which came first

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
show don't tell
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 11:24 pm

which came first

Post #1

Post by show don't tell »

Im new to this board but have always loved debating people on this topic. The one question that has never been answered to my satifaction is which came first the chicken or the egg? If this been addressed please point me to the link.
Thank you

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Post #61

Post by Kenisaw »

William wrote: [Replying to post 57 by Kenisaw]
It does make sense to me. Here is an article from Hawking about it.


I C&P'ed the article and searched for the word 'nothing' within it. Turns out the word 'nothing' is used in the article exactly zero times.

So okay, it makes sense to you. How do you translate what Hawking is writing about in a way which would make it easier for a layperson to understand? Can you at least quote from the article when you assert that what you are saying is also what Hawking is saying?
The Hawking article wasn't about "nothing". It was about imaginary time and the no boundary condition. If you refer back to post 57, you said that "'Imaginary time and the no boundary condition' don't make any sense. Do these make sense to you?" I replied that it does make sense to me and I gave a link to an article about imaginary time and the no boundary condition.

While I'm nowhere near the level of Hawking, I can certainly try to explain something contained in the article. Do you want to know something in particular, or are you asking for a reader's digest version of the entire article?
The assumption of "something" is silly because we don't know either way.
The point is, there is no 'either way' because 'nothing' is not known to exist, whereas something is.

Therefore it isn't silly at all to presume that something always comes from something.
If you can point me to one thing in this universe which is evidently 'nothing', then perhaps we can speak to that.
I completely agree that there is no empty space in our universe. There is energy everywhere (all of space is about 2.7 degrees Kelvin in temperature). I've seen people talk about the vacuum of space, but since there is thermal energy it isn't technically empty, and even a vacuum has something called vacuum energy for that matter...

But what we know and experience is limited to this universe. Since we are talking about where the universe came from, to assume that it had to come from "something", "somewhere", at a point in "time" is to project the values of the universe outside the universe (if there is an outside the universe), and we don't know if that projecting is accurate or valid. Since everything IN the universe seems to cancel out based on all the experiments and tests done to date, then from the outside of the universe it appears that the universe is "nothing".

To take that further, there is a finite amount of stuff in the universe. We can say that there is "nothing" more than that. "Nothing" is the summation of everything outside the total amount of finite stuff in other words. So nothing does exist, in a real way.

Feel like we've gone down the rabbit hole? Don't worry, I do too. This whole topic gets very complicated, very fast, and I've left out all kinds of stuff already (in no small part because I can't quite wrap my brain around much of it).

Neil Degrass Tyson hosted a conversation with a bunch of smart folks about if nothing exists or not. Clearly it isn't a settled issue


Here are some answers at Quora about the topic. The one from Bryer Sophia-Garnder is quite good, but let me warn you that it is long and somewhat rambling. Some of the others are good too.
https://www.quora.com/Does-The-Nothing- ... through-it
Since we can't determine at this time, talking about chickens and eggs as it relates to the start of the universe is ignoring all the possibilities.
So here you are talking about 'ignoring all the possibilities' when it appears to me that one possibility you and Hawking both would rather ignore - as indeed this hypothesis of something coming from an imagined possible 'nothing' was spawned from - is the idea that an intelligent creative entity is the source.
That's a rather ironic statement actually, because according to some believers, gods are formless things, a spirit not made up of anything. So claiming one of those gods created the universe would indeed have something coming from nothing! Ever think about that?
Why are you so eager to not ignore the possibility that this universe came from 'nothing' when you are eager to ignore the possibility that something came from an intelligent creative entity?

Surely you can appreciate that a double standard is observable in your stance here?
Not at all. I've never claimed, with 100% certainty, that gods do not or can not exist. Gods are a possibility, just not one that I or many others consider remotely plausible. The reason why is that gods are pretty specific things, with many supposed characteristics that violate known universal and conservation laws. I've yet to read or hear about a god creature that doesn't interact with the universe without leaving evidence or violate conservation laws. There's little reason to consider such a thing as a possible explanation when it's characteristics already make it's existence doubtful.
An hypothesis generated through the need to argue against an intelligent creative entity being the cause of the universe cannot be endorsed on the grounds that 'it is possible and should not be ignored as a possibility' when in accepting it as such, one has to reject the possibility of the hypothesis that an intelligent creative entity is responsible.
Already addressed above I believe.
The one cancels out the other, and visa versa - but which is the more logical?

"Something comes from something"

or

"Something comes from nothing."

Which is less magical thinking?
Let's be more accurate then. Something comes from something, which didn't need to come from something OR nothing because it always existed. And this something is actually nothing by the way, because it is a spirit, which can break laws of the universe.

Less magical thinking indeed...

On top of that, let's not forget that "something" or "nothing" can't even be claimed as the only two possibilities. There could be others that we just haven't comprehended yet (like something from everything for instance).
Talking about chickens and eggs as it relates to the start of the universe is ignoring the something comes from nothing 'possibility' because nothing is absent, in that it does not actually exist. Chickens, eggs and the universe, however, do exist.
Yes they do exist. Existence doesn't prove source. So the fact that something exists doesn't mean you can say for sure why it exists.
To be accurate, I'm not arguing anything. I'm explaining to you a hypothesis of science.
To be sure, the particular hypothesis you are arguing in favor of is a product of a type zero species science, which of itself is demonstrably inadequate as a means of support and encouragement for establishing a type 1 species. So no. Also, you are not 'explaining' anything. You are appearing to be parroting an hypothesis which lacks any explanation which the layperson can understand with clarity.
Sorry, you lost me with your attempt to link the ability to harvest sunlight on Earth as a type 0 civilization with the topic we are discussing. Perhaps you could explain what you mean a different way so I can comprehend your meaning.

As for our discussion topic, I am a layperson, and although I've admitted that some of this stuff is over my head, I think you and I can get the basics of it. If I was parroting it I wouldn't spend so much time putting it into my own words and answering clarifying questions from people. I don't think I appreciate your insinuation here...
The entire universe cancels itself out.


If this were the case. the entire universe would not exist.
Why would you think that? -1 and +1 cancel out, yet they can both exist, right?
My failure to adequately explain it in a manner that makes sense to you doesn't invalidate the concept.
What invalidates the concept is that 'nothing' is an idea which is imagined to exist but cannot be shown to exist. What invalidates the concept is that it forces one to ignore the possibility that an intelligent creative entity is responsible for the universe existing. What invalidates the concept is that it was created specifically for the purpose of being able to ignore the possibility that an intelligent creative entity is responsible for the universe existing.
It is nonsense that it was created specifically as a way to ignore god creation claims. Prove your assertion that the concept of something from nothing was made specifically to ignore supernatural agents. You got a memo from someone that states this is the case, or perhaps a secret recording of scientists who got together because they wanted to attack religion instead of figuring out a scientific question?

I'm disappointed that you would ever write such nonsense. I though you were above such conspiracy claptrap like this, William...
Now, in stating the possibility that an intelligent creative entity is responsible for the universe existing I am not endorsing any of the common organised religion's ideas of who and what that intelligent creative entity may be, and acknowledge that these popular scientists you speak of are influenced by their contempt for such GOD-ideas in creating hypothesis which argue for the notion of the universe coming from 'nothing' as a better alternative than having to accept such ideas. However, I myself do not support such ideas (as to character attributes assigned) as having to be attached to the hypothesis of an intelligent creative entity being responsible for the universe existing. I am approaching the idea logically.
I look forward to your logically constructed claims about the existence of an intelligent critter that created the universe, and am eager to share my thoughts on what you've written up...
A belief is something considered true without empirical or factual support. This is not a belief. The net spin of the universe IS zero. The net charge of the universe IS zero. The net energy of the universe IS zero. This is repeatedly validated in study after study. Don't take my word for it, look it up. This empirical information clearly shows (along with the conservation laws) that the universe in total has no characteristics, except that everything in it adds up to a bunch of zeros.
Even so, you are speaking about math. "Zero" does not mean "nothing" because zero is something. It is the neutral position between positive and negative numbers.

That position sustains the stable interaction between the extremes and the extremes are what allow for things to form and forms are not created from 'nothing' but something (theory of quantum physics) so 'Zero' is the sustainer and stabilizer, not to be confused with 'nothing'.
Don't let the jargon get in the way here. Earlier you wanted things stated in layperson's terms, and now you complain when I've done just that. Zero is a representation of the null set for the universal charge or spin for example.

The net spin of the universe is that there is no spin. It is devoid of spin. It is devoid of charge. We can mathematically represent that as a zero when we add together all the charges for example. You end up with no charge. In laypersons terms, the representative equation of that equals zero.
It's a bunch of pieces of nothing to be more accurate.
Not accurate at all, except of course in relation to the 'theory of nothing'. These are something, otherwise we would not be able to discuss these things from within this thing. They are things, not no things.
Are they are parts of nothing, broken up. In quantum mechanics, that is a real thing.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #62

Post by William »

[Replying to post 61 by Kenisaw]
The Hawking article wasn't about "nothing". It was about imaginary time and the no boundary condition. If you refer back to post 57, you said that "'Imaginary time and the no boundary condition' don't make any sense. Do these make sense to you?" I replied that it does make sense to me and I gave a link to an article about imaginary time and the no boundary condition.

While I'm nowhere near the level of Hawking, I can certainly try to explain something contained in the article. Do you want to know something in particular, or are you asking for a reader's digest version of the entire article?
Well the obvious thing you might want to explain is what this 'Imaginary time and the no boundary condition' are, since they make sense to you.
But what we know and experience is limited to this universe. Since we are talking about where the universe came from, to assume that it had to come from "something", "somewhere", at a point in "time" is to project the values of the universe outside the universe (if there is an outside the universe), and we don't know if that projecting is accurate or valid. Since everything IN the universe seems to cancel out based on all the experiments and tests done to date, then from the outside of the universe it appears that the universe is "nothing".
Not sure what you are saying here, but it appears you are implying that a consciousness outside the universe would be unable to detect the existence of this universe, because this universe can only be detectable by consciousness which is within it, not outside of it.

Is that what you are suggesting?
To take that further, there is a finite amount of stuff in the universe.
If that is the case then the idea of an object of infinite density [OID] (which is attached to the pre-BB stage of the universe to explain a possible cause for why matter exists as well as why the BB happened) then this would have to be changed to 'an object finite density'.
We can say that there is "nothing" more than that.
Play on words yes? We can say that there is no thing outside the universe that we know about, but cannot assume that is actually the case - which is what Hawkings theory attempts to do by apparently removing the idea of the object of infinite density as a prior condition of the universe. (At least that is how it to me that his theory has done.)
"Nothing" is the summation of everything outside the total amount of finite stuff in other words. So nothing does exist, in a real way.


Play on words. The true statement would have to be 'nothing we know about' and 'nothing we know about does exist'.
Feel like we've gone down the rabbit hole? Don't worry, I do too.
I chuckled at that. I have reams of data specifically dealing with the 'rabbit hole' and the reader who bothers to check that out will certainly see that I am not worried at all about the position I am in, so deep as we are all within it. :) I accept it as a real condition and -in that - go with the flow.

