Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why the natural universe exists?

[William]

I initially thought about posting this in the Science and Religion forum because I think it is most appropriate , but decided that the Christianity and Apologetics forum might garner more interest in the subject.

Q: Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why our natural universe exists?


I ask the question because a recent interaction with a Christian who insisted that this was the only plausible conclusion one could reach to explain why we and the universe exist.
Indeed, many Christians argue the necessity for the supernatural to explain the natural.

Some of the key points for discussion/debate.


The influence of Christian beliefs: The cosmological argument has been shaped and influenced by certain Christian perspectives, which can impact its perceived validity.

Alternative explanations: A supernatural explanation may not be necessary to account for the existence of the natural universe, and that simpler explanations without invoking supernatural elements can be considered.

Different interpretations of "supernatural": The definition of "supernatural" and whether it necessarily implies a separate and distinct realm from the natural universe.

Critique of the cosmological argument in natural theology: Re the OP question, counterarguments to this cosmological argument, challenging the assumption that a supernatural cause is required to explain the existence of the natural universe.

(A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.)

Context and historical origins: The importance of considering the historical context and origins of the cosmological argument in order to engage in a more comprehensive discussion.

Validity of alternative arguments: Alternative explanations should not be dismissed simply because they reach different conclusions from the OP questioning that cosmological argument, and that critical evaluation of different perspectives is necessary for a robust discussion.

[fredonly]

Sorry for the delay in responding. There’s a lot to cover.

Indeed, but this still doesn't necessitate the God would have to exist outside of our natural universe and be responsible for the creation of our natural universe.
The idea of a Universal Mind could be regarded as a "God".

Agreed on both points.

It's initial state was a "functional form" that made some evolution inevitable or at least probable. As I described in Sean Carroll's model, quantum fluctuation results in a big bang. This may, or may not, be true- but it demonstrates that it is logically possible to have a finite past with an initial state - thus defeating the theist argument from ignorance.

Still, this idea does not explain the apparent magical aspect - it only explains that something did not come from nothing, not why something came from something. It does not explain what it was that prompted the bedrock to begin to organize itself into functional forms. Obviously the bedrock is a functional form in and of itself.

You seem to be making some assumptions I disagree with:
1.There's something "magical". IMO, what occurs is entirely a consequence of blind natural law. It's not magical that the electrons and quarks form atoms under certain conditions. The same for higher orders of complex, functional forms.
2. "Why did something come from nothing?" In my model, it is not the case that “something came from nothing”. An initial state didn’t “come from” anything, because there is nothing prior to it.

There's good philosophical reasons to believe the past is finite, so you're conceding defeat if you simply insist it must be infinite. A knowledgeable theist can account for either a finite or infinite past. You lose half the battle if you agree a finite past entails God.

Unless "God" and "Universal Mind" are considered to being the same. In order for that to take place, the theist would have to agree that supernaturalism is off the table.

Not at all. Thomas Aquinas metaphysics is consistent with an infinite past, arguing that God is the prime mover/sustainer of the natural world.

I think you have misunderstood my argument. I was not saying that there are multiple universe simultaneously existing independently from each other. I was saying that it is the one and only the one, and that it goes through what we within it would regard as a beginning, and that the formation of interdependent objects is temporal (even that in terms of time relevant to our own planet, these temporal forms last for ages.

Thus, based on the hypothetical that this universe will one day have an end, there is no reason why we cannot think of this event as simply an end to what was, not an end to what could follow because if we accept that this current universe is a product of something which organizes itself into functional formations, (objects) there should be no reason why we cannot accept that it couldn't do it again, therefore there is no reason why we cannot accept that this process has always being doing this very thing.

I just don’t think you’re justified in saying this universe is the only one, because we don’t really know that. Multiple universes could emerge from the same initial starting point, but they would be causally disconnected from one another – there’s no reference point between them that could measure time – so there’s no before/after between events in one universe and those in another.

You’re suggesting a different scenario, in which there’s a sequence: this universe dies, setting conditions for a new universe. That’s plausible, but it doesn’t defeat the philosophical argument against a infinite past:

Fred’s Argument Against An Infinite Past]/b]
A finite past implies we reached TODAY through an infinite sequence of steps, each step taking a finite amount of time (such as days). That seems impossible. Here’s why:

When mathematicians work with infinities (e.g. calculus or transfinite math), they are working with abstract objects, with well defined mathematical properties and relations to other mathematical objects. The mathematical logic is rooted in those mathematical properties (eg infiinity > all integers; the set of real numbers > the set of natural numbers). However, abstractions don't necessarily map into the real world. So the question is: how can a mathematical infinity be mapped into the actual, temporal world?

Consider the future, which has the potential to never end. Each day follows the next, but at no point would “infinity” be reached. Each day would be a finite number of days from the present. We will never reach a day at which we can look back and assert an infinite amount of time has passed. So a temporal infinity just entails an unending process: there’s always more days ahead.

But the past is completed: we have REACHED today by progressing one day at a time; the process has ended. This contradicts the notion that temporal infinity is an unending process.

This is not a mathematical proof, because I haven’t proven there can be no such mapping to an infinite past, but no such mapping has ever been proposed, and none seems possible. So it provides a strong justification to reject an infinite past.

If multiverse do exist, they would need to be interdependent in order for them to be regarded as "natural" otherwise we would have to regard them as "supernatural".

I define natural/naturalism differently:

The natural: That which exists (has existed, or will exist) including ourselves, everything that is causally connected to ourselves through laws of nature, and anything not causally connected (such as alternate universes) that can be inferred to exist, to have existed, or that will exist, through analysis of our universe.

Naturalism:s a metaphysical system based on the assumption that the totality of reality is natural.

