Is this a theistic or atheistic universe?

[harvey1]

When I first started debating with atheists many moons ago, I was actually surprised that there were atheists. The reason is because I sincerely thought the discovery of the big bang and all those cosmic coincidences sort of finished off atheism for good. After having come to see the atheists perspective, I've enjoyed looking at the world from both perspectives. I can see the world through the eyes of a theist, and I can see the world through the eyes of an atheist.

The atheist looks at the world, and sees it as WYSIWYG world. There's cruelity, tsunamis, supernovas destroying multiple worlds, natural selection where more than 99% of all species that lived are no longer here, and the huge time-lengths and spatial scales from the history of world since the big bang. In their eyes, things just sort of happen without any meaningful reason, at least one that would satisfy most of us when we look for answers to life's tragedies. (We should be grateful that there atheists and not jumping off buildings given their outlook!)

The theist looks at the world, and doesn't see WYSIWYG. The theist sees the beauty of the universe. A theist knows that things like chocolate cake, vanilla ice cream, babies that cry for mama, blue sunny skies, majestic mountain ranges, the touch of a loving hand, the taste of water on a hot day, and so many other pleasures are not the result of a slot machine. The theist sees a unity in the world that indicates something Good is overseeing the world, and doesn't much get the atheist who simply ignores the beauty of the world and looks only at the grime which, although it exists, doesn't take away from the splendor of the beautiful world in which we live. The theist hears of news of cosmic coincidences in the origin of life and the physical universe with a smile. No surprise to the theist. An undesirable surprise to the atheist.

So, here's my question, what is it about the world that requires one to have a WYSIWYG view of it and what is it about the world that requires us to look deeper and find God? I realize that WYSIWYG is compelling if things are really that simple, but hasn't the world taught us already that nothing is as it appears? Why be so easily fooled by WYSIWYG?

[harvey1]

You have lost me on this one Harvey1. If we put marbles into a bag one at a time, we eventually get a bag full of marbles don't we? If I forget how many marbles I put in, it does not alter the number of marbles. If I put another marble in the bag, it will now contain one more marble than previously. How is a mind necessary in this example?

In terms of the H-H wave function, there is a probability that an H-H universe is instantiated and also a probability that such a H-H universe is not instantiated. Let's say the probability for a H-H universe (based on their wave function) is 99%. So, in other words, you have a 99% chance of having a universe like our own, and a 1% chance of having no universe. The wave function becomes a proposition. See, for example, the atheist Quentin Smith's mention of this:

This "tree" branches finitely and equally at each of an aleph-zero number of levels... we do not regard possibilities as existent, concrete items but as abstract objects, propositions, and in that we do not view the treelike structure as a temporally evolving branching of the future possibilities of concrete particulars but as an abstract structural relation among possible worlds.... On our abstract tree, each world is represented by a branch of the tree; the branches are WH [H-H universes] or WO worlds [no universes]... Let us suppose the 0.99 probability is a nonterminating and nonrepeating decimal, e.g., 0.99372 . . . and that the 0.1 probability of a WO world is the decimal 0.00627. . . . The proportion between these two sets of worlds is specified by 9 of the branches on the first level being WH worlds and none being WO worlds. On the second level, 9 sets of branches (with each set having 10 members) are WH worlds and no set contains WO worlds; on the third level 3 sets of branches contain WH worlds and 6 sets contain WO worlds, on the fourth level there are 7 sets compared to 2 sets, and so on. This delineates the precise decimal value of the proportion of WH worlds to WO worlds and thus the proportion of WH worlds to all the worlds in which the Hartle-Hawking law obtains.

Notice that the H-H proposition is a statement that exists and the meaning of that proposition causes a H-H world. In this scenario, what differentiates a H-H statement from a statement of gibberish? Let's suppose that the H-H proposition is not a path integral but is absolute gibberish, in that case why wouldn't an H-H world be instantiated? What determines that a H-H statement is a path integral (full of meaning and intent to bring forth a H-H universe as a 99% probable situation) and a H-H statement which doesn't make any sense at all?