The data re this can be found in my Members Notes and the reader is invited to peruse it as they will, at their own leisure, determined upon their personal interest in the subject. Anyone who does will immediately see that I am a theist - just by reading the sub-headings.
This whole topic gets very complicated, very fast, and I've left out all kinds of stuff already (in no small part because I can't quite wrap my brain around much of it).
I can. At least, more than anyone else I have encountered apart from one fellow I met recently who - in telling me what he thought about life the universe and everything - soon realized he was preaching to the choir. Obviously he had spent many years sussing out the variables as well. Just like I have.
Neil Degrass Tyson hosted a conversation with a bunch of smart folks about if nothing exists or not. Clearly it isn't a settled issue
Yes - I watched that one some time ago. I think I might even have mentioned it in my Members Notes somewhere. It is not something science can clear up anyway. The philosopher on the panel had a better bead on it. Philosophy is a better device for such ideas.
Another good 'un is this discussion;
2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?

That's a rather ironic statement actually, because according to some believers, gods are formless things, a spirit not made up of anything. So claiming one of those gods created the universe would indeed have something coming from nothing! Ever think about that?
Yes.

My conclusion is that consciousness is not a 'thing' in the same way physical objects are things.

Physical objects are created through consciousness interacting with potential.

Potential [QM] has the properties of physical 'stuff' but is in itself inert until consciousness involves itself with it.

Of course, we so deep down in the rabbit hole are surrounded by the physical stuff which was once potential and has since become substantial. In that, when we apply consciousness to our surrounds, we already have something to work with, but potential is still available to us in that. Think of it in terms of having the clay to work with already so we don't have to first somehow create the clay to work with. We already completed that phase on our way into the depths of the rabbit hole.

I cover this in more detail here:

♦ The Earth EntityImage

and if you care to take a look, you will see therein such subjects as;

♦ What else explains anything? Non consciousness?

♦ GOD is the subjective and all objective experience is in the mind of GOD

♦ Something can not be made from nothing.

Which are links to other discussions I have had with forum members - similar in nature to this one. Needless to say, it shows incontrovertibly how willing I have been in examining the nature of this 'rabbit hole'. :)
Not at all. I've never claimed, with 100% certainty, that gods do not or can not exist.
Not what I said you claimed. I wrote that you are eager to ignore the possibility that something came from an intelligent creative entity. Is that not true?

We shall see about that.
Gods are a possibility, just not one that I or many others consider remotely plausible.
Well now, if something isn't considered 'plausible' why would those who think so, bother to engage with the possibility? Wouldn't it stand to reason that such would be eager not to do so? Even if for no other reason than they would think it a waste of their time doing so?
The reason why is that gods are pretty specific things, with many supposed characteristics that violate known universal and conservation laws. I've yet to read or hear about a god creature that doesn't interact with the universe without leaving evidence or violate conservation laws. There's little reason to consider such a thing as a possible explanation when it's characteristics already make it's existence doubtful.
My theology deals with that. You can read the data in the link I gave above, and get back to me with any concerns you might have after doing so.
Let's be more accurate then. Something comes from something, which didn't need to come from something...
How can you know there was no need involved?
OR nothing because it always existed.
Now we shift the subject from;

♦ Timelessness vs infinite regress argument Image

To;

♦ On the theory of the universe having always existed and will always exist. Image

My theology can deal with either argument because my theology is open-ended and thus adaptable.
In relation to the theory of the universe having always existed and will always exist one still has to take into account the universe has always continually begun and ended, but that this does not mean it always repeats itself in each cycle. Cycles have to be part of the theory or the BB won't fit with it.

Either way, GOD exists as the conscious aspect of the process and defines how each cycle will unfold. I say this matter-of-factually because I see the creative process as an intellectual one rather than a random mindless one.

My preference though, is the idea of multiple universes as outlined in the first link I gave in this post, as it is far more engaging and deeper than a cyclic universe and achieves the same things more efficiently for that. Instead of one universe, multiple universes - some branching from others and some simultaneous with others.
And this something is actually nothing by the way, because it is a spirit, which can break laws of the universe.

Less magical thinking indeed...
Certainly less magical thinking than 'something comes from nothing' because we all do know that magicians don't actually produce rabbits out of hats containing thin air, and even if they did grab the rabbit from some alternate universe, well that would be something (somewhere), right?

:D

But what makes you think - by observing the universe - GOD is no thing? Certainly my theology asserts that Consciousness is GOD without form, but as soon as consciousness creates form and moves into that form, then the something which is consciousness experiences through the something which is form.

Even if consciousness existed in a state where there was no form, just because form did not exist does not mean that consciousness is not something, and in that, it cannot be said that consciousness is thus experiencing nothing, because whatever it experiences it is also able to acknowledge, and in acknowledging the experience of nothing, it has made that nothing, something. The reason for this is simple. In order for any thing or no thing to be acknowledged, there must exist that which can do the acknowledging. And in every case, that which is able to acknowledge must exist in order to do so, therefore - even when there is no thing to acknowledge, there is always the existence of that which acknowledges no thing existing except for its self.

In the case of a GOD existing within the universe and NOT breaking the particular laws of that universe in any way which can obviously be detected by us in our position in the universe, I don't have issue with that as I do not see WHY It (GOD) would have to.

In order for you to get a bead on why I think this though, you would have to read the data I have linked you to, especially that which relates to 'aspects of First Source Consciousness' and the process of one aspect (the Universal Entity) [UE] of FSC moving into that potential (the object of infinite density) [OID] and by doing so, the way this universe then unfolded is directly related to that aspect of FSC, as it began its experience of having a beginning (or at least heading in that direction) which is physically represented by the BB, and the continuing ripple effect (galaxies etc) as a reflection of Its particular intentions, mind-set etc.

Therein (the intentions) are revealed in physical representation. Not need to 'break the laws' but rather the need to 'go with the flow.' and 'see what happens' as time-space unfolds in relation to the intention.

The egg and chicken being part of that process. :)
On top of that, let's not forget that "something" or "nothing" can't even be claimed as the only two possibilities. There could be others that we just haven't comprehended yet (like something from everything for instance).
Something is the only real possibility, as I explained back in this post. Nothing simply (logically) cannot actually exist and 'something from everything' is still something rather than nothing.
Existence doesn't prove source.
The existence of this universe does not necessarily prove the nature of First Source is reflected by that. Something which exists without a consciousness acknowledging it doesn't mean that the something therefore does not exist. Perhaps it may as well not exist in relation to the particular consciousness not observing it, but that is besides the point.
So the fact that something exists doesn't mean you can say for sure why it exists.


I can at least logically say for sure that something else caused it to exist, even that the 'it' we are speaking of is the universe itself. I can then surmise what the something is likely to be through equating the things that are observed with the notion of something having created it.

Specifically, it can be observed that the universe is still in the process of being created and we can understand that the creative process appears to be uniform even that different parts of the universe are in different stages of that uniform process.
For example we can surmise that other types of biological life will be evolving throughout the universe, some far more ancient and advanced than us, some at a similar stage than us, and some barely in the rudimentary stages of that particular process. ALL at the deepest levels of the rabbit hole.

We can also understand that the position of the stars we see in the night sky are not the actual positions. The actual positions will be different than where we see them.

After taking many things into consideration I have so far come to the conclusion as to 'why' this universe exists, in relation to the UE and subsequent aspects of UE consciousness, (obviously inclusive of all biological life forms) it exists as a prison/containment area/matrix.

♦ What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.Image

I am open to other reasons, but for now I cannot think of any which would explain why consciousness is inside this universe, as it obviously isn't ideal...except as a prison - self created at that and specifically suitable for GOD-like entities who have gone astray and require reintegration. :) Obviously whom-ever created this universe isn't altogether a nice being. Thus aspects of its consciousness imbued into the forms it creates and experiences through, arn't going to be very nice either. Not that I am saying it is all bad, because there is good also.
Sorry, you lost me with your attempt to link the ability to harvest sunlight on Earth as a type 0 civilization with the topic we are discussing.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean a different way so I can comprehend your meaning.
Okay.
The topic we are discussing is the universe itself as well as eggs and chickens etc...

Your argument against mine included the assertion that human science somehow offers the best hypothesis, and my reply pointing at the type zero species we currently are was an effort on my part to say "so what? That doesn't mean anything significant in the grand scheme of things, because it is type zero science."

Typically a type zero species is more puffed up with self importance than is actually warranted, and I personally view the way scientists are currently venerated as coming from the same puffed up with exaggerated self importance hyperbole which was once reserved for religion and priesthoods. Only it isn't hyperbole when taken seriously. It is dangerous.

As a species we will of course have to pull our heads in on that front, if we ever hope to achieve type 1 status.

So no. With that in mind, I do not accept that just because some or even many scientists say 'this is how it is' that I should therefore simply accept that as the best explanation. I don't. I haven't, any more than I accept any organised religious idea of GOD as being the best explanation for/of GOD.
As for our discussion topic, I am a layperson, and although I've admitted that some of this stuff is over my head, I think you and I can get the basics of it. If I was parroting it I wouldn't spend so much time putting it into my own words and answering clarifying questions from people. I don't think I appreciate your insinuation here...
Get over it you will, I am sure. :)

Anyway, I wasn't insinuating I was just saying how it appeared to be to me. I look forward to more of your own words and thoughts in relation to that.
Why would you think that? -1 and +1 cancel out, yet they can both exist, right?
As I explained, they exist because of zero. Zero is the anchor.
It is nonsense that it was created specifically as a way to ignore god creation claims. Prove your assertion that the concept of something from nothing was made specifically to ignore supernatural agents. You got a memo from someone that states this is the case, or perhaps a secret recording of scientists who got together because they wanted to attack religion instead of figuring out a scientific question?

I'm disappointed that you would ever write such nonsense. I though you were above such conspiracy claptrap like this, William...


I'm sorry. Did I catch you at a bad time Kenisaw? :D What's with the over-the-top rebuke bud?

I too am disappointed in you using this type of retort, implying as you have that I am being dishonest and conspiratory in my assertion!
Do you know of any atheist scientists who persist with theological/philosophical explanations or argue in favor of such rather than sticking with theories which don't included the notion of a creator entity? I do not, and certainly I see none of that in what Hawking's offers and my observation is valid for that. His particular theory leaves NO room for the idea of a creator entity, plain and simple!

It was therefore, as I said - designed that way ignore the possibility that an intelligent creative entity is responsible for the universe existing. Even in the link you gave, there are expressions he gives which more than hint to the reader that he has no time for such musings.

I even went into some detail in my last post to expand on that. Please, can we dispense with slightly emotional outbursts and simply stick to the facts? What I actually wrote was that such theories ignore the possibility that an intelligent creative entity is responsible for the universe existing.

Not as a way to 'ignore god creation claims', as you re-worded it. With or without their theories, they still do that anyway. My statement simply points to the bias.
I look forward to your logically constructed claims about the existence of an intelligent critter that created the universe, and am eager to share my thoughts on what you've written up...
We shall see then whether there is truth in your words above. The links have been given. There is a lot of data to get through. Perhaps when you are ready to proceed, you can start another thread in the chat section? I would be interested in your (and anyone else's) thoughts on what I have written up.
Don't let the jargon get in the way here. Earlier you wanted things stated in layperson's terms, and now you complain when I've done just that. Zero is a representation of the null set for the universal charge or spin for example.

