Faith-Based Reasoning

[QED]

God is involved in the execution of all natural laws every moment the universe exists (i.e., God sustains the universe).

You mean like this? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Nah, that's what you are basically saying when you say there are no laws (i.e., on the odd days, on the even days you say there are laws). Instead of an "intelligent falling" theory your world without laws translates into a "random mutating falling" theory. It just happens for no reason at all.

Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.

I've started this topic to continue the debate in which I would like Harvey to explain how his argument differs from that of the ECFBR quoted above. It seems very similar to me and I want to know all the evidence that Harvey thinks there is for the Laws of nature being a product of some divine consciousness rather than them arising from an unbending mechanical process. Here might be a good place to collect and examine the arguments.

[harvey1]

I've started this topic to continue the debate in which I would like Harvey to explain how his argument differs from that of the ECFBR quoted above. It seems very similar to me and I want to know all the evidence that Harvey thinks there is for the Laws of nature being a product of some divine consciousness rather than them arising from an unbending mechanical process. Here might be a good place to collect and examine the arguments.

Sure. However, my one request is that you change the name of this thread to something more in line with the subject matter. How about "Are the Laws a Product of Cosmic Consciousness?"? Your title gives me the impression that we are talking about any kind of faith-based reasoning (e.g., miracles, biblical inerrancy, etc.).

Let me first go ahead and quote from Michio Kaku's latest paperback book, "Parallel Worlds": A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos:

Scriptwriters willingly violate the laws of physics in making Hollywood blockbusters. But in the physics community, such paradoxes are taken very seriously. Any solution to these paradoxes must be compatible with relativity and the quantum theory... Currently, physicists are congregating around two possible solutions to these time paradoxes. First, Russian cosmologist Igor Novikov believes that we are forced to act in a way so that no paradoxes occur. His approach is called the self-consistency school. If the river of time smoothly bends back on itself and creates a whirlpool, he suggests than an "invisible hand" of some sort would intervene if we were to jump back into the past and were about to create a time paradox.... Novikov believes that an undiscovered law of physics prevents any action that will change the future (such as killing your parents or preventing your birth)... A second way to resolve the time paradox is if the river of time smoothly folds into two rivers, or branches, forming two distinct universes... This second hypothesis is called the "many worlds theory"--the idea that all possible quantum worlds might exist... [P]hysicists have been forced to entertain two outrageous solutions: either there is a cosmic consciousness that watches over us all, or else there are an infinite number of quantum universes. (Kaku, 2005, pp. 143-145).

Now, Kaku is not speaking outside the mindset of current general relativity or quantum theory with respect to these two conjectures that physicists are seriously considering. Unlike that article, I'm not advocating something that says that there are no laws (unlike you, Bugmaster, and Grumpy), rather I'm saying that there are laws, and they are a result of this self-consistency school of thought. Laws are just a result of nature protecting herself against infringement--paradox, if you will.

As the physics community is astute to recognize, this is an "invisible hand" working behind the scenes, and is better known as "cosmic consciousness." Strictly speaking, we don't know which of these are correct, and we ought to be open minded to both possibilities unless we have a logical absurdity that comes from our reasoning using one or both of these as a basis. My contention is that only with a Novikovish style of interpretation of how nature works can we avoid these absurdities, therefore we ought to accept this as the basic principle of how the physical universe operates. Unless you can show a logical absurdity in this kind of reasoning, then you either have to choose between this form of pantheism/panentheism or agnosticism. Atheism is no longer an option.

[QED]

Strictly speaking, we don't know which of these are correct, and we ought to be open minded to both possibilities unless we have a logical absurdity that comes from our reasoning using one or both of these as a basis.

Well here's the rub, we have no real way of estimating the absurdity of the various interpretations on offer and until we do any conclusion becomes a matter of faith.