The traditional understanding of God is of an entity that is not natural, in the above sense. He can take actions that are independent of the natural world (e.g. create angels) and he can act on the natural world independently of laws of nature. Your definition doesn’t distinguish God apart from parallel universes (even if you deny they exist, they are at least hypothetical). Parallel universes, if they exist, would be based on the same fundamental laws of nature as our own – perhaps arranged different, with different functional units which interact differently than the functional units in our universe.

Currently there doesn't appear to be any good argument against insisting on only one universe since there is only one universe we are experiencing as a reality, and the very word includes the idea of only one object (even that within the one object there are many interdependent/related objects.)
I am open to being shown why it is a mistake to regard the idea that there is only one universe, but for now think that is the best approach to take.

There is no accepted physics that accounts for the big bang, but a number of hypotheses have been proposed by theoretical physicists. I alluded to Sean Carroll’s hypothesis- and in his account, multiple universes are inevitable. Alexander Vilenkin has a very different hypothesis, but it also makes multiple universes inevitable. Many physicists accept the “many worlds interpretation” of quantum mechanics, and this too implies multiple universes (lots of them). Pending some widely accepted theory that shows there’s only one universe, it’s more reasonable to remain open-minded to the possibility. Leave it to physics to figure this out. Otherwise, your metaphysical framework will be vulnerable to falsification, or you’re be forced to dismiss good theory that contradicts your metaphysics, solely out of dogmatism.

You're playing into the hands of theists when you say the universe "created itself". The universe evolved from an earlier state, and there may very well have been an initial state. As I said, I'm inclined to think an infinite past is logically impossible. But I'm also driven to defeat theist cosmological arguments in the broadest possible way. A finite past does not entail an external creator or teleology.

As I mentioned, I am developing a Natural Philosophy which is designed to bridge the differences between Materialism and Supernaturalism. It is not my intention to alienate either side of those opposing positions and regardless of your own personal drive to defeat theism, that alone is insufficient reason for me to adopt the same approach. Indeed, I consider such motivation to being a manifestation of cognitive bias intent upon keeping the status quo operating rather than useful as a sincere device for bridging differences through philosophical ideas and discussion.

In my discussions with theists, I’ve tried to keep an open mind – but call out the issues I see. I’ve discussed each of their well-known theistic arguments, and have acknowledged they’re all valid and possibly sound. But I point out why they may be unsound, and it’s always because they depend on debatable metaphysical assumptions. This is exactly what I’m doing with you. I do acknowledge that your theory may be true, but I’m trying to explain why it might be false. (Ultimately, all we can do is to weigh the pros and con of a theory). So my way of building a bridge with anyone is to try and approach each discussion with an agnostic viewpoint (obviously, I’m not perfect at this, but it’s my objective).

Metaphysical assumptions aren’t provable, but I choose to tentatively accept some aspects simply because it seems the best explanation based on my personally weighing the pros/cons. That’s why I said I tentatively accept materialism, because we know the material world exists and it seems able to account for nearly everything.

I question your approach to bridge-building, because it sounds like you’re making assumptions that are too specific, unproveable, and potentially dogmatic. We don’t really know if the past is finite or infinite, but you seem to dismiss the possibility of finite. If you want to bridge the gap with theists, you shouldn’t dismiss an assumption many of them make. That builds a wall, not a bridge. Why not accept that they could be right – and examine the implications. For example, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is based on the premise the universe “began to exist”. Dogmatically asserting that the past is infinite ends the discussion.

In truth, there is no current scientific explanation for abiogenesis, but that doesn't justify accepting an argument from ignorance.

I do not advocate arguing from ignorance. I advocate questioning hand-waving non-explanations.

In this case, there are nothing BUT hand-waving explanations on either side. The existence of life doesn’t actually point in either direction, because it’s consistent with both theism and naturalism.

Consider a molecule: it is more complex than its component atoms. In general, objects composed of other objects are more complex than those constituent parts - because it includes those parts plus it has a particular arrangement. So I strongly disagree that there are no relative degrees of complexity.

Relative to human comprehension, perhaps. But my argument is that everything is complex, and even if we agree that the bedrock is the least complex of all the complexity, the bedrock is still not understood, so how is it we can believe we understand even the more complex things which came from the bedrock particle, of we have no handle on the complexities which we can measure and evaluate and form hypothesis about?

Another thing worth considering IMO is that these complexities are not separate from the bedrock, but the bedrock is integral to their existence, and so how is it we can think we understand the complexities of the objects without having an understanding of the whole, including the bedrock?

Ignorance of the bedrock doesn’t impede understanding the macro world at a functional level, it just means there are limits to what we can know. We understand a lot about Chemistry at the functional level, but we do not generally try to explain chemical reactions with quantum mechanics (although there is a branch of Chemistry that does that: Quantum Chemistry).

Are you familiar with Reductionism? It the assumption that high level, functional science is (in principle) reducible to fundamental physics (the most fundamental we have). It isn’t proveable, but most physical scientists believe it to be the case. The alternative is ontological emergence: the idea that high level function is not reducible in principle. Reductionism is defended on the basis that no functions have been found to be inconsistent with the laws of physics. Emergentists beg to differ: they point to the mental, which has aspects that are challenging to account for.

Thus, we are left with hypotheticals and human consciousness is required to lay aside presumption and prejudice if it is to come to any sound agreement and work diligently to amalgamate the apposing hypothesis into one agreed upon overall acceptable hypothesis. In that, there is still much work to be done.

There are definitely challenges in philosophy of mind, but the challenges and debates in that field are at the functional level: the mind-body problem; accounting for intentionality, beliefs, semantics,… It would be wonderful to come up with an agreed upon hypothesis, but that’s not likely to occur unless it turns out to be completely explainable by science. We’re nowhere close to that, and what if it turns out to have a non-physical component? It wouldn’t be scientifically analyzable, so it would be unprovable.

