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]

Because we both want to see some economy in our account of our origins. Plus the fact that in my view evolution is the most likely suspect because it has a particular 'shape' that fits the bill... As you probably know I'm not a believer in eternal, platonic laws... it has always sounded like nonsense to me especially when something like the principle of parsimony can be categorized as a platonic law. To me there seems to be an infinite regression where everything transcends any need to be prescribed.

Again, why do we need economy for brute facts? What is it that governs a brute fact except the brute fact itself? If you want to say that brute facts must be economical, then it seems you are referring to a platonic law of parsimony.

All atheists have to work around this and if some of the dogma rubs off on some of them then it's hardly surprising.

I don't think you should make excuses for people. I certainly don't make excuses for anyone on the religious side. I respect their right as people to ignore scientific reasoning, but that doesn't mean that I have to debate with them. There's nothing to debate since they've selected dogma over reasoning. Similarly, there's many people in other belief systems who select dogma over reasoning. I am not surprised since dogma is the easy way out. It's hard to study and understand complex problems and approach them analytically.

I don't think it is realistic to expect anyone to provide an a priori reason for our specific universe.

But this seemed to be your very argument: that there is something necessary about the satisfaction of moral consistency which leads us to a bountiful universe.

My argument is that moral consistency gives us good reason to expect God to be good. That doesn't mean that we can a priori determine the nature of our universe from first principles. However, like I said before, you are welcome to start a new thread on whether we have better reason to expect this universe if theism is true versus if atheism is true. I think we have better reason to expect this kind of universe if theism than if atheism.

I'm really no good at paraphrasing your statements to this effect because they don't make sense to me. But what does make sense to me is that universal evolution provides us with exactly the right dynamics to result in long-lived and bountiful universes like ours.

Without going too far in this new topic, I would just say that evolution is not the issue. We both acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The difference though is that I think evolution is guided by mathematical principles that limit the kinds of evolutionary trends that can happen. For example, an evolutionary trend that leads to infinite complex mental structures is more consistent with a theistic stance, yet this seems to be the direction of evolutionary processes if we summarize the last 4.5 billion years on earth.

Yes, and this is something that you would expect with some kind of theory of complexity operating as a general law to the universe.

It would seem almost irresistible so why resist it? You could quite easily adapt the philosophy and use it to pare down your own. Surely you must realize that we are basically involved in the evolution vs. intelligent design argument here.

I don't think so. Intelligent design is based on the unnatural intervention of natural processes. In my view, complexity is a natural occurrence and therefore it is quite understandable that a universe started out as a simple beginning. The principle operating in the universe requires it. Evolution is consistent with complexity and emergence, and I think complexity as a mathematical law of nature is more consistent with treating the law as a proposition. The propositional status of that law implies theism.

Well this is our favourite chicken and egg game isn't it. Why does a statement such as your one above deserve to be accepted as anything more than a play on words? I could equally well say that "Principles are propositions and propositions are semantic terms requiring interpretation and interpretation requires mind which in turn requires matter to run upon".

In that case it doesn't make sense to refer to a fundamental principle, then, does it? Just say "matter exists" and there are no principles that require it to be simple, economical, parsimonious, lawful, etc.. "Matter" does what matter does, and matter is what matter is. That seems to be your "fundamental principle." However, if that is your fundamental principle, then there is no reason to reject a universe stocked five minutes ago with memories. Your argument just boils down to:

it could have been that way, it just wasn't. There's no reason to reject that, but the scientific evidence appears to show that it started out simple. There can be no reason for that other than that's just the way it is. Perhaps the simplicity reverts to a very complex world which our simple beginning of our universe originated. Perhaps our world did originate 5 minutes ago with memories, there is no way to know, there is no reason to assume it couldn't have been that way.

I'm convinced that this is what your interpretation boils down to. You cannot have a law of parsimony dictating economy unless the law of parsimony is a platonic law. Since you reject platonic laws, your only coarse of action is to accept the Mystery that your approach requires that you accept.

Principles in my book reflect a slavish adherence to some material relation.