My contention is that only with a Novikovish style of interpretation of how nature works can we avoid these absurdities, therefore we ought to accept this as the basic principle of how the physical universe operates. Unless you can show a logical absurdity in this kind of reasoning, then you either have to choose between this form of pantheism/panentheism or agnosticism. Atheism is no longer an option.

But you've got to have faith man! Incidentally I note that Gerard ’t Hooft has proposed a deterministic interpretation of QM. Isn't it fair to say that choosing one interpretation over another right now is a matter of personal taste?

[harvey1]

Please change the title QED. Perhaps it is easier if I respond to your posts in a title of my liking and you respond to my posts in this thread?

Well here's the rub, we have no real way of estimating the absurdity of the various interpretations on offer and until we do any conclusion becomes a matter of faith.

Not so. One can believe like cosmologist Novikov without having faith of any kind. What one must be prepared to do is justify that view based on arguments, and there's two major ways to do this. Show why Novikov's concept makes more sense, and show why the alternative principle either ultimately entails Novikov's concept or is contradictory or meaningless. I think it is fairly easy to show that a world that operates according to quantum laws (i.e., many worlds theory) entails a self-consistency view of the laws. Therefore, there is no realist approach to the laws to avoid a belief that some kind of cosmic consciousness exists.

But you've got to have faith man!

I don't think Novikov has faith, do you? Is that what you think that physicists who are working on these fundamental issues must have faith if they conjecture (and believe that conjecture to be true) that the world operates according to a law of self-consistency?

Incidentally I note that Gerard ’t Hooft has proposed a deterministic interpretation of QM. Isn't it fair to say that choosing one interpretation over another right now is a matter of personal taste?

Why would you introduce t'Hooft's views of information being fundamental? You should know that this would only encourage a Novikov-like interpretation of the laws of physics.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Unlike that article, I'm not advocating something that says that there are no laws (unlike you, Bugmaster, and Grumpy), rather I'm saying that there are laws, and they are a result of this self-consistency school of thought.

I am really tired of this mischaracterization of our views. We have said(over and over) that the properties of the universe(what Harvey calls "laws") are intrinsic in the structure of the universe(built in), not (as Harvey mischaracterizes them) nonexistent. In addition I (at least) also believe Novikov is on the right track (self-consistency) but errs in his concept of the "invisible hand". There is no need of correction of the behavior of nature because nature CANNOT behave in violation of it's properties, thus paradoxes(miracles) CANNOT happen. One of the favorite paradoxes to be discussed is travelling back in time to murder your own grandpa. Well, if travel backwards in time is NOT POSSIBLE IN THIS UNIVERSE, Poof, no paradox. Science has never observed a single instance of travel backwards through time in the macro world(who knows in the quantum realm)

[P]hysicists have been forced to entertain two outrageous solutions: either there is a cosmic consciousness that watches over us all, or else there are an infinite number of quantum universes. (Kaku, 2005, pp. 143-145).

Kaku says we are forced to entertain(consider) two OUTRAGEOUS solutions, not that we are forced to ACCEPT either, nor are they the only possibilities for solution of the apparent problem. The solution making the most sense is the "Paradoxes Cannot Happen" view I have expressed. Thus...

Laws are just a result of nature protecting herself against infringement--paradox, if you will

These laws are not necessary, the situation cannot occur. Paradox only occurs in the mind, not in nature.

As the physics community is astute to recognize, this is an "invisible hand" working behind the scenes, and is better known as "cosmic consciousness." Strictly speaking, we don't know which of these are correct, and we ought to be open minded to both possibilities unless we have a logical absurdity that comes from our reasoning using one or both of these as a basis. My contention is that only with a Novikovish style of interpretation of how nature works can we avoid these absurdities, therefore we ought to accept this as the basic principle of how the physical universe operates. Unless you can show a logical absurdity in this kind of reasoning, then you either have to choose between this form of pantheism/panentheism or agnosticism. Atheism is no longer an option.