Consider the universe as this "electric motor" then and see that this is what I am saying. The whole universe, including the bedrock, is "more complex than its parts." You appear to be arguing on the one hand that its parts are more complex than its whole, (by saying that the parts which come from the whole are more complex) while on the other hand, appear now to be arguing the opposite. To me, that is more the case your argument is coming from treating complexity as a binary thing (dualism). I am not. I am saying that there is no "not" (complex OR not) but only that the whole thing is complex and the appearance of seeming "more complex objects than the objects these derive from/are built upon", is the actual binary perspective and if indeed you disagree with having a binary perspective, you may want to reexamine your philosophy and make the necessary adjustments to form a more unified perspective.

You gloss over the fact that there are macro functions taking place. An electric motor is doing some work, such as moving a vehicle from place to place. This function is surely entirely consistent with the lowest level physics, but one wouldn’t go about trying to understand it by starting with quantum field theory. What you seem to be ignoring is that high level functionality is describable in high level terms, without getting out the electron microscope. Predictions can be made without understanding the minute details, and this is the basis for most of science (the only exception: theoretical physicists studying the most fundamental stuff).

Plus we observe stark differences in the mental abilities of other animals.

Humans may be operating with cognitive bias in that regard.
As an example, I accept that since bees do not create machinery which allow for them to explore the universe in the same way that humans can, this has more to do with function of form that of mind, which is to say, we do not know that if a bee mind is that different from a human mind, or any other animals mind. We only know that a bees form doesn't enable its mind to create such machinery.

I’m pretty sure most scientists would agree with me that humans have more flexible mental skills, but of course – we can’t really peer into the minds of other animals.

Which is also to point out that of all the complex things we do understand a little about, the most complex appears to be the mind itself, which is another way of saying, we don't understand ourselves (as minds) even that we might understand a great deal about our forms.

Fair points. I agree.

Re that, to relegate the human mind as an accident re the process of cosmology, or something no more than a "non-thing" or "hallucination" of a brain, may be synonymous with understanding ourselves incorrectly. Such hand-waving explanations can't be great for the overall mental health of the human race and IMO is as destructive as religious fear and guilt.

We may understand ourselves incorrectly no matter which metaphysical assumption we make – because there’s no way to establish the truth. Re: mental health, one could argue that religion is good for mental health – regardless of whether or not its true. However, that fact doesn’t have any power to persuade a person to accept a religion.

There is no reason I can see that it cannot be accepted that all it would take is lots of "time" for such things as Galaxies, Stars, and Planets to develop mindfulness or that a Universal Mind is the bedrock particle of said universal objects.

We are minds within form, so why can't the universe be a form for an overall mind and we are intricately related to said mind?

It's logically possible, but there's no apparent evidence for it.

Yes there is. Re biological forms, these derive from the planet itself and this can be regarded as evidence that the planet itself is conscious. That is logically possible AND apparent evidence.
The evidence apparent might not be accepted by either Supernaturalism or Materialism but I argue that this is the case due to the restrictions those philosophies place upon the minds of those who believe in the hypothesis built through said positions, making it extremely difficult for the adherents to accept the evidence as apparent.

The presence of life on earth can also be considered evidence for abiogenesis or the Adam & Eve story. IOW, it’s consistent with your hypothesis, but it doesn’t entail it. So, as I suggested – you have an explanatory hypothesis. IOW, your hypothesis is that a Universal Mind explains a set of facts.

You gave two contradictory possibilities: the Universal Mind evolved into existence over billions of years, or it is the bedrock itself. The problem I see with it evolving is that it’s inconsistent with what we know about biological evolution: life evolves in response to the environment, for long term survival. Individual organisms don’t survive, rather their genes survive. I see nothing analogous here, no driver for a universal mind to develop.

As a bedrock, my prior objection remains: it assumes a mind (minds?) just happens to exist. But also, I compare it to human minds. Even if the mind is not entirely physical, there are essential elements that are clearly physical – including memory. We know memories depend on physical structure because it vanishes or gets altered by disease and trauma. There’s also a dependency on sensory perception – seeing, hearing, smelling…These require physical organs. Are any of these present in your universal mind, and is there some physical aspect to them? Finally, there are neural correlates to mental activity: neurons fire. Is there something analogous in the universal mind?

In principle, you can pose it as an explanatory hypothesis, but then you have to show how it's a better explanation than alternatives.

Where do/have the alternatives get/gotten us, that these necessarily give us "better" or even "best"? So far it appears that folk either accept Materialism OR Supernaturalism and deny there can be an alternative to those positions.

You’re close to an argument from ignorance: we haven’t fully explained the existence of minds (or life), so it must be Universal Mind. This is avoided by showing why you believe Universal Mind is a better explanation than alternatives. It would help if you could outline your theory in more detail, because thus far I’ve only gotten a vague understanding that you believe there exists some sort of Universal Mind, that somehow influences other minds to develop.

Do you deny that minds are the product of brain activity?

If this is a statement of fact, and by "brains" you mean strictly carbon-based biological brains, sure I deny that. I agree that the evidence can look/be interpreted that way, but that is different from agreeing to such as a verified fact.

Do you agree that human minds are the product of brain activity?

How does an unembodied mind affect matter, shaping evolution?

Re the Universal Mind, It is embodied in the Objects which comprise this ever-changing non-static Universe, so the question should be, "Why would we regard a Universal Mind as being able to be unembodied from the object of the physical universe?" and that question has much to do with the hypothesis to explain alternate experiences human minds have - which I am happy to discuss with you once/if we get on the same page re the bedrock particle.

