Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why the natural universe exists?

[William]

I initially thought about posting this in the Science and Religion forum because I think it is most appropriate , but decided that the Christianity and Apologetics forum might garner more interest in the subject.

Q: Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why our natural universe exists?


I ask the question because a recent interaction with a Christian who insisted that this was the only plausible conclusion one could reach to explain why we and the universe exist.
Indeed, many Christians argue the necessity for the supernatural to explain the natural.

Some of the key points for discussion/debate.


The influence of Christian beliefs: The cosmological argument has been shaped and influenced by certain Christian perspectives, which can impact its perceived validity.

Alternative explanations: A supernatural explanation may not be necessary to account for the existence of the natural universe, and that simpler explanations without invoking supernatural elements can be considered.

Different interpretations of "supernatural": The definition of "supernatural" and whether it necessarily implies a separate and distinct realm from the natural universe.

Critique of the cosmological argument in natural theology: Re the OP question, counterarguments to this cosmological argument, challenging the assumption that a supernatural cause is required to explain the existence of the natural universe.

(A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.)

Context and historical origins: The importance of considering the historical context and origins of the cosmological argument in order to engage in a more comprehensive discussion.

Validity of alternative arguments: Alternative explanations should not be dismissed simply because they reach different conclusions from the OP questioning that cosmological argument, and that critical evaluation of different perspectives is necessary for a robust discussion.

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #99]

Not sure what your point is there. When you pointed out that there are similarities in this Natural Philosophy with theist-based philosophies and made the comment that you are personally driven to defeat theist cosmological arguments in the broadest possible way....

I never claimed I was "personally driven to defeat theist arguments in the broadest possible way".

"Theist cosmological arguments" and yeah....that is what you wrote. Post #57.

I was referring to the fact that cosmological arguments can (and should) be defeated without making the assumption the past is infinite. Combine this with my other comment, that theistic arguments like this are valid and POSSIBLY true. By "defeating them" I'm referring to arguing why they are POSSIBLY false.

I also said, "You're playing into the hands of theists when you say the universe "created itself", which may also sound "anti-theist". But my point here is that the language is grounded in the assumption the universe was created (which entails a creator), and that is exactly the point that is worthy of debate - and therefore more objective descriptions are needed for an objective discussion.

FWIW, my personal position is "agnostic deist". By this, I mean that I do consider there to be two live possibilities: a creator of some sort (probably not a God of religion) and naturalism. Creator is a live option BECAUSE those arguments are possibly sound. My position has led me to mostly debate these arguments with theists. No atheist has ever complained that I think a creator is a live possibility, while theists have typically insisted the arguments are UNARGUABLY sound. As I've noted, I am personally inclined to believe the past is finite (refer to the argument I gave earlier), but this does not make the cosmological argument sound - so that's where the reasonable debate lies (IMO).

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #101]

FWIW, my personal position is "agnostic deist". By this, I mean that I do consider there to be two live possibilities: a creator of some sort (probably not a God of religion) and naturalism.

The Natural Philosophy I am presenting shouldn't be problematic to your position. However, your original answer to the OP question was "Yes" so it seems in order for there to exist "a creator of some sort" the "sort" would still have to be "supernatural" re your position, if I am understanding it correctly.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #99]

I explained to you then, that I am developing a Natural Philosophy which is designed to bridge the differences between Materialism and Supernaturalism.
(It is not my intention to alienate either side of those opposing positions.

You sever that bridge by dogmatically assuming the past is infinite.

No. The argument is that the overall process is eternal and that would mean that there would be an infinity of past universes which have existed as temporal (had beginnings and ends).
This allows for the problem of "something from nothing" (magical thinking) AND the problem of "infinite regress" (who created the creator?), neither of which are sufficiently solved by either materialist or supernaturalist philosophies.
It is a logical philosophical assumption and no more dogmatic assumption than is Occam's Razor.

I haven’t called you out on this, because we were discussing other things. You describe an infinite causal (and thus temporal) sequence of universe birth/death cycles – with a so-called “timeless” state in between, but maintaining a causal connection because the UM maintains its memory of its infinite past. You are free to make this assumption, but I’ve already given you my argument for a finite past – and many theists agree with me.

Yes - we have argued about this, and you have yet to show why magical thinking that something from nothing (re mindless process) should be the better idea to hold as a "dogmatic assumption."

