Do CA selection rules rule out atheism?

[harvey1]

QED and I have been having a constant dialogue for quite some time about whether the selection rules inherent in the Universe are so unique as to rule out atheism. My question is whether there is good reason to think that the Universe could, in principle, have selection rules by random luck.

[harvey1]

The physical laws may be an emergent property of space-time topology but these bahaviours in turn affect the topology, a good analogy is the rubber sheet example of GR where a gravitational field changes the space-time topology.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Topologists study non-metric topological space without suddenly encountering the uncertainty principle, why is it that topology requires conformance to the uncertainty principle unless it is a law of topological?

My question is, are you saying that we may suggest it fortunate that the universe formed a topology which allowed the observable rules of Quantum Mechinics to make a zero-size topology impossible?

I don't think the laws are a result of topology.

Why? I'm sorry I don't understand why suggesting that the natural laws might make a zero-size topology impossible is equivalent to saying that this must be defined by a higher intelligence. Such an argument seems like an illogical leap of reasoning to me.

Pantheism doesn't necessarily entail a belief in high intelligence. For example:

Attributing Unity simply on the basis of all-inclusiveness is irrelevant to pantheism. Formal unity can always be attributed to the world on this basis alone. To understand the world as "everything" is to attribute a sense of unity to the world, but there is no reason to suppose this sense of all-inclusiveness is the pantheistically relevant Unity. Similarly, unity as mere numerical, class or categorical unity is irrelevant, since just about anything (and everything) can be "one" or a "unity" in these senses. Suppose "formal unity" to be "the sense in which things are one in virtue of the fact that they are members of one and the same class … the same universal" (Demos 1945-6: 538). Then clearly formal unity is not pantheistic Unity. Furthermore, formal unity neither entails or is entailed by types of unity (e.g. substantial unity) sometimes taken to be Unity. Hegel's Geist, Lao Tzu's Tao, Plotinus' "One," and arguably Spinoza's "substance," are independent of this kind of formal unity. Unity is explained in various ways that are often interrelated. These connections range from mutual entailment, to different types of causal and contingent relations.

If you are suggesting that laws exist and are casual relations directing the Universe, then that would be a form of pantheism.

[QED]

If you are suggesting that laws exist and are casual relations directing the Universe, then that would be a form of pantheism.

I want to try and understand this Harvey. Let's say I believe that the universe is made from LEGO and the relations between the way the bricks fit together is directing the universe. Pips on the top faces and holes on the bottom form a unity that binds everything together. Now, would I be classed as a Pantheist for having this belief?

[OccamsRazor]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Topologists study non-metric topological space without suddenly encountering the uncertainty principle, why is it that topology requires conformance to the uncertainty principle unless it is a law of topological?

Yes but topology is a purely abstract field. Topologists do not encounter the uncertainty principle because they do not need to include it. If I were studying the Reimann hypothesis I would not expect to fall foul of the uncertainty principle but this does not mean I can dismiss the uncertainty principle when describing the Universe.

If you are suggesting that laws exist and are casual relations directing the Universe, then that would be a form of pantheism.

Further to QED's comment, I would like to ask (as your SEP article suggests) what is the difference between Pantheism and atheism. Let me give an analogy: If I said that I agree with string theory and that 1 dimensional strings made up everything in an 11-D Universe and further to this I believed that these strings were actually just an emergent property of an even greater set of space-time dimensions, giving me, say, 15 dimensions. I would therefore believe that nothing existed except for a single 15 dimensional space-time and that all of the particles, force-fields and complexity we see is just an emergent property of the shape of that space-time. Would this make me Pantheist or Atheist?

[harvey1]

Yes but topology is a purely abstract field. Topologists do not encounter the uncertainty principle because they do not need to include it. If I were studying the Reimann hypothesis I would not expect to fall foul of the uncertainty principle but this does not mean I can dismiss the uncertainty principle when describing the Universe.