The net spin of the universe is that there is no spin. It is devoid of spin. It is devoid of charge. We can mathematically represent that as a zero when we add together all the charges for example. You end up with no charge. In laypersons terms, the representative equation of that equals zero.
Yes BUT, we all know there is charge and there is spin, so the layperson who is told there is not because 'math' is going to wonder about the way math is being used in this circumstance, because if math says there is no charge or spin when it is common knowledge there exists both charge and spin in reality...something doesn't smell right, if you get what I mean there.

Also in hand-waving away my comments about how zero represents the anchoring point (which allows for such things as spin and charge) with the phrase 'Don't let the jargon get in the way here' you dismissed my observation altogether without explanation as to why.

In affect, you say the zero represents 'no spin' and 'no charge' while I say zero is the sustainer and stabilizer - that which allows for the extremes NOT to cancel one another out. Zero in affect, allows for spin and charge to exist - otherwise they would cancel each other out.
Are they are parts of nothing, broken up. In quantum mechanics, that is a real thing.
I have never noticed in QM where anything is referred to as 'parts of nothing'. Indeed, to call things 'parts' is to acknowledge they exist as something(s) and in that - as we know, parts of a vehicle are something on their own, and altogether make up something on its own (the vehicle complete) so to claim QM is saying that nothing is a real thing because all the somethings which come from it are altogether really nothing is reminiscent of the hypnotist claiming the onion is really an apple, if you get my drift.

Effectively your claim here appears to amount to neither the egg or the chicken came first because they cancel each other out and are nothing anyway because they come from nothing.

QM I regard as something and represent the potential.

But anyway, perhaps we can get into the nitty-gritty of this together and nut it out. I have said to other members that we exist within a type of simulation - I have referred to it as 'being in the mind of a GOD' - that which we are experiencing - and that it is an illusion for that. Even so I am not claiming in that, that the illusion is 'nothing' because anything which can be experienced as something, is real enough for that. It has to be something in order for it to be experienced.

And like I said earlier, even if something existed free from any conscious observation and acknowledgment of its existence, that doesn't mean it doesn't and cannot exist at all and is therefore 'nothing'. Right?

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Post #63

Post by Kenisaw »

William wrote: [Replying to post 61 by Kenisaw]
The Hawking article wasn't about "nothing". It was about imaginary time and the no boundary condition. If you refer back to post 57, you said that "'Imaginary time and the no boundary condition' don't make any sense. Do these make sense to you?" I replied that it does make sense to me and I gave a link to an article about imaginary time and the no boundary condition.

While I'm nowhere near the level of Hawking, I can certainly try to explain something contained in the article. Do you want to know something in particular, or are you asking for a reader's digest version of the entire article?
Well the obvious thing you might want to explain is what this 'Imaginary time and the no boundary condition' are, since they make sense to you.
The concept comes about from thinking about spacetime like the surface of a ball. There is a finite amount of surface, yet no boundaries or edges of that surface, hence the no boundary condition. That's easy enough to understand. The harder part is when you incorporate imaginary time into the mix.

Imaginary time comes from quantum theory. When added to the three dimensions of space, you get a 4-dimension Euclidean structure. It's a 4-dimensional structure that still has the no boundary condition. It's hard to imagine such a thing, but in Euclidean geometry it is easily possible.

In the 4-dimension, no boundary condition, the laws of physics are already present, and the laws of physics are actually responsible for the creation of our universe.
But what we know and experience is limited to this universe. Since we are talking about where the universe came from, to assume that it had to come from "something", "somewhere", at a point in "time" is to project the values of the universe outside the universe (if there is an outside the universe), and we don't know if that projecting is accurate or valid. Since everything IN the universe seems to cancel out based on all the experiments and tests done to date, then from the outside of the universe it appears that the universe is "nothing".
Not sure what you are saying here, but it appears you are implying that a consciousness outside the universe would be unable to detect the existence of this universe, because this universe can only be detectable by consciousness which is within it, not outside of it.

Is that what you are suggesting?
No, not necessarily. Since we can't seem to know what is outside this universe (and for that matter we don't even know if there is an "outside this universe"), we can't assume that the universe came from something, somewhere, at some point in time. We can't assume external agents, and we can't assume there aren't external agents. We don't know either way.
To take that further, there is a finite amount of stuff in the universe.
If that is the case then the idea of an object of infinite density [OID] (which is attached to the pre-BB stage of the universe to explain a possible cause for why matter exists as well as why the BB happened) then this would have to be changed to 'an object finite density'.
What physics is trying to get at here is that any reasonable definition of density for the singularity would not be limited as the volume approaches zero. Even with finite mass, as the volume becomes infinitesimally small the limit of mass/volume is going to diverge to positive infinity, which is why it's reasonable to say that the density is infinite. Since the singularity is a point source, and in math a point doesn't take up space, you get infinite density out of that (but you are right that it is not actually infinitely dense).

Don't forget that we don't actually know what a singularity is. It's an "I don't know" placeholder that represents the moment before the Big Bang. When some really smart human being figures out quantum gravity, the hope is that we can do away with singularities because we will have some sort of structure defined that will explain what was present.
"Nothing" is the summation of everything outside the total amount of finite stuff in other words. So nothing does exist, in a real way.


Play on words. The true statement would have to be 'nothing we know about' and 'nothing we know about does exist'.
It's not a play on words. It's the representation of everything outside of the finite stuff of the universe.
Feel like we've gone down the rabbit hole? Don't worry, I do too.
I chuckled at that. I have reams of data specifically dealing with the 'rabbit hole' and the reader who bothers to check that out will certainly see that I am not worried at all about the position I am in, so deep as we are all within it. :) I accept it as a real condition and -in that - go with the flow.

The data re this can be found in my Members Notes and the reader is invited to peruse it as they will, at their own leisure, determined upon their personal interest in the subject. Anyone who does will immediately see that I am a theist - just by reading the sub-headings.
I've read some of this before, and commented on them if I remember properly.

I would note that I do not find it accurate to call your collection in member notes "data", defined as sets of information gathered via measurement.
This whole topic gets very complicated, very fast, and I've left out all kinds of stuff already (in no small part because I can't quite wrap my brain around much of it).
I can. At least, more than anyone else I have encountered apart from one fellow I met recently who - in telling me what he thought about life the universe and everything - soon realized he was preaching to the choir. Obviously he had spent many years sussing out the variables as well. Just like I have.
OK.
Neil Degrass Tyson hosted a conversation with a bunch of smart folks about if nothing exists or not. Clearly it isn't a settled issue
Yes - I watched that one some time ago. I think I might even have mentioned it in my Members Notes somewhere. It is not something science can clear up anyway. The philosopher on the panel had a better bead on it. Philosophy is a better device for such ideas.
Another good 'un is this discussion;
2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?
The philosopher did just fine in that debate. Philosophy is very useful for guessing about things until we have the ability to actually determine them.
That's a rather ironic statement actually, because according to some believers, gods are formless things, a spirit not made up of anything. So claiming one of those gods created the universe would indeed have something coming from nothing! Ever think about that?
Yes.

My conclusion is that consciousness is not a 'thing' in the same way physical objects are things.

Physical objects are created through consciousness interacting with potential.

Potential [QM] has the properties of physical 'stuff' but is in itself inert until consciousness involves itself with it.

Of course, we so deep down in the rabbit hole are surrounded by the physical stuff which was once potential and has since become substantial. In that, when we apply consciousness to our surrounds, we already have something to work with, but potential is still available to us in that. Think of it in terms of having the clay to work with already so we don't have to first somehow create the clay to work with. We already completed that phase on our way into the depths of the rabbit hole.

I cover this in more detail here:

♦ The Earth EntityImage

and if you care to take a look, you will see therein such subjects as;

♦ What else explains anything? Non consciousness?

♦ GOD is the subjective and all objective experience is in the mind of GOD

♦ Something can not be made from nothing.

Which are links to other discussions I have had with forum members - similar in nature to this one. Needless to say, it shows incontrovertibly how willing I have been in examining the nature of this 'rabbit hole'. :)
I remember much of this. There was a thread about consciousness (or something similar) back in the day where you presented these concepts. I do not agree with your conclusions, consciousness is a result of physical structure and chemistry. But that is for another thread.
Not at all. I've never claimed, with 100% certainty, that gods do not or can not exist.
Not what I said you claimed. I wrote that you are eager to ignore the possibility that something came from an intelligent creative entity. Is that not true?

We shall see about that.
I am eager to follow the data and empirical evidence. There isn't any that supports conjecture about gods or the supernatural. I find it absurd for people to talk about the possibility of creative entities when no one can produce even one iota of date for the existence of such things.
Gods are a possibility, just not one that I or many others consider remotely plausible.
Well now, if something isn't considered 'plausible' why would those who think so, bother to engage with the possibility?
They will if there is data or evidence that suggests it should be considered. Anyone around here got any? No, they don't. That is always where this conversation ends, with someone wanting creative entities considered as an explanation, but unable to provide any supporting facts for their existence. If someone wants creative entities engaged as a possibility, they need to put together some facts that show that they are possible.

The reason creative entities aren't eliminated from consideration is because one cannot prove a negative. One cannot prove that creative entities do not exist. But the inability to prove a negative doesn't increase the likelihood that they do exist, or that they are specifically responsible for something. That takes facts, which someone needs to start bringing forward for all to consider.
Wouldn't it stand to reason that such would be eager not to do so?
It's not the fault of the data and empirical evidence that they don't support claims of creative entities. Science gathers and examines facts. If those facts don't support supernatural explanations, then supernatural explanations are not considered. I feel you are attempting to make this personal, like science is ignoring creative entities for no good reason. There's very good reason not to consider them - they are unproven claims devoid of empirical support. Over half the scientists in America are religious and/or believe in a personal god, yet "god did it" is never an answer. There's legitimate reasons why that is the case.
Even if for no other reason than they would think it a waste of their time doing so?
It's a waste of time pursuing explanations that don't fit the data. That includes ALL explanations that don't fit the data, regardless of whether or not they are natural or supernatural based. If divine entities don't fit the data, and someone thinks divine entities are still responsible, then they ought to find some data that supports that.
The reason why is that gods are pretty specific things, with many supposed characteristics that violate known universal and conservation laws. I've yet to read or hear about a god creature that doesn't interact with the universe without leaving evidence or violate conservation laws. There's little reason to consider such a thing as a possible explanation when it's characteristics already make it's existence doubtful.
My theology deals with that. You can read the data in the link I gave above, and get back to me with any concerns you might have after doing so.
There are multiple links preceding your sentence here. I was not sure which one you were referring to. I will go with the "Earth Entity" link and hope that is the right one.

That post is devoid of data. It is nothing but conjecture, and does not address anything I've talked about.
Let's be more accurate then. Something comes from something, which didn't need to come from something...
How can you know there was no need involved?
If everything balances out, where is there room for need?
OR nothing because it always existed.
Now we shift the subject from;

♦ Timelessness vs infinite regress argument Image

To;

♦ On the theory of the universe having always existed and will always exist. Image

My theology can deal with either argument because my theology is open-ended and thus adaptable.
Let me stop you right here. Your theology, if I may be so bold and blunt, is complete speculation. It's no different in format that the PCE stuff that ttruscott has been formulating really. You both are making up whatever is necessary in order to explain away the unknown.