You can't refer to language (e.g., propositions) without invoking mind. This is the unique feature of mind in the cosmos, it can understand propositions and act on those propositions. The probability issue is all the more of an issue since it takes more intelligence to follow a probability than it does to follow a strict deterministic proposition. For example, if I told you to respond to only 90% of my posts instead of a 100%, then it would be harder for you to follow that request if you were less intelligent. You would have to apply a criteria to your posting ambitions that wasn't there prior to this request. If you were incapable of applying a criteria to your thinking processes, then you could only respond deterministically to my posts. Hence, quantum cosmology indicates that the Universe possesses a Mind property.

[Curious]

In terms of the H-H wave function, there is a probability that an H-H universe is instantiated and also a probability that such a H-H universe is not instantiated. Let's say the probability for a H-H universe (based on their wave function) is 99%. So, in other words, you have a 99% chance of having a universe like our own, and a 1% chance of having no universe. The wave function becomes a proposition. See, for example, the atheist Quentin Smith's mention of this:

But supposing the chance of universal instantiation is 1. Where is the proposition then?

You can't refer to language (e.g., propositions) without invoking mind. This is the unique feature of mind in the cosmos, it can understand propositions and act on those propositions. The probability issue is all the more of an issue since it takes more intelligence to follow a probability than it does to follow a strict deterministic proposition. For example, if I told you to respond to only 90% of my posts instead of a 100%, then it would be harder for you to follow that request if you were less intelligent. You would have to apply a criteria to your posting ambitions that wasn't there prior to this request. If you were incapable of applying a criteria to your thinking processes, then you could only respond deterministically to my posts. Hence, quantum cosmology indicates that the Universe possesses a Mind property.

But the universe is deterministic isn't it? Ignoring quantum theory for the moment, as we are unsure whether this chaotic nature is really chaotic or due to unknown determining forces, the universe seems wholly deterministic. If I was to respond to 90% of your posts, without intelligence it would be difficult but without post as fact, it would be impossible. The language would mean nothing without the fact that it describes. Without the fact, the language would be gibberish.

[harvey1]

But supposing the chance of universal instantiation is 1. Where is the proposition then?

The proposition is what instantiates any universe. The proposition must have meaning in order for it to instantiate even one universe.

But the universe is deterministic isn't it? Ignoring quantum theory for the moment, as we are unsure whether this chaotic nature is really chaotic or due to unknown determining forces, the universe seems wholly deterministic.

I would disagree. Chaos theory indicates that the universe is indeterministic in terms of our abilities, but quantum chaos might make it indeterministic at a fundamental level, at least within a certain boundary.

If I was to respond to 90% of your posts, without intelligence it would be difficult but without post as fact, it would be impossible. The language would mean nothing without the fact that it describes. Without the fact, the language would be gibberish.

No, not gibberish, just inept. There are many statements where there is no basis in fact, it's called fiction.

[Curious]

But supposing the chance of universal instantiation is 1. Where is the proposition then?

The proposition is what instantiates any universe. The proposition must have meaning in order for it to instantiate even one universe.

What proposition?What meaning?What about a plain fact? No mind, no decision, just undeniable fact.

But the universe is deterministic isn't it? Ignoring quantum theory for the moment, as we are unsure whether this chaotic nature is really chaotic or due to unknown determining forces, the universe seems wholly deterministic.

I would disagree. Chaos theory indicates that the universe is indeterministic in terms of our abilities, but quantum chaos might make it indeterministic at a fundamental level, at least within a certain boundary.

Ok then, don't ignore quantum theory. But chaos theory is actually about order within seemingly chaotic occurrences and so is deterministic. Quantum chaos does not say anything one way or the other(which is why I said ignore it for the moment).

If I was to respond to 90% of your posts, without intelligence it would be difficult but without post as fact, it would be impossible. The language would mean nothing without the fact that it describes. Without the fact, the language would be gibberish.

No, not gibberish, just inept. There are many statements where there is no basis in fact, it's called fiction.