But, there can be no reason for this slavish adherence. If there is no reason, then there can be no requirement that things had to be that way. It is an ad hoc stiputlation that could've been totally reversed. It is just a indeterminate consequence of the way things are. So, it is perfectly reasonable in your worldview to say that the universe may have come into existence 5 minutes ago. It is totally indeterminate to say that it is unlikely. There is no way to measure likelihood for a brute fact initial state since there are no laws that make one brute fact more likely than another brute fact.

I don't see what justification there can be for separating the two while preserving their efficacy. They seem very similar to the duality of waves/particles in that neither is a truly independent entity.

If there is a principle of causality, then you don't need to say that there is a need for a material world. There is only a need for a phenomenal world. A phenomenal world can be any conceivable reality, however most conceivable realities are not possible worlds since possibility must be logically consistent. Clearly not all conceivable worlds are logically consistent. Since logically possible worlds can include material worlds, it makes sense that there are principles that are true of our material world since there are logical structures that make a material world consistent with being logically possible. These logical structures can form principles. So, for example, a logical structure such as a law of parsimony can be stated in mathematical terms by shorter paths of the path integral. The minimum principle, in fact, dictates parsimony for a material world. The basic action of nature is to minimize action, and therefore parsimony is true. This is only valid because there is a mathematical proof to show that minimal actions have shorter paths, and therefore are not eliminated after the summation of the path integral is complete. Therefore, I have a reason for advocating a principle of parsimony, whereas I don't think you have. It is just a dangling truism that has no reason for its "material truth."

Well let me try a new approach then: Let's say for the sake of argument that all roads lead to platonism. You can work your socks off describing how moral consistency leads to finely-tuned cosmological parameters while I can call upon the principles of evolution to do the donkey work.

I'm not suggesting that moral consistency brings about our universe. It may only act as a boundary condition to what universes can exist as a result of other laws.

taking away the moral element solves the problem of evil at a stroke and leaves us with only one mystery... how a semantic gets out of it's existential loop in order to accomplish the engineering task at hand.

I'm not adding overhead by suggesting that moral consistency is a constraint of the universe's evolution. It is an implication of a principle of causality, and therefore it is not multiplying structure. On the other hand, your unregulated brute fact could be anything, and it can change too. There's not one iota of a reason that tomorrow the laws of physics could be drastically different in your worldview. It is just some ultimate brute fact that we have the laws that we do, and therefore if the brute fact is just brute factly different tomorrow, then our world is gone. There's absolutely no reason that there couldn't be a different brute fact condition operating in our world tomorrow. It is complete lawlessness that you are advocating.

Now that's just a little bit lopsided is it not? Atheism for me is a powerful way of telling other people that I don't think things were planned to be the way they are. It doesn't say a thing about why there are things though.

It seems to me that it does not specify a reason because there can be no reason. It simply says that at the end of the day, the world could be anything and could be anything tomorrow. I don't buy it since that sounds absurd. Can we agree on that, at least?

[harvey1]

If you need debates then you actually need to debate, not throw out a lot of logical fallacies and pretend that you're actually accomplishing anything.

If someone is committing a logical fallacy, then it is important to point out which logical fallacy it is that you think they are committing. The reason I grew tired of debating you is that all of your posts seemed like dogma and personal opinion.

[QED]

Again, why do we need economy for brute facts? What is it that governs a brute fact except the brute fact itself? If you want to say that brute facts must be economical, then it seems you are referring to a platonic law of parsimony.

Well now, you have set up a sort of trap here: According to your rules anything that goes down the Platonic chute ends up in the God-mind basket. Any appeal to a platonic principle such as evolution or parsimony then implies the existence of God. Why should I be impressed by this? You are doing no better than saying the number 3 implies the existence of God. We both sense the need for parsimony which is why you do your best to paint my position as being equivalent to believing in 5-minute old universes which are clearly absurd.

My argument is that moral consistency gives us good reason to expect God to be good. That doesn't mean that we can a priori determine the nature of our universe from first principles. However, like I said before, you are welcome to start a new thread on whether we have better reason to expect this universe if theism is true versus if atheism is true. I think we have better reason to expect this kind of universe if theism than if atheism.