You can claim intelligence is a perpetual property of the universe, but there is no supporting data for it, so there is no reason to think it's true.
In relation to the theory of the universe having always existed and will always exist one still has to take into account the universe has always continually begun and ended, but that this does not mean it always repeats itself in each cycle. Cycles have to be part of the theory or the BB won't fit with it.
This is not an accurate statement about the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang explains the facts about this universe, it does not comment on before this universe.
Either way, GOD exists as the conscious aspect of the process and defines how each cycle will unfold. I say this matter-of-factually because I see the creative process as an intellectual one rather than a random mindless one.
You state it matter of factually, but it is factless in its basis.
My preference though, is the idea of multiple universes as outlined in the first link I gave in this post, as it is far more engaging and deeper than a cyclic universe and achieves the same things more efficiently for that. Instead of one universe, multiple universes - some branching from others and some simultaneous with others.
All very interesting conjecture. Perhaps someday we will be able to know more for sure.
And this something is actually nothing by the way, because it is a spirit, which can break laws of the universe.

Less magical thinking indeed...
Certainly less magical thinking than 'something comes from nothing' because we all do know that magicians don't actually produce rabbits out of hats containing thin air, and even if they did grab the rabbit from some alternate universe, well that would be something (somewhere), right?
As opposed to consciousness just existing everywhere all the time you mean? :D
But what makes you think - by observing the universe - GOD is no thing? Certainly my theology asserts that Consciousness is GOD without form, but as soon as consciousness creates form and moves into that form, then the something which is consciousness experiences through the something which is form.

Even if consciousness existed in a state where there was no form, just because form did not exist does not mean that consciousness is not something, and in that, it cannot be said that consciousness is thus experiencing nothing, because whatever it experiences it is also able to acknowledge, and in acknowledging the experience of nothing, it has made that nothing, something. The reason for this is simple. In order for any thing or no thing to be acknowledged, there must exist that which can do the acknowledging. And in every case, that which is able to acknowledge must exist in order to do so, therefore - even when there is no thing to acknowledge, there is always the existence of that which acknowledges no thing existing except for its self.
This is inherently contradictory. Consciousness cannot experience "nothing". If you have no input, you have no experience. "Nothing" is the lack of input. If a supposed existence acknowledges no thing existing except for itself, it is still experiencing something (itself). So it cannot possibly be experiencing nothing. You can't have something experience nothing, that is false logic.

A god (entity/being/consciousness) creating something from nothing can't unless the god is also no thing, which is a ludicrous proposition.
In the case of a GOD existing within the universe and NOT breaking the particular laws of that universe in any way which can obviously be detected by us in our position in the universe, I don't have issue with that as I do not see WHY It (GOD) would have to.
It would have to because of the laws of the universe. The laws of chemistry or physics don't care whether an action is performed by you, me, or the consciousness entity. If the creative entity thing can do whatever it wants and not affect the laws of the universe, then it must have this special property called MAGIC, or it is a no thing and doesn't actually interact with the universe. Either one is ridiculously illogical.
In order for you to get a bead on why I think this though, you would have to read the data I have linked you to, especially that which relates to 'aspects of First Source Consciousness' and the process of one aspect (the Universal Entity) [UE] of FSC moving into that potential (the object of infinite density) [OID] and by doing so, the way this universe then unfolded is directly related to that aspect of FSC, as it began its experience of having a beginning (or at least heading in that direction) which is physically represented by the BB, and the continuing ripple effect (galaxies etc) as a reflection of Its particular intentions, mind-set etc.

Therein (the intentions) are revealed in physical representation. Not need to 'break the laws' but rather the need to 'go with the flow.' and 'see what happens' as time-space unfolds in relation to the intention.

The egg and chicken being part of that process. :)
As mentioned earlier I have taken the time to go through much of this previously. I will be honest with you that I find it lacking in convincing argumentation. You have clearly explained it, so I do understand the points you are trying to make, but it is the factless foundations from which you spring forth (such as an always existing consciousness) that are not justified in the material you've put together.
Existence doesn't prove source.
The existence of this universe does not necessarily prove the nature of First Source is reflected by that.
The existence of this universe doesn't prove anything at all, except that the universe does indeed exist.
Something which exists without a consciousness acknowledging it doesn't mean that the something therefore does not exist.
Never said that it did. The universe, if the Big Bang model is accurate, has not always had consciousness in it, yet it did exist 14.5 billion years ago. Consciousness is not required for something to exist.
Perhaps it may as well not exist in relation to the particular consciousness not observing it, but that is besides the point.
I think this is an important point actually. Our universe is not more valuable just because there are conscious entities like ourselves that can experience it and know we are experiencing it. The existence of the universe IS, regardless of consciousness. It does not have a value, outside of the construct of human minds, and its existence does not change because of it. If every life died tomorrow, the universe would still go on just as it does now.
So the fact that something exists doesn't mean you can say for sure why it exists.


I can at least logically say for sure that something else caused it to exist, even that the 'it' we are speaking of is the universe itself. I can then surmise what the something is likely to be through equating the things that are observed with the notion of something having created it.
No, you can't logically say that. That was the point of the whole conversation, I believe, when we first started all this. We have no idea whether or not something else caused it to exist. That assumes too much. Which is why one can't surmise anything about the universe, at least factually.
Specifically, it can be observed that the universe is still in the process of being created and we can understand that the creative process appears to be uniform even that different parts of the universe are in different stages of that uniform process.
For example we can surmise that other types of biological life will be evolving throughout the universe, some far more ancient and advanced than us, some at a similar stage than us, and some barely in the rudimentary stages of that particular process. ALL at the deepest levels of the rabbit hole.
This is completely unsubstantiated. The universe is not still being created, all of it has been around for 14.6 billion years. Any life that has existed or will exist is not created, it is made up of the same material and energy that already exists in the universe. New life isn't created anymore than a new star is created. Nor can we actually surmise that other types of life have or will occur in the universe. We only have one data point (Earth) and therefore cannot extrapolate out as to how many places life is statistically possible.
We can also understand that the position of the stars we see in the night sky are not the actual positions. The actual positions will be different than where we see them.
Correct, because they are all moving, and we cannot see their exact position at this moment because they are too far away. Even the Sun is 8 minutes old from our viewpoint.
After taking many things into consideration I have so far come to the conclusion as to 'why' this universe exists, in relation to the UE and subsequent aspects of UE consciousness, (obviously inclusive of all biological life forms) it exists as a prison/containment area/matrix.

♦ What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.Image
I do not share your conclusions, not that you need care what I think.
I am open to other reasons, but for now I cannot think of any which would explain why consciousness is inside this universe, as it obviously isn't ideal...except as a prison - self created at that and specifically suitable for GOD-like entities who have gone astray and require reintegration. :) Obviously whom-ever created this universe isn't altogether a nice being. Thus aspects of its consciousness imbued into the forms it creates and experiences through, arn't going to be very nice either. Not that I am saying it is all bad, because there is good also.
How about - Conscious exists because the structures that it arises from allow it to exist? That seems pretty simple and jives with reality.
Sorry, you lost me with your attempt to link the ability to harvest sunlight on Earth as a type 0 civilization with the topic we are discussing.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean a different way so I can comprehend your meaning.
Okay.
The topic we are discussing is the universe itself as well as eggs and chickens etc...

Your argument against mine included the assertion that human science somehow offers the best hypothesis, and my reply pointing at the type zero species we currently are was an effort on my part to say "so what? That doesn't mean anything significant in the grand scheme of things, because it is type zero science."

Typically a type zero species is more puffed up with self importance than is actually warranted, and I personally view the way scientists are currently venerated as coming from the same puffed up with exaggerated self importance hyperbole which was once reserved for religion and priesthoods. Only it isn't hyperbole when taken seriously. It is dangerous.

As a species we will of course have to pull our heads in on that front, if we ever hope to achieve type 1 status.

So no. With that in mind, I do not accept that just because some or even many scientists say 'this is how it is' that I should therefore simply accept that as the best explanation. I don't. I haven't, any more than I accept any organised religious idea of GOD as being the best explanation for/of GOD.
I don't simply accept scientific explanations myself, that's why I do my own digging on some topics, and why other scientists check over the work of their colleagues.

So you reject what science puts forth as the best current explanation of things, even though science makes those statements after careful scrutinization of gathered and tested facts, validated by others, and instead accept the existence of unproven creative entities as the basis for explanation. Sorry, I don't see the logic there.

In fact, the whole concept of zero type science is one you rather conjured up out of thin air, the idea for which I assume you got from DI's level 0 civilization thread. I see no reason why science is at a "zero level", or that it is "puffed up with self importance". Some backing for such claims is probably in order here.
It is nonsense that it was created specifically as a way to ignore god creation claims. Prove your assertion that the concept of something from nothing was made specifically to ignore supernatural agents. You got a memo from someone that states this is the case, or perhaps a secret recording of scientists who got together because they wanted to attack religion instead of figuring out a scientific question?

I'm disappointed that you would ever write such nonsense. I though you were above such conspiracy claptrap like this, William...


I too am disappointed in you using this type of retort, implying as you have that I am being dishonest and conspiratory in my assertion!
I'm just going off the words that you wrote. I'll explain more below.
Do you know of any atheist scientists who persist with theological/philosophical explanations or argue in favor of such rather than sticking with theories which don't included the notion of a creator entity?
Is there any empirical data or evidence that points to a creator entity being responsible for any of it? Then why on Earth would anyone think that the notion of a creator entity should be included in the explanations?

Let's not pretend, by the way, that it's just atheist scientists that don't stick god creatures into explanations for things. Lots of theistic scientists don't do it either. Why? Because science follows the evidence. If someone wants gods to be part of the explanation, then they need to start finding evidence of such things, and show evidence that such things actually were involved in the formation of the universe.
I do not, and certainly I see none of that in what Hawking's offers and my observation is valid for that. His particular theory leaves NO room for the idea of a creator entity, plain and simple!
Nonsense. Hawking could say imaginary time was created by a conscious entity if he wanted to. He could say that Euclidean geometric shapes only exist because Odin willed it so. There's plenty of room for all kinds of supernatural slants on his hypothesis.

He could do that, but he hasn't. It's most likely due to the complete dearth of fact and empirical data that supports the baseless claim that supernatural entities exist and were involved in anything related to this universe.
It was therefore, as I said - designed that way ignore the possibility that an intelligent creative entity is responsible for the universe existing. Even in the link you gave, there are expressions he gives which more than hint to the reader that he has no time for such musings.
Why make time for something not supported by the data? He also doesn't seem to consider leprechauns in his works. Given the lack of evidence for their existence, that's a prudent move on his part.
I even went into some detail in my last post to expand on that. Please, can we dispense with slightly emotional outbursts and simply stick to the facts? What I actually wrote was that such theories ignore the possibility that an intelligent creative entity is responsible for the universe existing.

Not as a way to 'ignore god creation claims', as you re-worded it. With or without their theories, they still do that anyway. My statement simply points to the bias.
The only bias is the bias towards empirical evidence and that which can be validated and verified. If anything ignores god creation claims, it is the facts and data that have been gathered to date.