Without the fact, it would mean nothing and so would be gibberish (or incomprehensible). Works of fiction still make reference to what is understandable but without the original fact there is no frame of reference.

[harvey1]

What proposition?What meaning?What about a plain fact? No mind, no decision, just undeniable fact.

The H-H wave function is a proposition. The meaning of the proposition is the information conveyed by understanding the wave function. Namely, it "is expressed as a path integral over compact Euclidean geometries bounded by a given 3-geometry g"

Ok then, don't ignore quantum theory. But chaos theory is actually about order within seemingly chaotic occurrences and so is deterministic.

How do you know it is deterministic? Determinism doesn't mean there is no order. Determinism generally means that a) one can 100% predict behavior of the system in question, and/or b) even if you cannot predict exact behavior of the system in practice, however in principle the system is 100% predictable.

Without the fact, it would mean nothing and so would be gibberish (or incomprehensible). Works of fiction still make reference to what is understandable but without the original fact there is no frame of reference.

The H-H wave function predicts that some universes do not obtain, and if there were nothing, this aspect of the wave function would agree with the fact (i.e., the nothing referred to by H-H does in fact refer to a Nothing state). Conceptually, there could exist a false H-H wave function that instantiates no universe even in principle, and this wave function (assuming there was 100% Nothing) would not be gibberish since it agrees with the state of affairs (i.e., no thing exists). So, I don't see why you think that a proposition must refer to some thing in order to have any kind of meaning. It may just refer to no thing. By referring to this no-thing, the false H-H wave function would make perfect sense.

[Curious]

What proposition?What meaning?What about a plain fact? No mind, no decision, just undeniable fact.

The H-H wave function is a proposition. The meaning of the proposition is the information conveyed by understanding the wave function. Namely, it "is expressed as a path integral over compact Euclidean geometries bounded by a given 3-geometry g"

I mean where is the proposition if the universe has 100% chance of instantiation? You cannot seriously expect the above theory to be automatically accepted when there are numerous other equally outlandish theories to choose from. A 100% chance of instantiation would require no "choice" and so requires no mind.

Ok then, don't ignore quantum theory. But chaos theory is actually about order within seemingly chaotic occurrences and so is deterministic.

How do you know it is deterministic? Determinism doesn't mean there is no order. Determinism generally means that a) one can 100% predict behavior of the system in question, and/or b) even if you cannot predict exact behavior of the system in practice, however in principle the system is 100% predictable.

Yes, that is what I mean when I say it is deterministic. There is order(as opposed to chaos) which follows a path in accord with material characteristics, not intent . 100% predictable, no "choice", hence no necessity for mind. We can even predict uncertainty.

The H-H wave function predicts that some universes do not obtain, and if there were nothing, this aspect of the wave function would agree with the fact (i.e., the nothing referred to by H-H does in fact refer to a Nothing state). Conceptually, there could exist a false H-H wave function that instantiates no universe even in principle, and this wave function (assuming there was 100% Nothing) would not be gibberish since it agrees with the state of affairs (i.e., no thing exists). So, I don't see why you think that a proposition must refer to some thing in order to have any kind of meaning. It may just refer to no thing. By referring to this no-thing, the false H-H wave function would make perfect sense.

I assume then that you agree totally with the wave function instantiation hypothesis that you cited previously. This is too great an assumption to base your argument on unless you first prove it to be correct in my view. Explain to me, if you would, how a wave function might exist without the wave? Without the initial fact, the language that describes it would not only be gibberish, it would be superfluous. If mind is behind it all, why would mind require language to describe nothing when no language "describes" it far more accurately? Once we describe nothing, it ceases to be nothing.

[harvey1]

I mean where is the proposition if the universe has 100% chance of instantiation? You cannot seriously expect the above theory to be automatically accepted when there are numerous other equally outlandish theories to choose from. A 100% chance of instantiation would require no "choice" and so requires no mind.

Why does a universe have a 100% chance of instantiation?

Yes, that is what I mean when I say it is deterministic. There is order(as opposed to chaos) which follows a path in accord with material characteristics, not intent . 100% predictable, no "choice", hence no necessity for mind. We can even predict uncertainty.