OK, so it sounds like you’re not assuming dualism – the notion that minds exist independently. You seem to agree that there’s some sort of dependence on physical activity. Please confirm.

I don’t understand what you mean by “getting on the same page” regarding the “bedrock particle”. I explained my view of the ontic bedrock, but I don’t know what your view is.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #61]

I have to go away for a day so will reply to your post when I return.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #61]

Sorry for the delay in responding. There’s a lot to cover.

No problem. I am glad you are making the effort to critique the Natural Philosophy I am presenting.

Agreed on both points.

Okay.

This idea does not explain the apparent magical aspect - it only explains that something did not come from nothing, not why something came from something.

You seem to be making some assumptions I disagree with:
1.There's something "magical". IMO, what occurs is entirely a consequence of blind natural law.

The assumption that nature is blind allows for the problem of consciousness to remain unsolved.

It's not magical that the electrons and quarks form atoms under certain conditions. The same for higher orders of complex, functional forms.

It is the "certain conditions" to which I am specifically looking to answer the question "why something came from something" and whether those conditions necessitate consciousness being involved, re the Universal Mind.

2. "Why did something come from nothing?" In my model, it is not the case that “something came from nothing”. An initial state didn’t “come from” anything, because there is nothing prior to it.

My question is "why did something came from something?" as in "what was the cause?"
Did it involve consciousness? In that, I am taking the assumption that the act was deliberate, purposeful and thus mindful, rather than the assumption it all magically just happened "mindlessly."

Unless "God" and "Universal Mind" are considered to being the same. In order for that to take place, the theist would have to agree that supernaturalism is off the table.

Not at all.

Did you not agree that the idea of a Universal Mind could be regarded as a "God".

Thomas Aquinas metaphysics is consistent with an infinite past, arguing that God is the prime mover/sustainer of the natural world.

Does Thomas Aquinas metaphysics argue that "God" is supernatural? If so, then that aspect of Thomas Aquinas metaphysics can be removed from the table.
Note: It has come to my attention recently that "tabling" something means "removing it from the discussion" if one is using the term the way Americans do, but I am meaning it the way the English use the term - to denote something is "on the table of discussion" so when I say something is "off the table" (in this case - any argument for supernaturalism) I mean that it is not part of the discussion had at the (this particular) table.

I just don’t think you’re justified in saying this universe is the only one, because we don’t really know that.

I do not think it is important to the discussion regarding the universe we experience and acknowledge the existence of. If you can explain why the existence of multiple universes is necessary to answering the OP question, I am open to hearing about this.

Multiple universes could emerge from the same initial starting point, but they would be causally disconnected from one another –

There "could be" a near-infinite number of universes going through the same process, but - like supernaturalism - we have no way to know and there doesn't seem to be any clear point being made why the notion should be included in this discussion, as the focus is on the one universe we do know about.

If all universes emerged from the same reference point, then they are related to that reference point and it is that reference point which is the bedrock and the fundamental thing to which the focus is on, and that reference point has to be natural and all other universe are consequently natural in and of themselves and in relation to each other.

there’s no reference point between them that could measure time – so there’s no before/after between events in one universe and those in another.

This appears to be saying that the reference point is in a timeless state, which is something I argued for in relation to this one universe we are discussing - the one we are current experiencing as Intentional Thinking Agents - it has a beginning, will likely have an ending by reverting back into a timeless state, and - as I argued - that there is no reason why we cannot think of this event as simply an end to what was, not an end to what could follow because if we accept that this current universe is a product of something which organizes itself into functional formations, (objects) there should be no reason why we cannot accept that it couldn't do it again, therefore there is no reason why we cannot accept that this process has always being doing this very thing.

This is not a mathematical proof, because I haven’t proven there can be no such mapping to an infinite past, but no such mapping has ever been proposed, and none seems possible. So it provides a strong justification to reject an infinite past.

In my model, the infinite is not about organized matter but timeless matter. In that sense we could agree that timeless matter has always existed and that is its quintessential state. There is no "past" or "future" but there still is the eternal existence of the unorganized matter and whatever organizes said matter into temporal, non eternal objects.

It is the organizing of the matter which creates "time", so in that sense, each "time" a universe of organized matter is created, there is a beginning and it ends when the matter reverts back to its natural timeless (unorganized) state.
The idea of an "infinite past" is simply the notion that this process has always been going on and it cannot be mapped by any human, because there are an infinite "number" of universe already been and gone, and an infinite "number" of universe yet to happen.

In that sense we can agree that there is no point in trying to "count" infinite "numbers" because - logically - this cannot be done.
Even so, just because it cannot be counted does not mean this process hasn't been going on eternally and will not continue eternally.


In this way, the problem of infinite regression is solved, because the answer is that this process has always existed - and has never not existed. Timeless Unorganized Matter has always existed. Universes of organized matter come and go, from that "initial starting point" as you refer to it. It is the bedrock particle from where the initial starting point organised universes arise, which has always existed.

My argument re the initial starting point/Timeless Unorganized Matter is that is has to be conscious/mindful and thus mindfulness has also always existed. I presently also think that Timeless Unorganized Matter and Mind may be indistiguishable rather than there being 2 things - Unorganized Matter AND Mind. I think Timeless Unorganized Matter = Mind.

The natural: That which exists (has existed, or will exist) including ourselves, everything that is causally connected to ourselves through laws of nature, and anything not causally connected (such as alternate universes) that can be inferred to exist, to have existed, or that will exist, through analysis of our universe.

Agreed. That is why I wrote that if multiverse do exist, they would need to be interdependent. There is no such state as "supernatural". All that exists would naturally have to be natural.

The traditional understanding of God is of an entity that is not natural...