What you wrote, specifically, is that "it forces one to ignore the possibility that an intelligent creative entity is responsible for the universe existing", and that "it was created specifically for the purpose of being able to ignore the possibility that an intelligent creative entity is responsible". You aren't saying that his hypothesis was created to ignore god creation claims? I don't see what other meaning your own words could possible have, Will. You think such theories are conspiratorial, made to keep out the possibility of god beings, when the sum total of current gathered data is what is doing that.
I look forward to your logically constructed claims about the existence of an intelligent critter that created the universe, and am eager to share my thoughts on what you've written up...
We shall see then whether there is truth in your words above. The links have been given. There is a lot of data to get through. Perhaps when you are ready to proceed, you can start another thread in the chat section? I would be interested in your (and anyone else's) thoughts on what I have written up.
That is a good suggestion. I will look your links over and see if I can find a suitable starting point.
Don't let the jargon get in the way here. Earlier you wanted things stated in layperson's terms, and now you complain when I've done just that. Zero is a representation of the null set for the universal charge or spin for example.

The net spin of the universe is that there is no spin. It is devoid of spin. It is devoid of charge. We can mathematically represent that as a zero when we add together all the charges for example. You end up with no charge. In laypersons terms, the representative equation of that equals zero.
Yes BUT, we all know there is charge and there is spin, so the layperson who is told there is not because 'math' is going to wonder about the way math is being used in this circumstance, because if math says there is no charge or spin when it is common knowledge there exists both charge and spin in reality...something doesn't smell right, if you get what I mean there.[/quote]

We are talking net though, in the entirety of the universe. The nice thing about math is, if someone doubts it, they can go and check it themselves. No need to take anyone's word for it.
Also in hand-waving away my comments about how zero represents the anchoring point (which allows for such things as spin and charge) with the phrase 'Don't let the jargon get in the way here' you dismissed my observation altogether without explanation as to why.

In affect, you say the zero represents 'no spin' and 'no charge' while I say zero is the sustainer and stabilizer - that which allows for the extremes NOT to cancel one another out. Zero in affect, allows for spin and charge to exist - otherwise they would cancel each other out.
I did explain why, in the part you did not quote in your post. To reiterate: "The net spin of the universe is that there is no spin. It is devoid of spin. It is devoid of charge. We can mathematically represent that as a zero when we add together all the charges for example. You end up with no charge. In laypersons terms, the representative equation of that equals zero. "
Are they are parts of nothing, broken up. In quantum mechanics, that is a real thing.
I have never noticed in QM where anything is referred to as 'parts of nothing'. Indeed, to call things 'parts' is to acknowledge they exist as something(s) and in that - as we know, parts of a vehicle are something on their own, and altogether make up something on its own (the vehicle complete) so to claim QM is saying that nothing is a real thing because all the somethings which come from it are altogether really nothing is reminiscent of the hypnotist claiming the onion is really an apple, if you get my drift.
"In the simplest terms if I start with zero apples and add one apple then eat that apple before you see it(and continuously add and subtract just as fast as they are added) that is what the word is being used for there was something but when you checked you got the answer of zero whichh is just what I started with(the base state) it is just a almost accurate description of a QED Vacuum

The necessary physics part is:
“The quantum theory asserts that a vacuum, even the most perfect vacuum devoid of any matter, is not really empty. Rather the quantum vacuum can be depicted as a sea of continuously appearing and disappearing [pairs of] particles that manifest themselves in the apparent jostling of particles that is quite distinct from their thermal motions. These particles are ‘virtual’, as opposed to real, particles. ...At any given instant, the vacuum is full of such virtual pairs, which leave their signature behind, by affecting the energy levels of atoms.�
Effectively your claim here appears to amount to neither the egg or the chicken came first because they cancel each other out and are nothing anyway because they come from nothing.
No, that's not accurate at all. I request you go back and re-read everything I've written in this thread then, because that was never stated or implied.
But anyway, perhaps we can get into the nitty-gritty of this together and nut it out. I have said to other members that we exist within a type of simulation - I have referred to it as 'being in the mind of a GOD' - that which we are experiencing - and that it is an illusion for that. Even so I am not claiming in that, that the illusion is 'nothing' because anything which can be experienced as something, is real enough for that. It has to be something in order for it to be experienced.
Perhaps this will be in the new thread...
And like I said earlier, even if something existed free from any conscious observation and acknowledgment of its existence, that doesn't mean it doesn't and cannot exist at all and is therefore 'nothing'. Right?
Right. Consciousness is not required for existence.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #64

Post by William »

[Replying to post 63 by Kenisaw]

♦'Nothing' therefore does not really exist, because the mind of the creator is 'something'.Image

♦Every 'thing' exists in the Mind of The First SourceImage

I will be referring to the above links throughout my reply.
The concept comes about from thinking about spacetime like the surface of a ball. There is a finite amount of surface, yet no boundaries or edges of that surface, hence the no boundary condition.
Okay. So the 'ball' is being viewed from outside the ball.
In the 4-dimension, no boundary condition, the laws of physics are already present, and the laws of physics are actually responsible for the creation of our universe.
Where do these 'laws of physics' exist then. It appears you are saying they exist as potentials before the universe existed.
No, not necessarily. Since we can't seem to know what is outside this universe (and for that matter we don't even know if there is an "outside this universe"), we can't assume that the universe came from something, somewhere, at some point in time. We can't assume external agents, and we can't assume there aren't external agents. We don't know either way.
You are incorrect. The royal 'we' you speak to are scientists.

There is actually no place in philosophy where we cannot presume anything, as long as it remains logically consistent with such philosophical ideas and includes what we do know about what we see exists.
What physics is trying to get at here is that any reasonable definition of density for the singularity would not be limited as the volume approaches zero. Even with finite mass, as the volume becomes infinitesimally small the limit of mass/volume is going to diverge to positive infinity, which is why it's reasonable to say that the density is infinite. Since the singularity is a point source, and in math a point doesn't take up space, you get infinite density out of that (but you are right that it is not actually infinitely dense).
It has to at least be dense enough to contain all the energy and matter in the universe. So what I was alluding to is that no matter how infinitesimally small it may have been, it still has to be a physical object if the theory is to be fully contemplated.
Don't forget that we don't actually know what a singularity is. It's an "I don't know" placeholder that represents the moment before the Big Bang.
Such are the limitations of science. Philosophy however is able to go beyond that, so rather than the 'placeholder' being 'I don't know but it has to be something' the placeholder becomes what atheists of a certain mindset commonly refer to in a disparaging manner as 'the god of the gaps'.
When some really smart human being figures out quantum gravity, the hope is that we can do away with singularities because we will have some sort of structure defined that will explain what was present.
And by 'structure' you mean 'something physical'?
It's not a play on words. It's the representation of everything outside of the finite stuff of the universe.
In other words it is a label which those who won't contemplate the possibility of there being something ,without some kind of scientific verification.

Which in itself does not mean that nothing actually exists. It is just a label which presumes.
I would note that I do not find it accurate to call your collection in member notes "data", defined as sets of information gathered via measurement.

So you have a problem with how the word 'data' is being used. Information is not always acquired through objectified reality, due to the troublesome fact of subjectivity.
I would advise letting it go, as it is here nor there how you define 'data', other than perhaps you resist data which isn't measurable in terms of scientific method.

Philosophical based data is still data as far as I am concerned.
I am eager to follow the data and empirical evidence. There isn't any that supports conjecture about gods or the supernatural. I find it absurd for people to talk about the possibility of creative entities when no one can produce even one iota of date for the existence of such things.
This is largely because you base everything on what can scientifically be examined - the physical universe, and in that you see no evidence of the possibility of it being created by any conscious creative entity.

Theists on the other hand see the fact of both the physical universe and our being in it as the evidence that such a creator exists (which you can read more about at the link I gave at the beginning of the post).

Just as you find an 'absurdity' in people talking about the possibility of creative entities, I find it absurd that those who demand even one iota of data for the existence of such things are totally incapable of even stating what it is that they mean by that.

Me: The universe has to have been created either directly or indirectly by creative entities.

You: I find that absurd. Where is your evidence for this being the case?

Me: The universe existing and us existing within it.

You: THAT is not evidence!

Me: Okay then. If you don't consider THAT to being evidence, what then would you accept as being evidence?

You: *silence*.

Or, perhaps you DO have some examples of what you would consider evidence? If so, please share.
Well now, if something isn't considered 'plausible' why would those who think so, bother to engage with the possibility?
They will if there is data or evidence that suggests it should be considered.


This is where the defining line between the scientific and the philosophical is drawn.

All you are really saying is that your preference is for ONLY the scientific. In that, I accept you and the position you favor.
Because my position acknowledges both scientific and philosophical (rather than either or) I am able to accept through understanding your position as one you obviously prefer and are not interesting in budging from.

This in itself does not mean that all those who assume your position are - in doing so - somehow better than I or that their theories are replacements for philosophical ones.
Philosophy is able to include scientific theory whereas (apparently) scientific theory cannot include philosophical theory. So what?

I am reminded of Russian dolls. The bigger ones can fit the smaller ones within them, but not the other way around.

That is the nature of philosophy in relation to science. Philosophy can fit science into it.
The reason creative entities aren't eliminated from consideration is because one cannot prove a negative. One cannot prove that creative entities do not exist. But the inability to prove a negative doesn't increase the likelihood that they do exist, or that they are specifically responsible for something. That takes facts, which someone needs to start bringing forward for all to consider.
Until those demands these phantom 'facts' from me, they need to say what it is those 'facts' should consist of.

In the mean time, my philosophically based theology isn't under any threat from such people.
It's not the fault of the data and empirical evidence that they don't support claims of creative entities. Science gathers and examines facts. If those facts don't support supernatural explanations, then supernatural explanations are not considered. I feel you are attempting to make this personal, like science is ignoring creative entities for no good reason. There's very good reason not to consider them - they are unproven claims devoid of empirical support. Over half the scientists in America are religious and/or believe in a personal god, yet "god did it" is never an answer. There's legitimate reasons why that is the case.


I get the impression you are conflating science with philosophy and theology. The only place where these obviously cross over is in the acknowledgment that the universe exists and we exists within it.

'God did it' is 'never an answer' in relation to science, and who said it was? I certainly didn't.
By all accounts, your paragraph above appears to acknowledge that a scientist can be a scientist and do science and still think the universe was created by some kind of entity.
That is because they do not conflate the two practices. One is science and the other is theology/philosophy. One (science) can 'fit' into the other adequately for them to believe one (philosophy) and use the other (science) without compromising belief and logic.
It's a waste of time pursuing explanations that don't fit the data. That includes ALL explanations that don't fit the data, regardless of whether or not they are natural or supernatural based. If divine entities don't fit the data, and someone thinks divine entities are still responsible, then they ought to find some data that supports that.
I have already spoken to that.
Btw, what do you mean by 'supernatural'? I haven't used that word in my arguments as I find it kind of weird.
For example, IF this universe was created by an entity, do you then consider the entity is 'supernatural'?
But what if the entity sees Itself as simply 'natural' and what it does as also simply 'natural'?

That is specifically why I don't use the word. In relation to the links I gave at the beginning of this post, no matter how deep the creative process might go, it can only ever altogether be considered as natural for that.
There are multiple links preceding your sentence here. I was not sure which one you were referring to. I will go with the "Earth Entity" link and hope that is the right one.

That post is devoid of data. It is nothing but conjecture, and does not address anything I've talked about.
The conjecture is relevant to what you were saying which I quoted, in that the creator entity interacts with the universe, although not in any way which 'violate conservation laws' as you put it. My theology does not include notions of any entities 'violating conservation laws' nor do I think such things would be necessary in order for anyone to logically ascertain in a philosophical manner that a creative entity had something to do with the reason the universe exists and we exist in it.

