"All possibilities are necessarily actualized"

[EduChris]

Consider the following hypothesis:

"Any and all possibilities are necessarily actualized in some or another universe(s) within an infinite omniverse"

Does this represent a parsimonious hypothesis, or a profligate one?

[EduChris]

...consciousness...[is]...a subjective phenomenon...the brain did it for us before we were conscious of it...

If you want to deny the reality of consciousness, which is the most fundamental thing that we can know in a direct, intimate, unmediated sense, then epistemology fails.

...the logical unfolding of every possible set of laws and conditions for a universe...

This "logical unfolding" needs an infinity of infinity of universes simply to describe why a toy in our universe is a particular color, size, shape, and composition. You really can't get any more profligate than this.

...either (a) deterministic if randomness is not fundamental or (b) non-deterministic if randomness is fundamental...

Either way, the omniverse hypothesis subverts epistemology and therefore cannot provide an epistemically justified explanation.

...Pure volition independent of the influences working on the supposedly volitional agent does not exist...

You are assuming the consequent here. Beyond that, you are failing to consider the possibility of internal (as opposed to external) volitional considerations.

...knowledge...does not exist...epistemology does not exist...

This would be true if the omniverse hypothesis were correct; but if the omniverse hypothesis were correct, then we would have no epistemic basis for believing that hypothesis.

...Your argument is based on assuming your conclusion. My argument works just as well but is more aligned with what we actually observe in the real world and is less profligate in its assumptions.

I assume nothing at all. I simply show that the omniverse theory fails under every scenario--not in the sense that it cannot possibly be true, but that if it is true, it subverts itself epistemically. The VUR hypothesis needs no assumptions and does not subvert itself.

Beyond that, I notice you fail to address a number of issues raised in previous posts. Have we reached a conclusion to our debate, or would you care to continue?

[EduChris]

...Your argument is based on assuming your conclusion...

I am formally challenging this claim. Please support or retract it.

Here is summary of my argument:

1) Epistemology presumes consciousness, reason, and volition. Without all three elements, epistemology fails.

2) CRV (consciousness, reason, and volition) is either instantiated or not in our universe.

3) If CRV is not instantiated in our universe, then all of our thinking is subverted absolutely. Epistemology fails, and we cannot have an epistemically justified explanation for anything.

4) In order to maintain epistemology, we must grant that CRV is instantiated in our universe. This is not an assumption, but rather an unprovable axiom, a precondition for being able to justify anything epistemically.

5) Since CRV is epistemically necessary, it is epistemically justified (and it corresponds also to our direct understanding of our inner mental life).

6) Under the omniverse hypothesis, if CRV is instantated in our universe, then CVR is logically necessary--i.e., it is not possible that CRV not be instantiated.

7) If CRV is logically necessary, then CRV pertains to what I have termed Ultimate Reality (shorthand for the necessarily existing reality which provides the logical basis for all contingent reality).

8) Since CRV is logically necessary under the omniverse hypothesis, it follows that the omniverse hypothesis has VUR (volitional ultimate reality). And since the omniverse hypothesis was proposed for the very purpose of eliminating the need for VUR, it follows that the omniverse hypothesis is self-refuting. This is the first part of my argument. Now for the second part.

9) There are no other options logically available at this time: either the omniverse hypothesis is true, or else VUR is true. But if the omniverse hypothesis is true, then VUR is true. So the omniverse hypothesis is superfluous.

10) Given VUR, there is no need to postulate the profligacy of an infinity of infinity of universes just to account for the particular color/size/shape/composition of a single child's toy. Particularities can be explained more simply by volition, which is logically necessary under any available hypothesis and which does not require the profligacy of innumerable unobservable universes.

Thus, VUR succeeds where the omniverse fails. If you disagree, then you have to demonstrate such; merely making an unsupported claim will not help your case.

[AquinasD]

I understand the pictures on my screen to be words which have a particular meaning because I have simply learned it. The material reason why the symbol "snow" as I read it has the meaning that it does is simply that material connections between neurons in my brain have formed so that those neurons that have been programmed with white, wet, cold, coming from the sky sky etc have been connected to the neurons programmed with the symbol "snow". Education and learning is a natural material process. If I get a material knock on the head the material connections might be damaged and I might no longer know the meaning of the symbol "snow".

This does not answer at all why meaning is possible. You have simply pointed out that we can understand meaning; I ask "Why can we understand meaning?" Providing examples of our understanding of meaning is not an explanation of this possibility.

[AquinasD]

You are assuming that conscious volitional reasoning is a real thing in some absolute sense.

What do you mean by real? I find your suggestion that phenomenal consciousness might not be a real thing to be downright confused. How can it not be real? I have direct access to its reality in that I experience it! If the direct perception of something does not count towards its reality, then your understanding of what it is for a thing to be real must be seriously confused.