I'm not following you. Chaos doesn't mean there is no order, it means that the system is either too complex to predict, or it is impossible to predict because the system does not follow a predictable path. If it follows just "material characteristics," that doesn't imply that it cannot be chaotic in either definition. For example, a material object might sit on an "edge of chaos" and this might put it on a path of unpredictability with regard to its behavior.

I assume then that you agree totally with the wave function instantiation hypothesis that you cited previously.

No, I do not agree totally. I think it is a good idea. I personally like the tunneling argument more..

This is too great an assumption to base your argument on unless you first prove it to be correct in my view.

I'm not basing anything on this argument. I was having a discussion with QED on how the H-H wave function is treated by Smith as a proposition. He had asked me how I can say Smith's treatment of the H-H wave function is caving in to theism. My argument was that only a Mind could understand a proposition, and hence Smith's argument subtly assumes theism.

Explain to me, if you would, how a wave function might exist without the wave? Without the initial fact, the language that describes it would not only be gibberish, it would be superfluous.

Quantum mechanics does not require there to be a physical wave in order for the particles to be attributable to wave-like behavior. In the case of Feynman's path integral formulation, which H-H are using, the path integral is based on possibilities. It is what is called a modal ontology. The formulation works, and that's why it is so popular.

If mind is behind it all...

And you call yourself a theist...? I thought you believed that mind was behind it all?!?

why would mind require language to describe nothing when no language "describes" it far more accurately? Once we describe nothing, it ceases to be nothing.

Well, we're getting pretty close to rock bottom in this concept. However, my conception is that firstly there is no-thing in a logico-causal setting. That is, we aren't talking about a fantasy world or a world where everything happens at once. Rather, all there is is a causal principle. This logico-causal principle requires mind since any principle needs its conditions to be satisfied. This satisfaction term is a mind requirement. It must exist because the world is logico-causal based. This initiates a language (or Logos) about this Beyond-Being existence. The reason why it initiates such a language is because there are certain things that are true, and truth is a proposition. The one thing that is true, for example, is that the world is logico-causal, it has mind, it is true, etc.. The kernel of this language base that arises from this Beyond-Being existence can deduce into 10,000 theorems which spread out into 10,000 more theorems, etc., etc.. Each theorem adds clarity to what exists, and each theorem is approved by this Beyond-Being (or God). The Logos also is infinitely expansive in its complexity (mirroring the Beyond-Beingness of God) and one of the structures within the Logos is a proposition that instantiates the universe. Of course, this is speculation, and I'm sure there are other possibilities.

[Curious]

Why does a universe have a 100% chance of instantiation?

I am not suggesting that it does. Your argument is based on the assumption that it doesn't. But what if it does? Any conclusion based on this premise loses all validity if it cannot be shown that the probability is <1.

Yes, that is what I mean when I say it is deterministic. There is order(as opposed to chaos) which follows a path in accord with material characteristics, not intent . 100% predictable, no "choice", hence no necessity for mind. We can even predict uncertainty.

I'm not following you. Chaos doesn't mean there is no order, it means that the system is either too complex to predict, or it is impossible to predict because the system does not follow a predictable path. If it follows just "material characteristics," that doesn't imply that it cannot be chaotic in either definition. For example, a material object might sit on an "edge of chaos" and this might put it on a path of unpredictability with regard to its behavior.

It was you who brought Chaos Theory into it, I would have been quite happy to leave this alone but as you used it as part of your explanation, I thought it necessary to use similar terms. I clearly state that Chaos theory explains that the apparent chaos is in fact deterministic and ordered (but "impossible" to decipher due to the innumerable determining variables). The only things that appear chaotic are those things that the determining factors are incompletely understood. When all variables are correctly factorised, probability ceases to be an issue. Something will either happen or it won't. For a behaviour to change, impetus is required. Something that has no additional forces acting upon it will continue to behave in the same way as it has behaved previously.Catastrophe theory might suggest otherwise as a "behavioural entropy" or organisation might lead to a point where the behaviour might change suddenly but this would still be dependent upon the catastrophic point being reached and might still be predicted.