If the kind of evidence you require has to be anything which 'violates conservation laws' you are barking up the wrong tree.
If everything balances out, where is there room for need?
In other words, if there is room for need, everything doesn't balance out?

The point is, there is a need for something to come from something else, and without that, 'everything does not balance out'. Claiming something can come from nothing is an unbalanced claim. It requires magical thinking rather than logical thinking.

Your requirement of a particular as yet unspecified type of evidence for the existence of a creative entity is also your need to have said type of evidence in order that you can know for sure that the philosophical idea of GOD is correct.

Since you require that, how can you claim that 'everything balances out' so there 'is no room for need' when you are art of the 'everything' but still have need?
My theology can deal with either argument because my theology is open-ended and thus adaptable.
Let me stop you right here. Your theology, if I may be so bold and blunt, is complete speculation.
As is all theology and philosophy, although based upon what can be observed as well.
It's no different in format that the PCE stuff that ttruscott has been formulating really.
Indeed, I do detect similarities between the two but I get the impression his is not open-ended, so let me stop you right there.
You both are making up whatever is necessary in order to explain away the unknown.
The 'unknown' cannot be 'explained away'. Not by science and not by philosophy. Indeed, philosophy isn't attempting to 'explain away' anything. If anything what it does is 'explain toward' something.
You can claim intelligence is a perpetual property of the universe, but there is no supporting data for it, so there is no reason to think it's true.
It is a notion I picked up from various sources which compliment my own subjective experience reinforcing my philosophical approach and theology. Never have I claimed that to be science. Your reaction gives one the impression that somewhere, somehow, I must have.
This is not an accurate statement about the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang explains the facts about this universe, it does not comment on before this universe.
Read the statement again. I was not even implying it was about the BB.

What I said was;
In relation to the theory of the universe having always existed and will always exist one still has to take into account the universe has always continually begun and ended, but that this does not mean it always repeats itself in each cycle. Cycles have to be part of the theory or the BB won't fit with it.
In other words, I accept the BB as an event which might well have happened, but the
theory of the universe having always existed and will always exist is not something I can accept. See the links at the beginning of this post for more on that.
Either way, GOD exists as the conscious aspect of the process and defines how each cycle will unfold. I say this matter-of-factually because I see the creative process as an intellectual one rather than a random mindless one.
You state it matter of factually, but it is factless in its basis.
Not at all!

Indeed the basis I give is that I see the creative process as an intellectual one rather than a random mindless one.

Also the basis I give is GOD exists as the conscious aspect of the process and defines how each cycle will unfold.

I did leave out the details, because like I said, I don't see any logic in the theory of the universe having always existed and will always exist.

I am happy enough to examine the theory as if it were true, but I don't personally subscribe to it, for the reasons I give in the links I provided at the beginning of this post.
Certainly less magical thinking than 'something comes from nothing' because we all do know that magicians don't actually produce rabbits out of hats containing thin air, and even if they did grab the rabbit from some alternate universe, well that would be something (somewhere), right?
As opposed to consciousness just existing everywhere all the time you mean?
No. What would be magical about that?
This is inherently contradictory. Consciousness cannot experience "nothing".
Read what I said again. This is what I was saying. Consciousness cannot experience "nothing". It can only every experience something.
If you have no input, you have no experience. "Nothing" is the lack of input.
You still have you, so you are still experiencing something, not nothing. You are experiencing consciousness. You are experiencing your self.
If a supposed existence acknowledges no thing existing except for itself, it is still experiencing something (itself).
That's what I was saying. Read it again.
So it cannot possibly be experiencing nothing. You can't have something experience nothing, that is false logic.
In that case you are agreeing with what I said. :D
A god (entity/being/consciousness) creating something from nothing can't unless the god is also no thing, which is a ludicrous proposition.
I am not sure how you got to that conclusion based upon what I said. I started off by saying;
But what makes you think - by observing the universe - GOD is no thing?


So obviously you must have claimed that GOD was no thing.

I think you got your wires crossed?

Moving on...oh look! I said it in my last post as well;
In the case of a GOD existing within the universe and NOT breaking the particular laws of that universe in any way which can obviously be detected by us in our position in the universe, I don't have issue with that as I do not see WHY It (GOD) would have to.
It would have to because of the laws of the universe.
It would HAVE to break the laws of the universe BECAUSE of the laws of the universe?
The laws of chemistry or physics don't care whether an action is performed by you, me, or the consciousness entity.
That is because they are not things of themselves. Rather they are descriptions of physical things
If the creative entity thing can do whatever it wants and not affect the laws of the universe, then it must have this special property called MAGIC, or it is a no thing and doesn't actually interact with the universe. Either one is ridiculously illogical.
Whoa there - lets back up a bit!

I haven't claimed in my theology that an entity can do whatever it wants in interacting with its creation.
Nor have I claimed that it can affect the laws of the universe. Indeed, what I have said in relation to the creator entity interacting with its creation is that it does so by immersing itself INTO that creation and by default has to abide by the rules of it's creation - aka the rule IT set in motion, IT abides by.
In relation to that, depending upon what form it takes on, determines ITs abilities in relation to that form.

For example, It can be the consciousness you are and the consciousness I am, simultaneously IF at first It becomes the consciousness of the planet and through that process, creates biological life forms and eventually experiences both you and I in that manner.

Certainly in doing so, it does not break the 'rules' of Its creation.

But if for example, you took that to mean it could be a possible way in which to get evidence that this is the case, by suggesting that we could set up an experiment where I could be told by It, who you are, and lots of other things about you, you would have to assume that this is NOT breaking any rules of Its creation, something which appears to be obvious, because we do not naturally have the ability to know one another intimately, so it is a rule in that it doesn't happen therefore for that to happen, the rule has to be broken.

Besides which, while such a thing might even be very impressive, it wouldn't be stand alone evidence that this has to point to the earth being a conscious living entity intimately connected to everyone of us. Such could be explained in other ways.

On top of that, as already stated, theism and philosophy are closely related and most theists have no problem with the idea that the universe was created by an entity JUST BY OBSERVING THE FACT OF THE UNIVERSE AND US BEING WITHIN IT.

It is as if the entity wants individuals to approach it in this way, as this does not involve the demand for IT to break Its own rules and conflict with already scientifically recognized laws. There seems not reason why an entity would go to so much trouble creating the universe through the process of placing itself into the potential, going through many painstaking processes to eventually be able to create life on this planet, and then breaking the rules which made that possible just to prove to those like yourself that It exists.

Once those rules get broken, the gig is up. The Universe cannot be enjoyed for its solvable mysteries anymore. Why would you want that?

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Post #65

Post by Kenisaw »

William wrote: [Replying to post 63 by Kenisaw]

♦'Nothing' therefore does not really exist, because the mind of the creator is 'something'.Image

♦Every 'thing' exists in the Mind of The First SourceImage

I will be referring to the above links throughout my reply.
OK. Right off the bat I feel the need to mention that I find quite a lot of what is contained in those two links to be inaccurate and illogical. For instance, a "First Source" without beginning is illogical. If such a source existed, it cannot possibly reach the point in it's existence where it decided to create anything. It would take an infinite amount of existence before the First Source reached the point of creation. Which means it never will reach that point.
The concept comes about from thinking about spacetime like the surface of a ball. There is a finite amount of surface, yet no boundaries or edges of that surface, hence the no boundary condition.
Okay. So the 'ball' is being viewed from outside the ball.
That was not the point. The surface of a ball has no boundary. If you travel in any direction on the surface of the Earth, when do you reach the edge of the Earth? You don't, because a sphere doesn't have any edges.
In the 4-dimension, no boundary condition, the laws of physics are already present, and the laws of physics are actually responsible for the creation of our universe.
Where do these 'laws of physics' exist then. It appears you are saying they exist as potentials before the universe existed.
I know you use the word potentials to mean something specific, and I don't have an understanding of what you mean by it, so I'm going to answer your comment from my point of view. You may find it unsatisfactory though. If you could, please explain what you mean by "potentials", since I've seen you use that word in other threads.

To respond to your comment, the laws exist everywhere. In the no boundary idea, they exist as an underlying condition from which the universe sprang. They exist in of themselves.

(I had to smirk at your use of quotes around the words 'laws of physics' by the way, as if they aren't an actual thing that describes the workings of the universe.)
No, not necessarily. Since we can't seem to know what is outside this universe (and for that matter we don't even know if there is an "outside this universe"), we can't assume that the universe came from something, somewhere, at some point in time. We can't assume external agents, and we can't assume there aren't external agents. We don't know either way.
You are incorrect. The royal 'we' you speak to are scientists.
No, the "we" is humans. Humans can certainly guess all the live long day, but no human can say with 100% certainty, or even say with a high degree of confidence, whether or not there is an outside to this universe and what that outside could contain. I can't possibly see how this could be a controversial comment.
There is actually no place in philosophy where we cannot presume anything, as long as it remains logically consistent with such philosophical ideas and includes what we do know about what we see exists.
There is actually no place in science where we cannot presume anything either, Will. Being able to presume it is one thing, being able to prove it or offer up a rational argument for it is something else entirely. The reason science works better than philosophy is because science requires rigorous testing, verification, and facts. Philosophy does not.
What physics is trying to get at here is that any reasonable definition of density for the singularity would not be limited as the volume approaches zero. Even with finite mass, as the volume becomes infinitesimally small the limit of mass/volume is going to diverge to positive infinity, which is why it's reasonable to say that the density is infinite. Since the singularity is a point source, and in math a point doesn't take up space, you get infinite density out of that (but you are right that it is not actually infinitely dense).
It has to at least be dense enough to contain all the energy and matter in the universe. So what I was alluding to is that no matter how infinitesimally small it may have been, it still has to be a physical object if the theory is to be fully contemplated.
If a singularity actually has those properties, then I agree with you. Singularities (like pre Big Bang or in black holes) is basically a stop-gap term however. It basically means we don't know what is there and what is going on.
Don't forget that we don't actually know what a singularity is. It's an "I don't know" placeholder that represents the moment before the Big Bang.
Such are the limitations of science. Philosophy however is able to go beyond that, so rather than the 'placeholder' being 'I don't know but it has to be something' the placeholder becomes what atheists of a certain mindset commonly refer to in a disparaging manner as 'the god of the gaps'.
Sorry, but I don't buy this at all. Philosophy has no ability to make an accurate determination beyond that. I feel that anyone who thinks that they can create assumptions about things that aren't known, and then somehow arrive at an actual truth about those things, is deluding themselves. If philosophy was so good at finding truths, we wouldn't need science.

God of the gaps may be a disparaging term to some, but I find it highly accurate. God of the gaps has turned out to be absolutely horrible at predicting truth. Lightning? Oh that comes from gods. Well, that prediction turned out to be garbage. Diversity of life? No supernatural explanation needed for that anymore either. It seems philosophizing conclusions about gods and the supernatural is pretty lousy in the accuracy department.
When some really smart human being figures out quantum gravity, the hope is that we can do away with singularities because we will have some sort of structure defined that will explain what was present.
And by 'structure' you mean 'something physical'?
Not necessarily. That could mean rules, or laws, or something physical.
It's not a play on words. It's the representation of everything outside of the finite stuff of the universe.
In other words it is a label which those who won't contemplate the possibility of there being something, without some kind of scientific verification.