So I surmise that you differ from classic materialism in that you define mind as the bedrock of reality (if I follow you correctly), so that mind is not grounded in non-mind matter.

No. My argument is that Mind and Matter in the timeless state are one and the same, rather than two distinguishable things.
The Natural Philosophy has it that there is no such thing as "non-mind matter" because the Universal Mind is Universal.

The expanded quote is confusing. You say “it does not matter if these things are actually real…”.. Really?! Your ontology doesn’t even make the call as to whether the world we experience is real? It sounds like you are open to everything being an illusion.

No. What I wrote was that it does not matter if these things are actually real or the product of a sophisticated simulation, because it is that which is having the experience which is the actual real. It is that which identifies and acknowledges experience (of self or of apparently objective things in relation to self) which is real.

You left out the "because" part, and in doing so are now critiquing a strawman. You are critiquing the "it does not matter" part while ignoring the "because" part.

This is confusing. You said the “bedrock particle” ="the mind/mindfulness/consciousness" is a material thing. You also said you accept the existence of laws of nature that are not under the control of the UM (and presumably outside the control of any single or group of bedrock particles). So how do you account for laws of nature? If they exist, you apparently believe they’re material. If they’re material, then they are somehow made up of bedrock particle(s), and they are “mindful”. How can mind be consistent with laws of nature?

No. I also said that the UM could potentially revert to a timeless state where I wrote that "This is partially delving into your earlier question as to why the UM would bother organizing matter into functional form. The answer appears to be “for the experience and because it can. “
There is no reason I can think of as to why the UM could not theoretically change its mind and revert back to the state of timeless unorganized matter (matter without functional form – or “undifferentiated sea of energy” as someone else referred to this “bedrock particle”) and do so in an instant, but – as mentioned, Natural Philosophy is focused on what is. Now."

The implication is clearly that the UM creates in order to experience what it creates and does so willfully/willingly - allowing those natural laws to control the outcomes of said experiences to some predetermined degree. Not to forget that it is the UM which made those laws for the purpose it made those laws.

You said the UM is "made of matter". This entails an ontological dependency. An automobile is made of parts, therefore the automobile is ontologically dependent on those parts. The same with the UM.

I have answered this already.
Natural Philosophy has it that the Universal Mind has always existed and is physical and thus able to organize unorganized matter, into functional objects. Unorganized matter is a fundamental aspect of said Universal Mind and not a separate entity.

You denied a dependency, but didn’t seem to understand ontological dependency. I defined it for you, and as I said – it seems logical that if the UM is “made of matter” (direct quote) then it is ontologically dependent on matter. I realize that matter is mind, but it raises the question of how a universal mind emerges from a potentially infinite set of mindful-bedrock-particles”. It’s a mereological question of the relation of parts to a whole: there is one UM, but many bedrock particles. The relationship needs explaining.

It has been explained. Even with the potential of a supposed infinite set of bedrock particles, there is no reason given as to why we should assume these are independent from one another or require a supposed infinite set of independent universal minds.
If the math is done in this universe, then we can assume the math is related to this universe, so we need to explain the "many universes in one universe" that the math points to, or explain why the math is pointing to independent universes and why this should have us thinking that we should suppose "a many universal minds" rather than just one universal mind.

But the UM is ITSELF a functional object,

On the contrary. In the timeless state, the UM is a functional subject. In order for it to be regarded as an object, there would have to exist a mind outside the UM, which observes the UM as a functional object.

You indicated the UM maintains knowledge, which is encoded (organized) matter. Isn’t this physical repository of knowledge be part of the UM? Where is it? Access of encoded information would seem to be distance limited, because of speed-of-light limitations. Or do you just assume special relativity doesn’t apply?

Special relativity applies to that which has beginnings and ends (universe) and limitations are applicable to that aspect.
Not to forget, even within this current universe we know that speed of light is not the only manner in which information is conveyed. See "Quantum Entanglement"

You have referred to the UM as an entity that influences the universe. It seems the UM is a distinct identity, one that has knowledge, thinks, plans, and executes plans. It is not identical to you and I. Explain our connection to UM. How does its existence account for OUR minds?

I have explained that already.

All minds are sourced with the UM and are essentially UM having different experiences within different functional forms.