I assume then that you agree totally with the wave function instantiation hypothesis that you cited previously.

No, I do not agree totally. I think it is a good idea. I personally like the tunneling argument more..

Now I am really confused! It seems we are both playing Devil's advocate. So would I be correct in the assumption that you are basing your argument here on a theory that you don't really agree with? You would make a fine politician.

I'm not basing anything on this argument. I was having a discussion with QED on how the H-H wave function is treated by Smith as a proposition. He had asked me how I can say Smith's treatment of the H-H wave function is caving in to theism. My argument was that only a Mind could understand a proposition, and hence Smith's argument subtly assumes theism.

Ahh, suddenly the fog clears! My apologies Harvey1, I assumed(sorry) that you were using this theory as support for the argument in question rather than just explaining why this theory might be considered to point to a theistic origin.

Explain to me, if you would, how a wave function might exist without the wave? Without the initial fact, the language that describes it would not only be gibberish, it would be superfluous.

Quantum mechanics does not require there to be a physical wave in order for the particles to be attributable to wave-like behavior. In the case of Feynman's path integral formulation, which H-H are using, the path integral is based on possibilities. It is what is called a modal ontology. The formulation works, and that's why it is so popular.

This still doesn't explain how something can be like something that does not exist.

If mind is behind it all...

And you call yourself a theist...? I thought you believed that mind was behind it all?!?

I do. I did say I was playing Devil's advocate here. If I agreed with you it would hardly be conducive to debate. It is necessary to ask questions in an attempt prove as well as disprove a theory. We need to cover every conceivable objection to an argument before we can be sure the argument is not deficient. I am merely showing your argument the same considerations that I show any other, including my own.

why would mind require language to describe nothing when no language "describes" it far more accurately? Once we describe nothing, it ceases to be nothing.

Well, we're getting pretty close to rock bottom in this concept. However, my conception is that firstly there is no-thing in a logico-causal setting. That is, we aren't talking about a fantasy world or a world where everything happens at once. Rather, all there is is a causal principle. This logico-causal principle requires mind since any principle needs its conditions to be satisfied. This satisfaction term is a mind requirement. It must exist because the world is logico-causal based. This initiates a language (or Logos) about this Beyond-Being existence. The reason why it initiates such a language is because there are certain things that are true, and truth is a proposition. The one thing that is true, for example, is that the world is logico-causal, it has mind, it is true, etc.. The kernel of this language base that arises from this Beyond-Being existence can deduce into 10,000 theorems which spread out into 10,000 more theorems, etc., etc.. Each theorem adds clarity to what exists, and each theorem is approved by this Beyond-Being (or God). The Logos also is infinitely expansive in its complexity (mirroring the Beyond-Beingness of God) and one of the structures within the Logos is a proposition that instantiates the universe. Of course, this is speculation, and I'm sure there are other possibilities.

But as I stated before, isn't it true that truth is based on fact. If we say that x exists before the fact(any fact) then this is neither true nor false. Likewise if we say it does not exist before the fact. This is because x has no definition and without definition, logic does not exist. Logic is based on the properties and relationships of the elements involved. Without these properties and relationships, logic is based on nothing and can "describe" nothing. If mind is behind the fact, then the mind is not limited by the logic as it has not yet gained any definition. Logic is set only after, or to be more precise, at the same time as, factual instantiation.

[harvey1]

It was you who brought Chaos Theory into it, I would have been quite happy to leave this alone but as you used it as part of your explanation, I thought it necessary to use similar terms. I clearly state that Chaos theory explains that the apparent chaos is in fact deterministic and ordered (but "impossible" to decipher due to the innumerable determining variables).