Which in itself does not mean that nothing actually exists. It is just a label which presumes.
You just reiterated the same comment that I responded to with my "It's not a play on words" statement. So I respond with the same reply then...
I would note that I do not find it accurate to call your collection in member notes "data", defined as sets of information gathered via measurement.

So you have a problem with how the word 'data' is being used. Information is not always acquired through objectified reality, due to the troublesome fact of subjectivity.
Your collection isn't information anymore than it is data. Your notes start with a foundation of presumed assumptions which cannot be substantiated in any way. There isn't any objectivity to your starting points, and none of it is supported by evidence. That isn't data, and it isn't information. It's conjecture.

And while I agree that subjectivity is always an issue in everything that humans undertake, it can be minimized by repeatability. That's why science makes that part of the method of investigation.
I would advise letting it go, as it is here nor there how you define 'data', other than perhaps you resist data which isn't measurable in terms of scientific method.
I can't let this go unfortunately, because this sits at the core of the problem with theological thinking. It is literally one of the basic misunderstandings about knowledge that makes believers think that they can construct a legitimate argument from thin air, without any actual support for their claims and premises. Coming up with conclusions about something for which there is zero factual support for is not "data". It makes no sense to think that you can start a philosophical statement devoid of data, make some argument, arrive at a conclusion, and suddenly think you now have "data". What you have, at best, is a conclusion founded on guess work.

Ever notice how philosophical arguments for gods, like the Kalam argument, always rely on scientifically verified things to support their premises? William Craig has to state in his Kalam argument for instance that "the universe began to exist", which we know of thanks to science and not some philosophical "data" from some previous argument. Because we have the most confidence, the most reliable knowledge, with those things that are scientifically investigated, that is where theological arguments mostly seem to start. That is the only way to give the appearance of a knowledge based foundation.
Philosophical based data is still data as far as I am concerned.
Then I don't feel you can honestly state that you have arrived at any kind of a truth.
I am eager to follow the data and empirical evidence. There isn't any that supports conjecture about gods or the supernatural. I find it absurd for people to talk about the possibility of creative entities when no one can produce even one iota of date for the existence of such things.
This is largely because you base everything on what can scientifically be examined - the physical universe, and in that you see no evidence of the possibility of it being created by any conscious creative entity.
You are correct that I see no evidence that a creative entity exists, or that it created anything. Therefore I see no reason to think such a thing is a plausible explanation for something like the existence of the universe.

This is probably a good time to mention that I do not think that creative entities cannot be examined scientifically. Given the copious amount of interactions that gods and creative critters have supposedly had with all kinds of things in the universe, there should be all kinds of evidences of their existence. I've had some theists tell me that the creators use magic (a term that I use to sum up the myriad of conjured explanations I've been given) to hide those interactions, which is just piling speculation on top of speculation at that point.
Theists on the other hand see the fact of both the physical universe and our being in it as the evidence that such a creator exists (which you can read more about at the link I gave at the beginning of the post).
The existence of something doesn't prove source. It requires a tremendous leap in logic to go from "the universe exists" to "It came from here".
Just as you find an 'absurdity' in people talking about the possibility of creative entities, I find it absurd that those who demand even one iota of data for the existence of such things are totally incapable of even stating what it is that they mean by that.

Me: The universe has to have been created either directly or indirectly by creative entities.

You: I find that absurd. Where is your evidence for this being the case?

Me: The universe existing and us existing within it.

You: THAT is not evidence!

Me: Okay then. If you don't consider THAT to being evidence, what then would you accept as being evidence?

You: *silence*.

Or, perhaps you DO have some examples of what you would consider evidence? If so, please share.
Literally anything will do that can conclusively prove that a creative entity exists, and then that this creative entity actually had something to do with the universe (I've always wondered why theists always assume that the existence of a god would prove that the god created the universe, when it's entirely possible that a god could exist and it had absolutely nothing to do with this universe). A fingerprint the size on Uranus would do. How about Jesus' DNA on a crown of thorns. The possibilities are endless quite frankly.

Funny thing is, we shouldn't have to do all that searching in the first place. Gods have established a long and glorious history of communicating with humans. In fact, I dare say that they can't keep their cosmic mouths shut. They are constantly telling people this or that, along with doing miracles and influencing battles and so forth. A supreme being or beings, that created all this, could end all this debate in a very easy and god-like way. It could leave no doubt about it's existence....yet we never seem to hear anything. The silence is rather deafening in my mind.

Of course I find it just a little bit intellectually dishonest that someone who wants to claim that something exists has to complain that no one accepts their evidence as actual evidence. Instead of questioning the validity of their own conclusions, they instead want rigorous standards lowered enough so that they can squeeze their hypothesis through.
Well now, if something isn't considered 'plausible' why would those who think so, bother to engage with the possibility?
They will if there is data or evidence that suggests it should be considered.


This is where the defining line between the scientific and the philosophical is drawn.

All you are really saying is that your preference is for ONLY the scientific. In that, I accept you and the position you favor.
Because my position acknowledges both scientific and philosophical (rather than either or) I am able to accept through understanding your position as one you obviously prefer and are not interesting in budging from.

This in itself does not mean that all those who assume your position are - in doing so - somehow better than I or that their theories are replacements for philosophical ones.
Philosophy is able to include scientific theory whereas (apparently) scientific theory cannot include philosophical theory. So what?

I am reminded of Russian dolls. The bigger ones can fit the smaller ones within them, but not the other way around.

That is the nature of philosophy in relation to science. Philosophy can fit science into it.
Philosophy is a rung below science on the ladder of knowledge. I've already stated my case above as to why philosophy is not a valid system to acquire knowledge about the existence of something.

Science came from philosophy, as did many other fields, and that point is not debatable. But modern philosophy is not ancient philosophy, and I feel it is a mistake if anyone thinks that it is. The more useful and practical parts of philosophy have become scientific, mathematical, economic, etc fields. The "can we" part of philosophy is no longer part of philosophy, while the "should we" part very much remains. The "should we" part is still very important, I do not mean to state otherwise. Ethics matters a great deal. But when ascertaining the "can we" part, we are using science and not philosophy to make those determinations.

So when you say you've reached data via philosophy without using facts and evidence to get there, I say you haven't, because that isn't the realm of philosophy anymore. That's science, and science hasn't found any reason to find theistic claims plausible.
The reason creative entities aren't eliminated from consideration is because one cannot prove a negative. One cannot prove that creative entities do not exist. But the inability to prove a negative doesn't increase the likelihood that they do exist, or that they are specifically responsible for something. That takes facts, which someone needs to start bringing forward for all to consider.
Until those demands these phantom 'facts' from me, they need to say what it is those 'facts' should consist of.

In the mean time, my philosophically based theology isn't under any threat from such people.
In my opinion if one has to ask what facts will work, it's already obvious that there are no facts supporting the claims. It's like I've said many times before, it there was conclusive proof for gods we'd all know about it, because it would be plastered all over billboards around the world. Since I am always asking for it, there must be a reason why.
It's not the fault of the data and empirical evidence that they don't support claims of creative entities. Science gathers and examines facts. If those facts don't support supernatural explanations, then supernatural explanations are not considered. I feel you are attempting to make this personal, like science is ignoring creative entities for no good reason. There's very good reason not to consider them - they are unproven claims devoid of empirical support. Over half the scientists in America are religious and/or believe in a personal god, yet "god did it" is never an answer. There's legitimate reasons why that is the case.


I get the impression you are conflating science with philosophy and theology. The only place where these obviously cross over is in the acknowledgment that the universe exists and we exists within it.
When philosophical and theological claims conflict with science, it's important to note that. And when philosophy and theology make claims that they cannot substantiate or support, it's important to note that too.
'God did it' is 'never an answer' in relation to science, and who said it was? I certainly didn't.
By all accounts, your paragraph above appears to acknowledge that a scientist can be a scientist and do science and still think the universe was created by some kind of entity.
That is because they do not conflate the two practices. One is science and the other is theology/philosophy. One (science) can 'fit' into the other adequately for them to believe one (philosophy) and use the other (science) without compromising belief and logic.
Yes, they can think that. The question is, should that thought be considered rational or justified? In my opinion, no.

That a scientist can do good science and still believe in a creative entity is not in dispute. Can the scientist support that belief the same way they can support the theory of gravity? The answer is always no, which means that despite their ability to use rational thought and the scientific method, they don't always use it in their entire life.
It's a waste of time pursuing explanations that don't fit the data. That includes ALL explanations that don't fit the data, regardless of whether or not they are natural or supernatural based. If divine entities don't fit the data, and someone thinks divine entities are still responsible, then they ought to find some data that supports that.
I have already spoken to that.
Btw, what do you mean by 'supernatural'? I haven't used that word in my arguments as I find it kind of weird.
For example, IF this universe was created by an entity, do you then consider the entity is 'supernatural'?
But what if the entity sees Itself as simply 'natural' and what it does as also simply 'natural'?

That is specifically why I don't use the word. In relation to the links I gave at the beginning of this post, no matter how deep the creative process might go, it can only ever altogether be considered as natural for that.
I use supernatural and gods and creative entity interchangeably. It's not meant to confuse you or anyone else, it's just that I don't see any tangible difference between those things. They all stem from conjecture and are not supported with facts and evidence. Your theology and ttruscott's PCE are no different in my mind for example.
There are multiple links preceding your sentence here. I was not sure which one you were referring to. I will go with the "Earth Entity" link and hope that is the right one.

That post is devoid of data. It is nothing but conjecture, and does not address anything I've talked about.
The conjecture is relevant to what you were saying which I quoted, in that the creator entity interacts with the universe, although not in any way which 'violate conservation laws' as you put it. My theology does not include notions of any entities 'violating conservation laws' nor do I think such things would be necessary in order for anyone to logically ascertain in a philosophical manner that a creative entity had something to do with the reason the universe exists and we exist in it.
I see no possible way you can logically ascertain that a creative entity even exists, much less that such a thing had anything to do with anything, in a purely philosophical context. One could do it scientifically except there is no empirical data or evidence so that avenue is not available at this time. I noticed you mention logically ascertaining things in those links, but there is never any detail to go along with it. Perhaps it would help me to understand if you could detail out exactly how the existence of a universe logically infers that the universe was created by an entity that always existed.
If the kind of evidence you require has to be anything which 'violates conservation laws' you are barking up the wrong tree.
I'd take evidence that doesn't violate conservation laws. At this point I'd take anything at all.
If everything balances out, where is there room for need?
In other words, if there is room for need, everything doesn't balance out?

The point is, there is a need for something to come from something else, and without that, 'everything does not balance out'. Claiming something can come from nothing is an unbalanced claim. It requires magical thinking rather than logical thinking.
No, there is no such need. Within the confines of this universe, we have an arrow of time and a cause/effect process that follows that arrow of time. There is no reason to think time has always existed (and actually reason to think that it didn't).