Here you have left all logic behind and are traveling through lala land. This is a complete fabrication based on your limited understanding of what the physicists have said. Considering a possibility is not the same as acceptance of it and that is the logical fallacy you build your house of cards on. Other solutions require no "guiding hand" thus your conclusion is only one of many, in no way have you proven your hypothesis of a cosmic intelligence.

Grumpy

[QED]

I'm still thinking about the title of this topic. There is a certain irony in the way both sides accuse the other of ultimately basing their beliefs on faith. I thought the title would serve to remind us of this.

[harvey1]

I am really tired of this mischaracterization of our views. We have said(over and over) that the properties of the universe(what Harvey calls "laws") are intrinsic in the structure of the universe(built in)

I have not called properties as laws. I have tried to understand your position where you have repeatedly gone back and forth on whether laws exist or they do not exist (here's a small sampling):

laws HAVE NO EXISTENCE OUTSIDE OF OUR INTELLECT and have no effect on nature.

No, the "law" is a mental construct based on those properties, not the other way around.

Physical properties are what determines how nature behaves, laws are mental constructs describing that behavior.

Kaku says we are forced to entertain(consider) two OUTRAGEOUS solutions, not that we are forced to ACCEPT either, nor are they the only possibilities for solution of the apparent problem. The solution making the most sense is the "Paradoxes Cannot Happen" view I have expressed.

I did not say that we are forced to accept this view based on the arguments given by Novikov. Nor did I say that these are the only two possibilities. Re-read what I said.

Considering a possibility is not the same as acceptance of it

Again, re-read what I said. Here is what Kaku said:

Russian cosmologist Igor Novikov believes that we are forced to act in a way so that no paradoxes occur.

[harvey1]

I'm still thinking about the title of this topic. There is a certain irony in the way both sides accuse the other of ultimately basing their beliefs on faith. I thought the title would serve to remind us of this.

I understand, but I'd like to refer to this topic down the line by remembering the content of the thread and titles make that easier. I almost started a thread on this subject. The title is cryptic for this topic. Anyway...

[Grumpy]

harvey1

I have not called properties as laws. I have tried to understand your position where you have repeatedly gone back and forth on whether laws exist or they do not exist (here's a small sampling):

Neither have I! Ihave not gone back and forth either! Your examples:

Quote:
laws HAVE NO EXISTENCE OUTSIDE OF OUR INTELLECT and have no effect on nature.

The laws are based on our observation of the properties of nature, they have no physical existence of their own, they only exist in our mind and have no effect on reality.

Quote:
No, the "law" is a mental construct based on those properties, not the other way around.

The laws are based on our observation of the properties of nature, they have no physical existence of their own, they only exist in our mind and have no effect on reality.

Quote:
Physical properties are what determines how nature behaves, laws are mental constructs describing that behavior.

The laws are based on our observation of the properties of nature, they have no physical existence of their own, they only exist in our mind and have no effect on reality.

In what way are these statements inconsistent or "going back and forth"??? I think your attitude is showing, not your intellect. You just don't like my answers(too much logic, I think, for your taste) so you use dismissive tactics in an attempt to devalue them.

Grumpy

[harvey1]

In what way are these statements inconsistent or "going back and forth"??? I think your attitude is showing, not your intellect. You just don't like my answers(too much logic, I think, for your taste) so you use dismissive tactics in an attempt to devalue them.

Grumpy, you said you were tired of me mischaracterizing your views when I said:

I'm not advocating something that says that there are no laws (unlike you, Bugmaster, and Grumpy)

And, then you said:

I am really tired of this mischaracterization of our views. We have said(over and over) that the properties of the universe... are intrinsic in the structure of the universe(built in), not (as Harvey mischaracterizes them) nonexistent.

And, now you say:

The laws are based on our observation of the properties of nature, they have no physical existence of their own

Now, I said that your position was that there are no laws, you said in the past that there were no laws, and you just said there are no laws, so how can I be mischaracterizing your argument when we all agree that you said that there are no laws??