Chaos theory does not prove the universe is 100% deterministic. It only shows that it is not predictable if it is deterministic. Since we have good reason to think it is indeterministic in terms of predictability, the burden of proof no longer favors determinism. Remember, favoring determinism was a recent phenomenon following Newton. Prior to Newton the world was not seen as predictable. Since chaos theory shows that it is not predictable, we have to fall back to a position to where neither determinism or indeterminism is seen as the clear answer. Now we must look at the scientific and philosophical arguments for each and come to our opinion that way.

This is why I mentioned chaos theory since you advocated that if we neglect quantum theory, then we have to take a deterministic stance, and this is what I reject.

Explain to me, if you would, how a wave function might exist without the wave? Without the initial fact, the language that describes it would not only be gibberish, it would be superfluous.

Quantum mechanics does not require there to be a physical wave in order for the particles to be attributable to wave-like behavior.

This still doesn't explain how something can be like something that does not exist.

Waves are an analogy to the way in which particles are observed to behave at a quantum-mechanical frame of reference. Therefore, wave functions are pertinent to this description. This does not mean that waves exist. It just means that there is "something" within the QM system that shows wave-like behavior. In the case of Feynman's path integral formulation, it isn't waves that exhibit this wave-like behavior, it is something more fundamental. It is the summing over of different paths that a particle could have taken and as part of the summing over these paths cancel themselves out (in layman terms). Therefore, the entire "summing over" displays a process that acts like a wave. It isn't a wave, but it acts like a wave. The wave is just an analogy. The H-H wave function applies the path integral formulation to the universe, and they show that either a group of universes exist which exist as a result of this summing over and cancellation of the other paths that the universe could have taken but didn't, or it shows that this is the only universe that exists because we're the only universe having a path that didn't cancel itself out (I don't think Hawking is clear on this issue. When I attended a lecture of his a few years ago he seemed to indicate the latter, but others have indicated the former interpretation.)

I do. I did say I was playing Devil's advocate here. If I agreed with you it would hardly be conducive to debate. It is necessary to ask questions in an attempt prove as well as disprove a theory. We need to cover every conceivable objection to an argument before we can be sure the argument is not deficient. I am merely showing your argument the same considerations that I show any other, including my own.

I understand your interest in doing that, but I'm really busy and I do try to respond to as many posts as possible. I think given this situation I would prefer that you post your actual beliefs and not what you could believe if you played devil's advocate. Everyone here is posting what they truly believe to be the case, so I think that you wouldn't be doing yourself a disservice by doing the same. In any case, please state your real position in the future so I know which position to reply to. As I said, I can't respond to every issue at this point.

But as I stated before, isn't it true that truth is based on fact. If we say that x exists before the fact(any fact) then this is neither true nor false.

Well, in the Tao-Logos universe that I'm advocating (i.e., Taoism discusses the Beyond-Being aspect of God and Christianity discusses the Logos aspect of God), the fact is that nothing exists. From there the Logos could deviate into postulated worlds and have them come to exist. The facts after the creation of the world would then depend on there being some world which the Logos statement is true about.

This is because x has no definition and without definition, logic does not exist.

The Logos is the definition for what exists, but it is defining the Tao. It creates, in my view, in order to better define the Tao. Hence a possible reason for a universe.

Logic is based on the properties and relationships of the elements involved. Without these properties and relationships, logic is based on nothing and can "describe" nothing. If mind is behind the fact, then the mind is not limited by the logic as it has not yet gained any definition.

Right. The Tao is beyond being as I said. The Logos is an approximation of the Tao and it is the creator of universes. It is also a function that works in space-time to bring about change toward a direction that reflects the Tao in the final end of ends (or what I call the "Omega state").

[Curious]

Chaos theory does not prove the universe is 100% deterministic. It only shows that it is not predictable if it is deterministic. Since we have good reason to think it is indeterministic in terms of predictability, the burden of proof no longer favors determinism. Remember, favoring determinism was a recent phenomenon following Newton. Prior to Newton the world was not seen as predictable...

Who exactly thought this? Certainly not the ancient astologers. Hunters relied heavily on predictable patterns of animal behaviour, farmers and sailors relied even more heavily on the predictability of the seasons and the signs of impending bad weather. Hinduism, probably the oldest surviving organised religion, is heavily based on causality and determinism. Even before Newton, people realised that if they dropped their load, it was likely to fall on their foot rather than float up and hit them in the head.