Yes, you’ve said that – but it’s not at all clear what is entailed by being “sourced with the UM”, and it doesn’t account for my individuality. It’s obvious that I am not identical to the UM: I don’t have UM’s knowledge or powers, and I exist in a fairly narrow range of spatial coordinates. I have a set of experiences that are unique to me -even if the UM shares in it, because I do not share in all the UM’s experiences.

The reason is simply the design of the functional form (human instrument) as this allows for you to experience being a unique human personality, which wouldn't be possible if you retained your knowledge of being a unique Universal Mind.
The same applies to any functional form, be that a galaxy, a star, or a planet et al. The degree of separation (from the source knowledge) will likely vary - as in - being a galactic mind may not completely hide that source knowledge - but clearly at the "deeper" level or density, functional forms enable that knowledge to be well hidden from the particle of the universal mind imbued within said functional form and thus, a genuine individual personality can be grown.

Consciousness isn't a thing; it's a process.

So, if it is not a "thing" what else can it be but a "non-thing"?

Running isn’t a thing either. The word refers to a process, a set of actions. Same with mental activities.

This does not answer my question. If such are not "things", what else can these be but "non-things"?

Summary: Re Natural Philosophy,
This post covers.

Bridge Between Materialism and Supernaturalism.
Eternal Process vs. Infinite Regression.
Mind as the Bedrock of Reality.
The Reality of Experience.
The UM's Relationship with Matter.
Laws of Nature and the UM.
The UM as a Functional Subject.
UM's Knowledge Repository.
Individuality and Connection to the UM.

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #99]

You sever that bridge by dogmatically assuming the past is infinite.

No. The argument is that the overall process is eternal and that would mean that there would be an infinity of past universes which have existed as temporal (had beginnings and ends).
This allows for the problem of "something from nothing" (magical thinking) AND the problem of "infinite regress" (who created the creator?), neither of which are sufficiently solved by either materialist or supernaturalist philosophies.
It is a logical philosophical assumption and no more dogmatic assumption than is Occam's Razor.

Occam's razor is an epistemic guide, not a metaphysical assumption. Of course, all metaphysical theories have assumptions - but this particular one can rationally be rejected based on the argument I gave you. If your metaphysics depends on it, then I reject it on that basis, and I imagine many deists and theists would as well. No, this doesn't prove your theory false, but it's a brick wall for anyone of like mind with me who rejects an infinite past.

Setting aside my philosophical objection, you have created an infinite regress: your UM's knowledge is built over time. The design of each new universe U_n is a product of knowledge gained from all past universes
U_n-1 through U_-∞.

If UM were to think through it's reason for creating this current universe, it could never complete the thought because it would have to draw on that infinite history.

Yes - we have argued about this, and you have yet to show why magical thinking that something from nothing (re mindless process) should be the better idea to hold as a "dogmatic assumption."

First, understand I'm not aiming to prove your theory impossible. I'm just explaining what I have a problem with, and believe others would also. I gave you my reason for rejecting an infinite past- and you didn't identify a problem with my reasoning, or argue for something more reasonable. Then, and now once again, you are implying that a finite past logically entails "something from nothing". Not true. It implies an initial state, and I related a cosmological hypothesis that's consistent with this assumption.

So I surmise that you differ from classic materialism in that you define mind as the bedrock of reality (if I follow you correctly), so that mind is not grounded in non-mind matter.

No. My argument is that Mind and Matter in the timeless state are one and the same, rather than two distinguishable things.
The Natural Philosophy has it that there is no such thing as "non-mind matter" because the Universal Mind is Universal.

I honestly don't understand what you mean by "timeless state". From your description of cycling universes, you don't have a true timeless state- because you have an infinite, temporal sequence of universes (we can ignore the intra-universe temporality). So it seems you refer to a counterfactual.

Setting aside this atemporality issue, you clearly also believe matter=mind in a temporal state, so let's focus on that. Minds engage in mental activities. Physical objects interact with other physical objects due to their physical properties (physical in the traditional sense). You indicated there's a bedrock particle, so I presume you consider it a mind. And yet, doesn't it also have traditional physical properties? If not, then how do you account for the physical properties of the particles in the standard model? Did the universal mind simply decide to have the particles present themselves this way, this time around in the infinite cycle of universes?

The expanded quote is confusing. You say “it does not matter if these things are actually real…”.. Really?! Your ontology doesn’t even make the call as to whether the world we experience is real? It sounds like you are open to everything being an illusion.