In any case, an omniverse consisting of the logical unfolding of every possible set of laws and conditions for a universe is either (a) deterministic if randomness is not fundamental or (b) non-deterministic if randomness is fundamental. Pure volition independent of the influences working on the supposedly volitional agent does not exist. If knowledge is taken as some entity that exists independently of the brain functioning that is supposedly in possession of this knowledge, then knowledge in that sense does not exist. And therefore epistemology does not exist in any absolute sense.

Nobody has ever defended such a concept of volition in humans. Volition open to influence is, last I checked, perfectly acceptable to libertarians. I see no conceptual confusion with this 'concession.'

[Artie]

I understand the pictures on my screen to be words which have a particular meaning because I have simply learned it. The material reason why the symbol "snow" as I read it has the meaning that it does is simply that material connections between neurons in my brain have formed so that those neurons that have been programmed with white, wet, cold, coming from the sky sky etc have been connected to the neurons programmed with the symbol "snow". Education and learning is a natural material process. If I get a material knock on the head the material connections might be damaged and I might no longer know the meaning of the symbol "snow".

This does not answer at all why meaning is possible. You have simply pointed out that we can understand meaning; I ask "Why can we understand meaning?" Providing examples of our understanding of meaning is not an explanation of this possibility.

What? Please elaborate on your definition of meaning. We obviously understand meaning because the brain is wired in such a way as to understand meaning. Why? Because evolution selected for those with brains that understood meaning of course.

[ThatGirlAgain]

...if you are talking about "ontologically true" beliefs held by intelligent beings as opposed to "true enough" survival oriented beliefs, then they are indeed very rare in any universe...

Depends on whether we have the sort of VUR that cares enough about us to make such beliefs a goal toward which we might reasonably attain.

...how does one demonstrate that there is such a thing as an ontologically true belief involving volition without profligate assumptions? My proposal assumes only logic, something we would be hard pressed to deny without eliminating all possible solutions to the problem...

Is it possible to have "logic" without any conscious minds? Many people believe that "logic" only truly exists in the noosphere. Are you saying there is some ontologic reality of logic outside of or beyond the conscious mind? Is logic capable of actually doing things on its own, rather than merely describing relationships of pre-existing concrete or abstract things? Is logic capable of creating matter and energy, or do we have to start with some amorphous and infinite supply of it in order to fund the profligacy of your omniverse?

It seems as though you do believe that immaterial things such as logic can have their own independent ontologic reality--capable of doing things and creating things and describing things. How is it that your "logic" can be capable of doing all these things to an infinite degree, but yet remain forever incapable of selectivity?

Can logic exist without a conscious mind? Conscious minds can make errors of logic but physical reality always obeys the logic of the laws it is subject to. It is difficult to imagine that illogic can apply to any real circumstance. In fact by showing that consciousness, if considered as a thing independent of brain function, can make errors of logic seems to suggest that consciousness is not a real circumstance but the illusion that neurological studies point to.

The question then arises Where does logic come from? We could say it is fundamental. As I said it is hard to imagine situations where it fails to ultimately apply. But let us say that logic requires a consciousness behind it. Let us further say that this consciousness is the ultimate source of existence. Why should this consciousness have the power to create? And of course where did this consciousness come from? It is often called a necessary being but that is based on the fact that some things exist that are contingent and not necessary. If no contingent things existed, would there necessarily be a necessary being? (After all, a volitional being might choose not to create anything.) What would require anything to exist? If existence is indeed fundamental, why not skip the middleman and say that logic is the necessary existent? That which can be, is.

But let us move on and say that there is an entity other than simple logic that is the origin of existence. (For simplicity let us call it God.) Let us ask: is God subject to logic? There are three answers that I can see.

Answer 1: God is subject to logic. Logic is fundamental to existence.

If this is the case, why do we need God to explain existence? My proposal (that which can be, is) is a simple extension to the idea of logic that explains existence without bringing in a complex notion like God.

Answer 2: God is not subject to logic. God created logic.

If this is the case, then we cannot trust the logic that leads us back to God. Since we cannot apply logic to God, there might be something completely different from any notion of God we might have that is the actual origin of logic. It could also be the real origin of existence.

Answer 3: Login is inherent to the nature of God. This is similar to # 1but avoids having logic as something prior to God.

In this case, we can expect God to act logically. This strikes me as a reasonable conclusion about the nature of the (dont forget, still hypothetical) God. It also seems essential if one is going to say anything else about God without relying on divine revelation. (None today, thank you.)

Of course we might say at this point that logic is the only attribute of God. That would make God just a label for logic and return to my thesis of logic alone as the origin of existence. But let us see how well the traditional attributes of consciousness and volition work with God acting logically.

An argument often used in favor of a volitional God is the specificity of the universe. Why should it be the way it is as compared to all the other alternatives? The explanation given is that God chose it to be that way. But why did God make that particular choice? When a human person makes a choice we can always ask why. Answers might involve having analyzed the relevant conditions and selected one alternative based on some criteria, or flipping a coin, or Duh, I dunno. With a logical God I believe we can rule out the last two.