...Since chaos theory shows that it is not predictable, we have to fall back to a position to where neither determinism or indeterminism is seen as the clear answer. Now we must look at the scientific and philosophical arguments for each and come to our opinion that way.

But chaos theory does not say that it is not deterministic. The difficulty in prediction is due to the number of variable determinants. The difficulty lies with the variables changing, not the outcome if we were to use the exact same variables.

This is why I mentioned chaos theory since you advocated that if we neglect quantum theory, then we have to take a deterministic stance, and this is what I reject.

I wished to exclude QT because we really don't know enough to use it with any relative certainty. While individual quantum mechanisms might seem chaotic or without any underlying order, taken as a whole, quantum mechanisms appear to readily allow the formation of orderly structures. It could be used as an argument for or against determinism and is just as valid from either camp.

Waves are an analogy to the way in which particles are observed to behave at a quantum-mechanical frame of reference. Therefore, wave functions are pertinent to this description. This does not mean that waves exist. It just means that there is "something" within the QM system that shows wave-like behavior. In the case of Feynman's path integral formulation, it isn't waves that exhibit this wave-like behavior, it is something more fundamental. It is the summing over of different paths that a particle could have taken and as part of the summing over these paths cancel themselves out (in layman terms). Therefore, the entire "summing over" displays a process that acts like a wave. It isn't a wave, but it acts like a wave. The wave is just an analogy. The H-H wave function applies the path integral formulation to the universe, and they show that either a group of universes exist which exist as a result of this summing over and cancellation of the other paths that the universe could have taken but didn't, or it shows that this is the only universe that exists because we're the only universe having a path that didn't cancel itself out (I don't think Hawking is clear on this issue. When I attended a lecture of his a few years ago he seemed to indicate the latter, but others have indicated the former interpretation.)

But this says nothing in respect to the function preceding the fact. While particles might exhibit wave like behaviour these "particles" must first exist to exhibit this behaviour. The evidence I believe points more strongly to the wave theory than the particle theory but this is really a moot point here. Your assertion that the function is precedent to fact is neither proved nor disproved by this theory. Surely the function is merely the behaviour of the fact. I really don't see how you conclude that the function comes first here.

But as I stated before, isn't it true that truth is based on fact. If we say that x exists before the fact(any fact) then this is neither true nor false.

Well, in the Tao-Logos universe that I'm advocating (i.e., Taoism discusses the Beyond-Being aspect of God and Christianity discusses the Logos aspect of God), the fact is that nothing exists. From there the Logos could deviate into postulated worlds and have them come to exist. The facts after the creation of the world would then depend on there being some world which the Logos statement is true about.


The Logos is the definition for what exists, but it is defining the Tao. It creates, in my view, in order to better define the Tao. Hence a possible reason for a universe.

But isn't Tao said to be beyond definition and precedent to God? Tao is not said to be without origin but of unknown origin. If creation is an attempt to define the Tao then is it your belief that God wishes to understand the Tao by this action, that Tao seeks understanding of itself, or that Tao seeks understanding of what it is not?

...Right. The Tao is beyond being as I said. The Logos is an approximation of the Tao and it is the creator of universes. It is also a function that works in space-time to bring about change toward a direction that reflects the Tao in the final end of ends (or what I call the "Omega state").

So, if I am correct in my evaluation here, you view the Tao as equivalent to God(although a rather impersonal one) and the Logos is, as in Christianity, the Word or active principle. What I still don't get though is how you come to this conclusion by analysing the material universe without having to make certain assumptions. This is my only real bone of contention here. You make numerous assumptions throughout your dissertation which I have tried to point out but which have not been explained sufficiently for me to follow logically from start to finish. While I cannot argue with your final analysis here I fail to see how the material evidence can lead us to this conclusion without relying on at least some level of spiritual gnosis to guide us in our assumptions. Pure logic falls almost at the first hurdle.