Correct. The Natural Philosophy I am developing and arguing for, has no necessity for traditional understanding of a supernatural God/Gods.

Pending some widely accepted theory that shows there’s only one universe, it’s more reasonable to remain open-minded to the possibility. Leave it to physics to figure this out. Otherwise, your metaphysical framework will be vulnerable to falsification, or you’re be forced to dismiss good theory that contradicts your metaphysics, solely out of dogmatism.

Hopefully with my extra clarification you will understand that my metaphysical framework is able to include any number of multiple universes, as long as these are all related to the same fundamental bedrock particle reference point.

In my discussions with theists, I’ve tried to keep an open mind – but call out the issues I see. I’ve discussed each of their well-known theistic arguments, and have acknowledged they’re all valid and possibly sound. But I point out why they may be unsound, and it’s always because they depend on debatable metaphysical assumptions. This is exactly what I’m doing with you. I do acknowledge that your theory may be true, but I’m trying to explain why it might be false. (Ultimately, all we can do is to weigh the pros and con of a theory). So my way of building a bridge with anyone is to try and approach each discussion with an agnostic viewpoint (obviously, I’m not perfect at this, but it’s my objective).

Hopefully my further clarifications will go toward assisting with the bridge building between us.

I question your approach to bridge-building, because it sounds like you’re making assumptions that are too specific, unproveable, and potentially dogmatic. We don’t really know if the past is finite or infinite, but you seem to dismiss the possibility of finite.

Hopefully my clarification re this will help you to understand that without this overall process having always existed it means that there is no requirement to ask "what created it" as one has to do re the idea of a supernatural creator-being (God) because it never was created, and that which it creates from itself, is the temporal aspect which can be said to have been created.

As you are probable aware - the argument that a supernatural creator God was never created, but has simply always existed...I simple take that argument and apply it to the natural bedrock particle and since traditionally "God" is also regarded as (supernaturally) mindful, I think it reasonable to dispense with that idea by simply making it that the natural unorganized timeless matter is mindful, and naturally so...thus dealing with the problem of consciousness.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is based on the premise the universe “began to exist”

If I understand that argument, "God" is still presumed to be supernatural. If the KCA wasn't dogmatic on that point, it could easily fit with this Natural Philosophy.

I am happy to drop the idea if the supernatural could be explained as to WHY it is necessary, which is what this thread is about exploring.

I do not advocate arguing from ignorance. I advocate questioning hand-waving non-explanations.

In this case, there are nothing BUT hand-waving explanations on either side.

Part of the problem of some of your replies is that you are not reading me correctly to begin with and so answering/critiquing things I didn't actually write, which is why I am having to clarify.

I specifically wrote "non-explanations" as being hand-waving. Explanations are fine and I try to make mine as simple as possible and do not simply hand-wave away the ideas of supernaturalism or materialism, but explain why those ideas are not necessary or not necessarily correct.

In reading the rest of your post, I think it is unnecessary for now to make further comment until we can agree to the above clarifications I have given, or you have further objections which require answers from me re my clarifications above.

But please, do try to read what I write and answer that specifically and if you are unsure as to what I am arguing, do not hesitate to ask for clarification.

And again, thank You for taking time to engage with me on this subject.
Cheers
W

[fredonly]

William – Instead of responding to all your points, I’d like to focus on some of your key issues.
You refer to a “problem of consciousness”. Please describe what this problem is.

You also said,

the initial starting point/Timeless Unorganized Matter is that is has to be conscious/mindful and thus mindfulness has also always existed.

Why must it be conscious/mindful?

Why must it have always existed?

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #64]

You refer to a “problem of consciousness”. Please describe what this problem is.

The hard problem of consciousness is a philosophical problem concerning why and how humans and other organisms have qualia, phenomenal consciousness, or subjective experiences.

The initial starting point/Timeless Unorganized Matter is that is has to be conscious/mindful and thus mindfulness has also always existed.

Why must it be conscious/mindful?

It "must have", in line with the Natural Philosophy I am building. Just as other philosophies might state that it "must not" be conscious, in line with those particular philosophies.
The reason for the consideration has to do with explaining the existence of consciousness outside of the framework of either materialist philosophy or supernaturalist philosophy.

Why must it have always existed?

The hypothesis is that if all organized matter had a base to start from, and consciousness is - as we know - a part of the overall organization of matter, and matter is organized, it stands to reason it was organized mindfully rather than accidently.

Since the hypothesis has it that all organized matter begins from an unorganized state and that that state is eternal (as per what I have explained in my previous post) - then there is no reason to think that consciousness isn't also an aspect of that unorganized state, and that which is necessary in order to organize matter.

[fredonly]

The hard problem of consciousness is a philosophical problem concerning why and how humans and other organisms have qualia, phenomenal consciousness, or subjective experiences.

How does the existence of a Universal Mind (UM) solve the hard problem? Does the UM experience qualia itself? If so, how do you account for this experience?

Why must it be conscious/mindful?

It "must have", in line with the Natural Philosophy I am building. Just as other philosophies might state that it "must not" be conscious, in line with those particular philosophies.
The reason for the consideration has to do with explaining the existence of consciousness outside of the framework of either materialist philosophy or supernaturalist philosophy.

I think you're just saying this is a premise of your metaphysical model, and you justify believing this premise because other models can't explain the hard problem.

But so far, you haven't actually explained it. How does the existence of a universal mind explain the qualia that I experience?

Why must it have always existed?

The hypothesis is that if all organized matter had a base to start from, and consciousness is - as we know - a part of the overall organization of matter, and matter is organized, it stands to reason it was organized mindfully rather than accidently.