I do indeed feel that very strongly so watch out for a new topic where we can debate this soon.

Yes, and this is something that you would expect with some kind of theory of complexity operating as a general law to the universe.

It would seem almost irresistible so why resist it? You could quite easily adapt the philosophy and use it to pare down your own. Surely you must realize that we are basically involved in the evolution vs. intelligent design argument here.

I don't think so. Intelligent design is based on the unnatural intervention of natural processes. In my view, complexity is a natural occurrence and therefore it is quite understandable that a universe started out as a simple beginning. The principle operating in the universe requires it. Evolution is consistent with complexity and emergence, and I think complexity as a mathematical law of nature is more consistent with treating the law as a proposition. The propositional status of that law implies theism.

The propositional status of that law only implies theism in that it implies a mindful intelligence to you Harvey, an intelligent designer. Can't you imagine why this would make no sense to me whatsoever? The thing that your conclusions lead you to is paradoxical in my opinion. The only sort of real intelligence that we know of (and that makes any sense) is hard won directly through biological evolution (or indirectly by artificial construction).

Well this is our favourite chicken and egg game isn't it. Why does a statement such as your one above deserve to be accepted as anything more than a play on words? I could equally well say that "Principles are propositions and propositions are semantic terms requiring interpretation and interpretation requires mind which in turn requires matter to run upon".

In that case it doesn't make sense to refer to a fundamental principle, then, does it? Just say "matter exists" and there are no principles that require it to be simple, economical, parsimonious, lawful, etc.. "Matter" does what matter does, and matter is what matter is. That seems to be your "fundamental principle." However, if that is your fundamental principle, then there is no reason to reject a universe stocked five minutes ago with memories.

Let's look at it from yet another perspective: Out of one of your many philosophical hats you manage to pull out a rabbit called God. You then join in with the rest of the world in praising him for creating everything all around us. At a very fundamental level I don't like this because I had to serve a long and detailed apprenticeship before my particular engineering career got going. However, if you can pull something out of a hat then it strikes me that that something might not be exactly what you paint it as. And if the nature of this something was more akin to a cellular automata than a wise old man with a wispy beard that'd make a helluva lot more sense to me. Period.

[harvey1]

Why should I be impressed by this?... Can't you imagine why this would make no sense to me whatsoever? The thing that your conclusions lead you to is paradoxical in my opinion... At a very fundamental level I don't like this because..it strikes me that that something might not be exactly what you paint it as.

I believe I extracted your counter-arguments to my post. Unfortunately, they aren't real counter-arguments because they don't address my arguments. They address your discomfort with the conclusion, however that is a psychological discomfort. What I'd like to see is something more than that. I already know that you have no comfort with the notion of there being a God, but would you be much impressed if my argument against atheism was that I wasn't comfortable with the notion of there being just a raw brute fact behind it all? You'd expect reasons, right?

[QED]

Why should I be impressed by this?... Can't you imagine why this would make no sense to me whatsoever? The thing that your conclusions lead you to is paradoxical in my opinion... At a very fundamental level I don't like this because..it strikes me that that something might not be exactly what you paint it as.

I believe I extracted your counter-arguments to my post. Unfortunately, they aren't real counter-arguments because they don't address my arguments. They address your discomfort with the conclusion, however that is a psychological discomfort. What I'd like to see is something more than that. I already know that you have no comfort with the notion of there being a God, but would you be much impressed if my argument against atheism was that I wasn't comfortable with the notion of there being just a raw brute fact behind it all? You'd expect reasons, right?

I think you are being a little disingenuous by declaring that I have a psychological discomfort about there being a God when you know full well that it is your argument that I cannot follow. If I find it hard to address your argument it is quite simply because it sounds like nonsense. You build everything on eternal Platonic laws existing in some tangible sense outside of time and space. You infer the existence of infallible mind as an interpreter of "propositions". I cannot connect with your premises or inferences while they remain in some fairytale land decorated with brightly colored numbers and letters. Sorry to sound so abrupt but none of your explanations here are any good to me.