This is where you deviate from logic when forming your theology Will. You live in a cause and effect universe, and therefore think that everything has to follow a cause and effect scenario. There is no evidence that this is the case outside of this universe, or before the existence of this universe. That's why I have taken great pains to explain how this universe is nothing more than a bunch of +1s and -1s that all cancel each other out (this is not a disputed finding either). Stating that all the somethings in this universe add up to nothing is not only accurate, it is supported by testing and research. There is no unbalanced claim.
Your requirement of a particular as yet unspecified type of evidence for the existence of a creative entity is also your need to have said type of evidence in order that you can know for sure that the philosophical idea of GOD is correct.
This statement seems to verify my thinking that you don't actually have any evidence at all, so me telling you what type of evidence would be valuable is moot at this point. If you have evidence, whatever that might entail, I think the best thing to do is bring it forward so we can talk about it. We could wait for your god to just make it obvious that it exists, but oddly an all powerful being doesn't seem up for doing that for some reason...
Since you require that, how can you claim that 'everything balances out' so there 'is no room for need' when you are art of the 'everything' but still have need?
Do the math yourself if you wish. Contact a university and speak to a physics professor. There are many publications and journals that can be referenced. Please do not take my word for it, and in fact I would hope that you make every effort to fact check my statements and be skeptical of my writings. I find it valuable to everyone when my words are verified for accuracy, including myself.
My theology can deal with either argument because my theology is open-ended and thus adaptable.
Let me stop you right here. Your theology, if I may be so bold and blunt, is complete speculation.
As is all theology and philosophy, although based upon what can be observed as well.
I find myself puzzled then as to why someone would claim that speculation can be data. I didn't think those two things to be compatible.
It's no different in format that the PCE stuff that ttruscott has been formulating really.
Indeed, I do detect similarities between the two but I get the impression his is not open-ended, so let me stop you right there.
It may not be open-ended, I can't say for sure. I know it is still a work in progress for him, as he has admitted that recently.
You both are making up whatever is necessary in order to explain away the unknown.
The 'unknown' cannot be 'explained away'. Not by science and not by philosophy. Indeed, philosophy isn't attempting to 'explain away' anything. If anything what it does is 'explain toward' something.
Except that philosophy has no idea if there is a something, and therefore might be creating a something in order to have a target to explain toward. That's a serious problem with the notion that knowledge can be derived from philosophy.
You can claim intelligence is a perpetual property of the universe, but there is no supporting data for it, so there is no reason to think it's true.
It is a notion I picked up from various sources which compliment my own subjective experience reinforcing my philosophical approach and theology. Never have I claimed that to be science. Your reaction gives one the impression that somewhere, somehow, I must have.
I suppose I thought you'd want more than speculation as a foundation for a world view.
This is not an accurate statement about the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang explains the facts about this universe, it does not comment on before this universe.
Read the statement again. I was not even implying it was about the BB.

What I said was;
In relation to the theory of the universe having always existed and will always exist one still has to take into account the universe has always continually begun and ended, but that this does not mean it always repeats itself in each cycle. Cycles have to be part of the theory or the BB won't fit with it.
In other words, I accept the BB as an event which might well have happened, but the
theory of the universe having always existed and will always exist is not something I can accept. See the links at the beginning of this post for more on that.
That's what I was referring to. Cycles are not part of the Big Bang theory. We don't know what existed or was before the BB. The BB only deals with the start of this current universe, and makes no commentary on possible cyclical universes.
Either way, GOD exists as the conscious aspect of the process and defines how each cycle will unfold. I say this matter-of-factually because I see the creative process as an intellectual one rather than a random mindless one.
You state it matter of factually, but it is factless in its basis.
Not at all!

Indeed the basis I give is that I see the creative process as an intellectual one rather than a random mindless one.

Also the basis I give is GOD exists as the conscious aspect of the process and defines how each cycle will unfold.

I did leave out the details, because like I said, I don't see any logic in the theory of the universe having always existed and will always exist.
Nor do I. My objections to an always existing universe are the same to an always existing god being - you can't reach this moment if you are coming from an infinite past. Makes no sense to me.
Certainly less magical thinking than 'something comes from nothing' because we all do know that magicians don't actually produce rabbits out of hats containing thin air, and even if they did grab the rabbit from some alternate universe, well that would be something (somewhere), right?
As opposed to consciousness just existing everywhere all the time you mean?
No. What would be magical about that?
Since there is zero evidence that consciousness exists separate from the structure of brains, it is magical to suppose a consciousness that just exists on it's own, without mass or energy.
This is inherently contradictory. Consciousness cannot experience "nothing".
Read what I said again. This is what I was saying. Consciousness cannot experience "nothing". It can only every experience something.
So what in your opinion is the consciousness made up of then? Matter? Energy?
In the case of a GOD existing within the universe and NOT breaking the particular laws of that universe in any way which can obviously be detected by us in our position in the universe, I don't have issue with that as I do not see WHY It (GOD) would have to.
It would have to because of the laws of the universe.
It would HAVE to break the laws of the universe BECAUSE of the laws of the universe?
Yes, it would. Or use MAGIC, that all important added layer of complexity to the speculation of god so one does not have to consider why meddling creative beings never leave evidence behind. We've already got no evidence for gods or that they created anything, so why should no evidence of magic be a deterrent, eh?
The laws of chemistry or physics don't care whether an action is performed by you, me, or the consciousness entity.
That is because they are not things of themselves. Rather they are descriptions of physical things
Which is semantics and doesn't address the point. The boundaries of what the universe does do not play favorites with who or what is doing an action.
If the creative entity thing can do whatever it wants and not affect the laws of the universe, then it must have this special property called MAGIC, or it is a no thing and doesn't actually interact with the universe. Either one is ridiculously illogical.
Whoa there - lets back up a bit!

I haven't claimed in my theology that an entity can do whatever it wants in interacting with its creation.
If it created it, you don't think that means it can do whatever it wants in it? So it's powerful enough to create the universe, but NOT powerful enough to go around the laws of the universe it created? What a bizarre critter.
Nor have I claimed that it can affect the laws of the universe. Indeed, what I have said in relation to the creator entity interacting with its creation is that it does so by immersing itself INTO that creation and by default has to abide by the rules of it's creation - aka the rule IT set in motion, IT abides by.
In relation to that, depending upon what form it takes on, determines ITs abilities in relation to that form.

For example, It can be the consciousness you are and the consciousness I am, simultaneously IF at first It becomes the consciousness of the planet and through that process, creates biological life forms and eventually experiences both you and I in that manner.

Certainly in doing so, it does not break the 'rules' of Its creation.
Oh, but it does. If it created biological life forms, it caused matter and energy to do things that they weren't going to do, which means it somehow violated the conservation laws of the universe. Since there is an equal and opposite reaction to every action, if it does all that creating and immersing, it leaves oodles of evidence behind. Evidence which, I'm sad to say, is missing for some reason.

No matter how any theist ever spins their creation tale, at some point they have to get to the creating part, where matter and energy are used in violation of conservation laws. Your theology is no different in that regard.
But if for example, you took that to mean it could be a possible way in which to get evidence that this is the case, by suggesting that we could set up an experiment where I could be told by It, who you are, and lots of other things about you, you would have to assume that this is NOT breaking any rules of Its creation, something which appears to be obvious, because we do not naturally have the ability to know one another intimately, so it is a rule in that it doesn't happen therefore for that to happen, the rule has to be broken.

Besides which, while such a thing might even be very impressive, it wouldn't be stand alone evidence that this has to point to the earth being a conscious living entity intimately connected to everyone of us. Such could be explained in other ways.
As long as it is explained with evidence, I'm all ears.
On top of that, as already stated, theism and philosophy are closely related and most theists have no problem with the idea that the universe was created by an entity JUST BY OBSERVING THE FACT OF THE UNIVERSE AND US BEING WITHIN IT.
I would humbly suggest their reason for accepting such a leap in logic is because they have no idea that existence doesn't prove source. That they have no problem with it doesn't make it accurate or justified.
It is as if the entity wants individuals to approach it in this way, as this does not involve the demand for IT to break Its own rules and conflict with already scientifically recognized laws. There seems not reason why an entity would go to so much trouble creating the universe through the process of placing itself into the potential, going through many painstaking processes to eventually be able to create life on this planet, and then breaking the rules which made that possible just to prove to those like yourself that It exists.
My first thought is that might be why you remove yourself from Christianity and do the generic thing, or else such presumed godly behavior would be hard to explain if the being loves us and is all good and all that other gobbledygook.

Anyway, the speculative (and creative) explanation above acts as a nice cover story for why there is no evidence for the existence of such a being, and why it doesn't just pop up and say hello and remove all doubt that it is real. It gives the entity some heroic qualities (it went through all that after all so it could create life, a nice parallel with Christianity) yet doesn't want to ruin everything by actually proving it exists. We can somehow sense it or feel it in a fuzzy kind of way, but it can't be confirmed because all that work will just go to waste.

If someone could just explain to me why I should take this tale, or any other theology, seriously, I'd be most grateful. Because all I see is a carefully constructed story that tells us all kinds of details about something we can't know details about because it can't reveal itself to us although we know about it because somehow it's existence has been revealed to us.

I gotta tell you Will, it reminds me of the conspiracy theory proof. Ever heard of that? The conspiracy theorist states that something happened, and the proof is that there isn't any proof because they are trying to hide it. Theology seems really similar to me...
Once those rules get broken, the gig is up. The Universe cannot be enjoyed for its solvable mysteries anymore. Why would you want that?
Why wouldn't you. There's still crossword puzzles and XBox for entertainment!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #66

Post by William »

Why wouldn't you. There's still crossword puzzles and XBox for entertainment!
Generally this comment sums up exactly where you are as an individual.

Not to say i didn't read your whole post, but in doing so I got the gist of your personality and why it is impossibly for you to contemplate what I am saying, even as a mental exercise. Your last sentence explains that perfectly.

The bottom line is that I see evidence of 'GOD' in the whole thing and you do not. Your inability to explain what evidence you would accept is telling - and what you pulled out of the hat (like 'Jesus'' DNA on a crown of thrones) is laughable as an example of the kind of thing you claim you would accept as 'evidence of GOD'.

I think we both can agree there is nothing more to be said between us on the subject. When you die, look for me - I will either be waiting to welcome you to the next exciting phase (neither crossword puzzles or XBox) or will be there shortly thereafter. I won't even say 'I told you so' because how were you to know anyway, right. Assuming of course, that experiencing an afterlife will settle the dispute for you, in that you would accept that as the evidence your prior existence couldn't seem to provide for you.

Maybe that is too much an assumption on my part?

:D

PS: I have enjoyed the interaction between us. It has reached its circular stage 'tis all. For my part I would rather trust the actuality of my subjective experience than wait upon science and science alone. That would be like the apprentice being sent to fetch 'the long weight'. :D



Cheers.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #67

Post by William »


User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #68

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 65 by Kenisaw]

If someone could just explain to me why I should take this tale, or any other theology, seriously, I'd be most grateful. Because all I see is a carefully constructed story that tells us all kinds of details about something we can't know details about because it can't reveal itself to us although we know about it because somehow it's existence has been revealed to us.
No reason to take any of it seriously at all. Theology is simply the art of making things up about other made up stuff. Practitioners of the art may convince themselves that arguments will suffice to justify belief in gods and afterlives and the supernatural, but in reality it is not enough. Without compelling empirical evidence and established criteria that will irrefutably distinguish between the real and the imaginary, it is a waste of time. Whenever peddlers of woo ask "What evidence would convince you?" I respond that I do not know. What I do know is that nothing presented so far has passed the test of credibility. The non-existence of God is the default position. Evidence for the existence of God will be something that remains when all other explanations have been thoroughly examined and effectively eliminated. Words are not enough.

:study:

Post Reply