How does a UM cause matter to organize? Why must that be the case? Couldn't it simply get organized as a consequence of laws of nature? Do you deny the existence of laws of nature, and instead just claim this UM is causing these things to occur? What are the powers of this UM?

Since the hypothesis has it that all organized matter begins from an unorganized state and that that state is eternal (as per what I have explained in my previous post) - then there is no reason to think that consciousness isn't also an aspect of that unorganized state, and that which is necessary in order to organize matter.

So UM exists even in a disorganized state. In that case, why bother to organize matter? Are our minds dependent on the organization of matter in our brains? Why should that be, if UM has no such dependency?

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #66]

How does the existence of a Universal Mind (UM) solve the hard problem?

The same way that the eternal existence/nature of the Bedrock Particle solves the problem of infinite regress. I touched on this in post # 63.

Does the UM experience qualia itself?

It is conscious and it is organizing the physical universe, so yes.

If so, how do you account for this experience?

Please clarify.

I think you're just saying this is a premise of your metaphysical model, and you justify believing this premise because other models can't explain the hard problem.

I think it is possible and logical and yes, worth thinking about because the other models can't explain the hard problems, so I naturally lean toward the one which does.

But so far, you haven't actually explained it. How does the existence of a universal mind explain the qualia that I experience?

You are mind. The existence of minds explain the existence of a universal mind.

How does your philosophy explain the qualia you experience?

The Natural Philosophy I am developing has it that we are consciousness, not that we are something else experiencing being conscious.
Thus the qualia we - minds experiencing being humans - experience, has to do with the human instrument/form.
[Qualia (singular: quale) is a term that philosophers use to describe the nature, or content, of our subjective experiences. What we are aware of when we see, hear, taste, touch or smell are our qualia.]

How does a UM cause matter to organize?

How does matter organize? You have touched on this yourself, so simply add mindfulness to that process and you have the answer to your question.

Why must that be the case? Couldn't it simply get organized as a consequence of laws of nature?

What we call "laws of nature" is how matter is mindfully organized. Organized matter emerges from (UM) mindfulness, rather than UM emerging from organized matter.

Do you deny the existence of laws of nature, and instead just claim this UM is causing these things to occur?

No.
The "laws of nature" are evidence of the process the UM is using.

What are the powers of this UM?

As almighty as the universe, naturally.

So UM exists even in a disorganized state. In that case, why bother to organize matter?

Why not bother?

Are our minds dependent on the organization of matter in our brains?

Yes. Without our brains (including the nervous system) we cannot experience being human and develop human personalities. It is possible that we minds have organizing influence on our brains as well.

Certainly we minds can further organize matter into functional items, as per my previous comments re bees and humans et al.

Why should that be, if UM has no such dependency?

Please clarify. Did I argue UM is independent from what the matter it organizes?

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #66]

How does the existence of a Universal Mind (UM) solve the hard problem?

The same way that the eternal existence/nature of the Bedrock Particle solves the problem of infinite regress. I touched on this in post # 63.

No, it doesn’t. A bedrock is, by definition, the starting point of a finite series. I assume there’s a finite series because an infinite one seems impossible.

You need to do more than assume a UM somehow accounts for the human experience of qualia. You need to describe the connection. Here’s a hypothetical example of a solution: I experience the “pain” quale, which we assume isn’t reducible to something physical. Rather, it’s an ontic property that minds have, one that manifests contingently - when there is bodily damage.

The problem with this particular solution, is that it doesn’t require a UM. It just requires there to be such a property that minds can have. You need to provide an account that shows the role of the UM.

Does the UM experience qualia itself?

It is conscious and it is organizing the physical universe, so yes.

If so, how do you account for this experience?

Please clarify.

In human brains, there are nerve impulses and firing neurons associated with pain. There can’t be anything analogous in a UM because you said there’s no dependency on matter being organized.

How does your philosophy explain the qualia you experience?

The Natural Philosophy I am developing has it that we are consciousness, not that we are something else experiencing being conscious.
Thus the qualia we - minds experiencing being humans - experience, has to do with the human instrument/form.
[Qualia (singular: quale) is a term that philosophers use to describe the nature, or content, of our subjective experiences. What we are aware of when we see, hear, taste, touch or smell are our qualia.]

It takes more than a definition to account for it in a metaphysical model.

How does a UM cause matter to organize?

How does matter organize? You have touched on this yourself, so simply add mindfulness to that process and you have the answer to your question.

My model accounts for organization through blind laws of nature. Principle of parsimony implies nothing more is needed to account for these laws.

Why must that be the case? Couldn't it simply get organized as a consequence of laws of nature?

What we call "laws of nature" is how matter is mindfully organized. Organized matter emerges from (UM) mindfulness, rather than UM emerging from organized matter.

Do you deny the existence of laws of nature, and instead just claim this UM is causing these things to occur?

No.
The "laws of nature" are evidence of the process the UM is using.

But you’ve provided no reason to think UM is needed for there to be laws of nature, so all you can say is that these laws are consistent with there being a UM – you haven’t shown a UM is necessary. A theist might say “God mandated the laws of nature”, and this implies the laws of nature are contingent upon a supernatural God’s will.

What are the powers of this UM?

As almighty as the universe, naturally.

In a physicalist model, all these powers are consequences of instrinsic laws of nature. You simply seem to be adding something extra that is the alleged source of these laws of nature. So I don’t see that a UM adds any explanatory value to the process of matter becoming organized.

So UM exists even in a disorganized state. In that case, why bother to organize matter?

Why not bother?

I asked, because minds can exist without matter being organized. You’ve said the UM causes matter to organize and you’ve acknowledged that our minds are dependent on this organization in order to have human experiences. But why would the UM seek the existence of humans? Or did it? Was the existence of humans just an accidental outcome?