If you continue to attack on the basis of some imaginary psychological discomforts that you've dreamt up for me then you're missing your chances to explain this thing that you're so positive about. If it's at all understandable then with the right instruction I should be able to understand it. But I really don't know where you would start with making the concept of a Platonic realm seem like a reality.

[harvey1]

I think you are being a little disingenuous by declaring that I have a psychological discomfort about there being a God when you know full well that it is your argument that I cannot follow.

I apologize. I genuinely thought you were conveying a psychological reluctance on your part to believing in God.

If I find it hard to address your argument it is quite simply because it sounds like nonsense.

Okay, but show me the fallacy if it is nonsense before you treat it like nonsense. Remember, I am under the same impression of your belief of a raw brute fact, so we have to assume that our beliefs are not nonsense to the other person. We have to show why the belief in question is nonsense or is not nonsense.

You build everything on eternal Platonic laws existing in some tangible sense outside of time and space. You infer the existence of infallible mind as an interpreter of "propositions". I cannot connect with your premises or inferences while they remain in some fairytale land decorated with brightly colored numbers and letters. Sorry to sound so abrupt but none of your explanations here are any good to me.

In the Occam's razor thread I gave a list of premises that are used to reach my conclusion. If you prefer, you can reply to that argument right here. Here is my argument:

1. According to Paul Davies, most physicists who work on fundamental physics believe the laws of physics have some independent existence to the universe
2. The laws of physics are propositions if they exist independently to the universe
3. Propositions are semantic-based structures
4. We are justified in believing that the laws of physics are propositions and are semantic structures(from 1, 2, 3)
5. Semantic structures only have existence if they are interpreted and comprehended by an interpreter
6. Propositions require interpretation and comprehension by an interpreter to exist (from 3, 5)
7. We are justified in believing that the laws of physics require interpretation and comprehension by an interpreter to exist (from 3,6)
8. An interpreter exists independent of the proposition and the fictional or non-fictional world(s) that the proposition refers to (defined as having "implicit freedom")
9. An interpreter of a proposition is restricted by rules of interpretation which are separate from the proposition itself (i.e., defined as not having "explicit freedom")
10. An omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being (God) is defined as having implicit freedom with respect to the propositions of the universe
11. The interpreter of the laws is God (from 4, 8, 9, 10)
12. We are justified in believing that God is the cause of the laws and the universe(s) that results from the laws (from 7,11)

If you continue to attack on the basis of some imaginary psychological discomforts that you've dreamt up for me then you're missing your chances to explain this thing that you're so positive about.

I certainly don't want to misunderstand you, nor do I want to waste any opportunities. However, I genuinely thought that when you said, "[a]t a very fundamental level I don't like this..." that you were referring to a psychological discomfort with the notion of a God. I'm sorry that I misunderstood you.

In any case, we need to be very precise in what premise it is that you are rejecting. I can't respond to comments like, "[a]t a very fundamental level I don't like this..." since that's not a precise reason. I need to know which premise you have a strong distaste of. We can then focus on that particular premise(s), and probably making that objection the subject of a separate thread if it isn't already a topic of some on-going discussion.

If it's at all understandable then with the right instruction I should be able to understand it. But I really don't know where you would start with making the concept of a Platonic realm seem like a reality.

Please connect this objection to one of the premises above, and we might be in a better position to discuss this objection.

[QED]

Harvey, things have gotten a bit messy here. While you could argue that your 11 point proof for the existence of God is appropriate in this topic "whence came the order in the cosmos" I think it derails the original purpose of the thread. I would have suggested starting a new topic for it but you've already bought it up in the Occam's Razor thread. I regret to say I don't think it belongs there either. Seeing as it is crying out for a debate I have copied it to a new topic titled
Is this proof of God's existence?. I hope you don't mind the title (I hate thinking up titles for new topics). I will try and vector the relevant discussion in the Occam's Razor thread over to it as well.