character and this would suggest that the properties of our universe are also critical to the continued regeneration. As a consequence we arrive at the fine tuning in just the same way that the evolution of life leads to apparently improbable complex structures like eyes (which seem to be the favourite naysayers example).

(I nearly continued this in the brute fact thread but then realised it had everything to do with order in the cosmos!)