Agreed. My point, though, is that non-metric topological spaces are possible unless there is some necessary reason why those non-metric topological spaces cannot exist. This necessity must result from something more primitive than topology; such as a mutual entailment relation that exists between laws and topological space, etc..

If you are suggesting that laws exist and are casual relations directing the Universe, then that would be a form of pantheism.

Further to QED's comment, I would like to ask (as your SEP article suggests) what is the difference between Pantheism and atheism. Let me give an analogy: If I said that I agree with string theory and that 1 dimensional strings made up everything in an 11-D Universe and further to this I believed that these strings were actually just an emergent property of an even greater set of space-time dimensions, giving me, say, 15 dimensions. I would therefore believe that nothing existed except for a single 15 dimensional space-time and that all of the particles, force-fields and complexity we see is just an emergent property of the shape of that space-time. Would this make me Pantheist or Atheist?

It would make you an atheist if you treat the 15D world as your primitive. This is, of course, assuming that the 15 dimensional space is contingent and is not mutually entailed by some existing laws (e.g., uncertainty principle, GR, etc..). Afterall, topologists can certainly study a 15D space and still not be led to the conclusion that strings exist solely by studying their topological space configurations.

[harvey1]

I want to try and understand this Harvey. Let's say I believe that the universe is made from LEGO and the relations between the way the bricks fit together is directing the universe. Pips on the top faces and holes on the bottom form a unity that binds everything together. Now, would I be classed as a Pantheist for having this belief?

No. You treat the legos as fundamental, and these are your basic set of properties that everything else flows from this brute fact. However, if you say that a megablock universe can't exist because only legos can exist, then you are assuming a law that entails a lego universe versus a megablock universe. That's where pantheism becomes an issue for you.

[QED]

No. You treat the legos as fundamental, and these are your basic set of properties that everything else flows from this brute fact. However, if you say that a megablock universe can't exist because only legos can exist, then you are assuming a law that entails a lego universe versus a megablock universe. That's where pantheism becomes an issue for you.

OK, but as it happens I can only be made from LEGO; megablocks can't be assembled into a me. So I won't be around to see a megablock universe even if it did exist.

[harvey1]

OK, but as it happens I can only be made from LEGO; megablocks can't be assembled into a me. So I won't be around to see a megablock universe even if it did exist.

So, we were lucky that this wasn't a megablock universe?

[QED]

OK, but as it happens I can only be made from LEGO; megablocks can't be assembled into a me. So I won't be around to see a megablock universe even if it did exist.

So, we were lucky that this wasn't a megablock universe?

I see, it's quite right for you take me around this buoy once again as we can find ourselves talking about different universes at times like this. I presume you mean the megablock universe as the metauniverse state. I was thinking of my LEGO universe representing this universe that supports carbon life, hence our existence selects it from all the possible different universes that might big-bang into existence. You would presumably like me to say that it's lucky that the metauniverse just happened, as a brute fact, to be such that it could give rise to such a universe as ours. I really can't say if that's lucky or not as I have no feel for the variables involved.

[harvey1]

I really can't say if that's lucky or not as I have no feel for the variables involved.

To me, this is like saying that you cannot say whether calling heads on a million dollar bet and getting heads is lucky or not when you've been told that it is a fair coin. Either it's not a fair coin, or we are lucky to win. Similarly, either the Universe had no chance to be a megablock Universe, or we are lucky it is a lego Universe.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

To me, this is like saying that you cannot say whether calling heads on a million dollar bet and getting heads is lucky or not when you've been told that it is a fair coin. Either it's not a fair coin, or we are lucky to win. Similarly, either the Universe had no chance to be a megablock Universe, or we are lucky it is a lego Universe.

As has been pointed out to you many times, we have no way of seeing past the event horizon of the BB. Therefore we have no way of determining(beyond speculation) the initial conditions which lead to this universe and whether it was luck or some selective process due to the properties of that First Cause.

Therefore you have no basis to conclude that Atheism is ruled out(the OP). Believe what you like, you have not made your case.

Grumpy