Are our minds dependent on the organization of matter in our brains?

Yes. Without our brains (including the nervous system) we cannot experience being human and develop human personalities. It is possible that we minds have organizing influence on our brains as well.

OK, I get that the body provides the subjective context for our minds to have human experiences. But the UM exists even in unorganized matter, so it would seem that OUR minds could exist without an operational brain. They wouldn’t exist in a human context, but they would exist in SOME context.

Why should that be, if UM has no such dependency?

Please clarify. Did I argue UM is independent from what the matter it organizes?

You didn't say it's independent from the matter, but you did say it's independent of the matter's organization (or lack thereof).

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #68]

A bedrock is, by definition, the starting point of a finite series. I assume there’s a finite series because an infinite one seems impossible.

(From Post #63)
The bedrock particle (reference point) is in a timeless state, which is something I argued for in relation to this one universe we are discussing - the one we are current experiencing as Intentional Thinking Agents - it has a beginning, will likely have an ending by reverting back into a timeless state, and - as I argued - that there is no reason why we cannot think of this event as simply an end to what was, not an end to what could follow because if we accept that this current universe is a product of something which organizes itself into functional formations, (objects) there should be no reason why we cannot accept that it couldn't do it again, therefore there is no reason why we cannot accept that this process has always being doing this very thing.

You need to do more than assume a UM somehow accounts for the human experience of qualia. You need to describe the connection. Here’s a hypothetical example of a solution: I experience the “pain” quale, which we assume isn’t reducible to something physical. Rather, it’s an ontic property that minds have, one that manifests contingently - when there is bodily damage.

The “connection” is mind. The Universal Mind is not plural. Human minds are part of the UM, not separate from the UM.
The mind is not the source of pain. The human instrument is. The mind experiences the human instrument.
Do you believe that the mind is "non-physical"?

The problem with this particular solution, is that it doesn’t require a UM. It just requires there to be such a property that minds can have. You need to provide an account that shows the role of the UM.
In human brains, there are nerve impulses and firing neurons associated with pain. There can’t be anything analogous in a UM because you said there’s no dependency on matter being organized.

What you appear to be asking is whether the UM "feels pain" when in the timeless state.

It takes more than a definition to account for it in a metaphysical model.
My model accounts for organization through blind laws of nature. Principle of parsimony implies nothing more is needed to account for these laws.
But you’ve provided no reason to think UM is needed for there to be laws of nature, so all you can say is that these laws are consistent with there being a UM – you haven’t shown a UM is necessary.

Mindless laws of nature do not account for mindfulness. It is magical thinking to assume everything simply happened mindlessly. Adding mindfulness to one's philosophical model explains why mind is involved with organized matter.
A philosophy which claims that - not only are the laws of nature blind, but so is the process which brought those laws into an organized existence are not “explanations”. This is not an "Account" (explanation) but rather, simply is a hand-waving non-explanation. It is the materialistic version of magical thinking.
I have argued that a UM is necessary to explain why consciousness exists. It is the hypothesis of Universal Mindfulness which solves the problem of consciousness. The philosophical claim that both the universe and the mind is a product of a mindless accident (blind laws of nature) is a non-explanation. How does something non-conscious create consciousness?

Is the human brain is the creator of human consciousness?

A theist might say “God mandated the laws of nature”, and this implies the laws of nature are contingent upon a supernatural God’s will.

Not with this particular Natural Philosophy. The UM is intrinsic to nature and is natural re that. There is no necessity for the UM to be regarded as "super" natural with this model.
Further to that, I have some knowledge of religious beliefs which come from – as an example – such writings as are in the Bible, and none of those that I am aware of are saying outright that “God” is “supernatural”, even that many believers interpret such writings as making that claim.

In a physicalist model, all these powers are consequences of instrinsic laws of nature. You simply seem to be adding something extra that is the alleged source of these laws of nature. So I don’t see that a UM adds any explanatory value to the process of matter becoming organized.

That you don't see isn't surprising since you appear to believe and be arguing for the Materialist Philosophy.

I asked, [So UM exists even in a disorganized state. In that case, why bother to organize matter?] because minds can exist without matter being organized. You’ve said the UM causes matter to organize and you’ve acknowledged that our minds are dependent on this organization in order to have human experiences. But why would the UM seek the existence of humans? Or did it? Was the existence of humans just an accidental outcome?

In the Natural Philosophy I am developing, re the existence of this planet, it is an indirect cause of UM and not primary.
That does not mean it was "accidental" but that it is just one of the many ways in which UM can experience the organized matter.
I won't get into particulars right now, but the question "why bother?" isn't relative to the actuality. IF there is a UM, THEN "bother" it obviously did. "Why?" gets down to the individual to sort for themselves, which may or may not necessarily include coming to a collective agreement among human beings.

I get that the body provides the subjective context for our minds to have human experiences. But the UM exists even in unorganized matter, so it would seem that OUR minds could exist without an operational brain. They wouldn’t exist in a human context, but they would exist in SOME context.

Correct. This Natural Philosophy also includes and explains to some degree why human personalities have alternate experiences re NDEs, OOBEs et al. Because all minds, be they Galaxy, Star, Planet, Biological, et al are from the same source - The Universal Mind - they are eternal (naturally - not supernaturally) and thus while a human instrument is temporal, the mind which occupied it and the personality which developed from that interaction are not.

You didn't say the UM is independent from the matter, but you did say it's independent of the matter's organization (or lack thereof).

I doubt I said or have implied that as what I wrote in Post #63 states the following:
"My argument re the initial starting point/Timeless Unorganized Matter is that is has to be conscious/mindful and thus mindfulness has also always existed. I presently also think that Timeless Unorganized Matter and Mind may be indistinguishable rather than there being 2 things - Unorganized Matter AND Mind. I think Timeless Unorganized Matter = Mind."