So what were the conditions God analyzed and what were the criteria for making a choice? Since God is the origin of all existence, there were no pre-existing conditions or criteria. To say that God selected a universe based on the outcome God could foresee for it does not address the issue. What are the criteria God used for choosing some particular outcome? To say that God made them up by his own volition introduces an infinite regress. Why criteria did God use for making up those criteria? If no criteria were needed, then how is Gods choice any different from randomness, a rather different thing from volition?

The only way around this that I can see is to have the criteria for choosing to create our universe and no other built into the nature of God. And that is a whopping big assumption. It also changes Gods volition into necessity.

All of these problems go away with logic being the ultimate foundation of existence and the creative principle be, That which can be, is. It explains everything with an absolute minimum of assumptions. This is as parsimonious as you can get.

[EduChris]

...Can logic exist without a conscious mind?...physical reality always obeys the logic of the laws it is subject to...

How do we know that physical reality always obeys logic? Don't we ourselves have to have consciousness in order to "know" this? Don't we need to be amenable to reason? And don't we need to make a choice to examine and study and hypothesize and test?

In other words, to know anything at all about physical reality, we require (at minimum) consciousness, reason, and volition.

But at any rate I formally challenged you to show how my argument (summarized in 10 points above) "affirms the consequent," as you have claimed. Let's deal with each point one-by-one in sequence. Where do you find your first disagreement?

[ThatGirlAgain]

You are assuming that conscious volitional reasoning is a real thing in some absolute sense.

What do you mean by real? I find your suggestion that phenomenal consciousness might not be a real thing to be downright confused. How can it not be real? I have direct access to its reality in that I experience it! If the direct perception of something does not count towards its reality, then your understanding of what it is for a thing to be real must be seriously confused.

Not at all confused. You may not agree with the idea " in fact I am sure you do not " but it is not confused, except to the degree that you may not understand it. We have direct access to the reality of mirages and magicians tricks. The problem is that they are not what we think they are. That consciousness is a sustained illusion that sometimes breaks down is not a new idea and I thought you would be familiar with it. If not may I recommend Dennetts Consciousness Explained or Hofstadters I Am a Strange Loop. Consciousness is an old fashioned barbers pole. The stripes seem to be forever rising to the top and regenerating at the bottom, but in truth they are only going round and round.

In any case, an omniverse consisting of the logical unfolding of every possible set of laws and conditions for a universe is either (a) deterministic if randomness is not fundamental or (b) non-deterministic if randomness is fundamental. Pure volition independent of the influences working on the supposedly volitional agent does not exist. If knowledge is taken as some entity that exists independently of the brain functioning that is supposedly in possession of this knowledge, then knowledge in that sense does not exist. And therefore epistemology does not exist in any absolute sense.

Nobody has ever defended such a concept of volition in humans. Volition open to influence is, last I checked, perfectly acceptable to libertarians. I see no conceptual confusion with this 'concession.'

The problem as I explained at greater length in another recent post is that if God is the origin of existence, there are no prior influences in which to base a choice. A volitional God does not explain the specificity of the universe.

[AquinasD]

What? Please elaborate on your definition of meaning. We obviously understand meaning because the brain is wired in such a way as to understand meaning. Why? Because evolution selected for those with brains that understood meaning of course.

Why do the neurons in our brain that have the meaning they do have the meaning they do? Were they dictated to have the meaning they do by a fundamentally meaningless (I mean this only semantically, understand) process? That seems silly.

Would a book that came together which happened to be a complete works of Shakespeare have meaning, if it didn't have an author?

[AquinasD]

Not at all confused. You may not agree with the idea " in fact I am sure you do not " but it is not confused, except to the degree that you may not understand it. We have direct access to the reality of mirages and magicians tricks. The problem is that they are not what we think they are. That consciousness is a sustained illusion that sometimes breaks down is not a new idea and I thought you would be familiar with it. If not may I recommend Dennetts Consciousness Explained or Hofstadters I Am a Strange Loop. Consciousness is an old fashioned barbers pole. The stripes seem to be forever rising to the top and regenerating at the bottom, but in truth they are only going round and round.

I won't claim to understand the idea, because I do not believe it is an idea of which there is anything to understand at all.

I perceive my consciousness. I see a red apple before me. I hear a rustling in the hallway. I smell ammonia. I feel balanced on my chair. The keys feel firm but brittle. These are all statements of the same kind; I am expressing an object of perception.

If you tell me I am not seeing a red apple, or hearing a rustling in the hallway, and so on, you are crazy. You can only think you state something meaningful by saying "Your consciousness is an illusion" is if you are seriously conceptually confused. You cannot say that I don't have a perception of something or other. You might say I do not adequately express that experience, but you cannot say I don't perceive it.

Unless you are a zombie, at which I suppose there is no point to our discussion.

The problem as I explained at greater length in another recent post is that if God is the origin of existence, there are no prior influences in which to base a choice. A volitional God does not explain the specificity of the universe.

So, for you, a libertarian free will can only make sense if the foundation of our choices was nothing? And what do we care about the specificity of the universe? What do you mean by that?