How can the UM be "independent" from the unorganized matter it consequently organizes?

It may be a case of misinterpretation on your part, but if you do not supply any quote where I have “said” that the UM is independent of the matter's organization (or lack thereof), it is difficult to pinpoint where the misinterpretation derives.

[fredonly]

The “connection” is mind. The Universal Mind is not plural. Human minds are part of the UM, not separate from the UM.

My mind seems linked to my brain, and to be fully distinct from your mind/brain combination. Please explain how these seemingly distinct mind/brain entities are not actually distinct, and merely part of the UM.

The mind is not the source of pain. The human instrument is. The mind experiences the human instrument.

We agree that the source of pain is something physical (e.g. a cut finger), but I’m asking you to describe how this physical damage comes to be experienced as pain. Anesthesia can block the pain sensation, even though the physical damage is still present. It appears to me the pain sensation depends on physical brain processes.

The problem with this particular solution, is that it doesn’t require a UM. It just requires there to be such a property that minds can have. You need to provide an account that shows the role of the UM.
In human brains, there are nerve impulses and firing neurons associated with pain. There can’t be anything analogous in a UM because you said there’s no dependency on matter being organized.

What you appear to be asking is whether the UM "feels pain" when in the timeless state.

No, I’m asking whether the UM experiences pain before matter gets organized into life forms.

It takes more than a definition to account for it in a metaphysical model.
My model accounts for organization through blind laws of nature. Principle of parsimony implies nothing more is needed to account for these laws.
But you’ve provided no reason to think UM is needed for there to be laws of nature, so all you can say is that these laws are consistent with there being a UM – you haven’t shown a UM is necessary.

Mindless laws of nature do not account for mindfulness. It is magical thinking to assume everything simply happened mindlessly. Adding mindfulness to one's philosophical model explains why mind is involved with organized matter.
A philosophy which claims that - not only are the laws of nature blind, but so is the process which brought those laws into an organized existence are not “explanations”. This is not an "Account" (explanation) but rather, simply is a hand-waving non-explanation. It is the materialistic version of magical thinking.
I have argued that a UM is necessary to explain why consciousness exists. It is the hypothesis of Universal Mindfulness which solves the problem of consciousness. The philosophical claim that both the universe and the mind is a product of a mindless accident (blind laws of nature) is a non-explanation. How does something non-conscious create consciousness?

Physicalism can account for everything that occurs in the universe, including all other mental activities – with the partial exception of qualia. The strength of your model is that it can presumably account for qualia, and (I assume) all other mental activities. But you still need to account for everything else that occurs in the universe. For example: the formation of quarks and electrons, star and galaxy formation, quantum mechanics, etc. Physicalism accounts for these with laws of nature, where a “law” reflects a necessitation: it is NECESSARILY the case that an electron attracts a proton. You apparently reject this, so I’m asking you to explain how this works in your model. Does the UM choose to have electrons attract protons? If so, is this a necessitation, or does each instance entail the UM deciding to have an electron attract a proton? If it’s a necessitation, then it’s a law (by definition).

I asked, [So UM exists even in a disorganized state. In that case, why bother to organize matter?] because minds can exist without matter being organized. You’ve said the UM causes matter to organize and you’ve acknowledged that our minds are dependent on this organization in order to have human experiences. But why would the UM seek the existence of humans? Or did it? Was the existence of humans just an accidental outcome?

In the Natural Philosophy I am developing, re the existence of this planet, it is an indirect cause of UM and not primary.
That does not mean it was "accidental" but that it is just one of the many ways in which UM can experience the organized matter.

My question is not about what UM experiences, it is about its powers to cause matter to organize. You attributed the organization to the UM. Doesn’t that mean it made a choice to organize matter? Did it not choose HOW it would organize? If so, doesn’t this mean it could have chosen differently? Could it decide tomorrow to change the manner of organization?

The laws of physics appear to be static, so that if the UM chose this manner of matter organization, it did so very early in the life of the universe, and it’s stayed that way. But how could this UM know what would occur in the future, unless it’s omniscient (or close to it). Is your UM omniscient?

I get that the body provides the subjective context for our minds to have human experiences. But the UM exists even in unorganized matter, so it would seem that OUR minds could exist without an operational brain. They wouldn’t exist in a human context, but they would exist in SOME context.

Correct. This Natural Philosophy also includes and explains to some degree why human personalities have alternate experiences re NDEs, OOBEs et al. Because all minds, be they Galaxy, Star, Planet, Biological, et al are from the same source - The Universal Mind - they are eternal (naturally - not supernaturally) and thus while a human instrument is temporal, the mind which occupied it and the personality which developed from that interaction are not.

But memories are clearly dependent on the physical brain – memories can be lost through disease (e.g. Alzheimer’s) and trauma (brain injury). Doesn’t this imply the mind needs a functional brain to have memories? What’s the use of a mind that has no memories? My memories define me.

You didn't say the UM is independent from the matter, but you did say it's independent of the matter's organization (or lack thereof).

I doubt I said or have implied that as what I wrote in Post #63 states the following:
"My argument re the initial starting point/Timeless Unorganized Matter is that is has to be conscious/mindful and thus mindfulness has also always existed. I presently also think that Timeless Unorganized Matter and Mind may be indistinguishable rather than there being 2 things - Unorganized Matter AND Mind. I think Timeless Unorganized Matter = Mind."

How can the UM be "independent" from the unorganized matter it consequently organizes?

Matter is not organized at the initial starting point (see bold part of quote), but you still say it is “conscious/mindful”. Ergo being “conscious/mindful” doesn’t depend on matter being organized.