No. What I wrote was that it does not matter if these things are actually real or the product of a sophisticated simulation, because it is that which is having the experience which is the actual real. It is that which identifies and acknowledges experience (of self or of apparently objective things in relation to self) which is real.

You left out the "because" part, and in doing so are now critiquing a strawman. You are critiquing the "it does not matter" part while ignoring the "because" part.

The "because" doesn't address my objection. A metaphysical theory requires an ontology; an ontology defines what exists. What exists=what is real. If you assume a simulation, this leads one to ask: what is doing the simulating? If it's the UM, remember that you agreed knowledge entails physically encoded data.

This is confusing. You said the “bedrock particle” ="the mind/mindfulness/consciousness" is a material thing. You also said you accept the existence of laws of nature that are not under the control of the UM (and presumably outside the control of any single or group of bedrock particles). So how do you account for laws of nature? If they exist, you apparently believe they’re material. If they’re material, then they are somehow made up of bedrock particle(s), and they are “mindful”. How can mind be consistent with laws of nature?

No. I also said that the UM could potentially revert to a timeless state ...

I'm going to stop here, because you need to describe what you mean by a "timeless state" in the context of a cyclical universe, using the UM as a reference point. See my above issues.

Thecimplication is clearly that the UM creates in order to experience what it creates and does so willfully/willingly - allowing those natural laws to control the outcomes of said experiences to some predetermined degree. Not to forget that it is the UM which made those laws for the purpose it made those laws

In that case, all laws of nature are contingent upon the will of the UM. There's nothing to constrain the UM from acting contrary to those laws at any time. This makes your theory indistinguishable from supernaturalism.

That you don't see isn't surprising since you appear to believe and be arguing for the Materialist Philosophy.

I am not arguing, "I'm right, you're wrong". I bring these things up to explain the perspective from which my questions arise. Until this post, it wan't clear to me that the UM was above natural law.

You didn't say the UM is independent from the matter, but you did say it's independent of the matter's organization (or lack thereof).

I doubt I said or have implied that...

But you said this, in Post #56: "Essentially the unorganized matter/state of unorganized matter is the real or quintessential state of the universe, while organized matter is the temporal manifestation from the quintessential state."

The UM exists in this "quintessential state" of unorganized matter does it not? Does this quintessential state not include all matter, and doesn't "all matter" include the UM? This is why I said the UM exists irrespective of the organized/unorganized state).

...It’s a mereological question of the relation of parts to a whole: there is one UM, but many bedrock particles. The relationship needs explaining.

It has been explained. Even with the potential of a supposed infinite set of bedrock particles, there is no reason given as to why we should assume these are independent from one another or require a supposed infinite set of independent universal minds.

You're saying these particles are not "independent", but don't you mean they aren't completely independent? There are multiple particles, so they are at least numerically distinct. I assume they're also spatially separated: they don't co-exist at one place. You also agreed that information=data that is physically encoded, so the UM has a clear dependency on that subset of particles that encode that infinite amount of information about past universes..This implies that subset of particles that encode this information must be infinite. Coupled with the speed of light objection, your model appears to have a fatal flaw.

The UM exists, everything is material, and all material is composed of bedrock particles. I'm not demanding you describe how they're connected, but it seems inescapable that the full set of (mindful) bedrock particles are the parts of the whole that comprises the UM.

On the contrary. In the timeless state, the UM is a functional subject. In order for it to be regarded as an object, there would have to exist a mind outside the UM, which observes the UM as a functional object.

I'm using the term, "object" to refer to anything that exists; i.e. it is part of the ontological furniture of the world. It is something we can talk about. The UM exists, and we've talked about it, so it is an object. It needn't be distinct from other objects. Consider that we can discuss the object we call, "the universe" which includes objects we call galaxies, which include objects we call stars.

even within this current universe we know that speed of light is not the only manner in which information is conveyed. See "Quantum Entanglement"

Special relativity entails the impossibility of information transfer exceeding the speed of light. Quantum entanglement does not provide an exception. See this.

Special relativity applies to that which has beginnings and ends (universe) and limitations are applicable to that aspect.

Doesn't the UM have thoughts while a universe is in progress? Don't these thoughts draw on encoded information? If so, why wouldn't they be impacted by speed of light limitations?

This does not answer my question. If such are not "things", what else can these be but "non-things"?

Running and thinking are non-things. They are actions. Unicorns are also non-things: they simply don't exist.

[William]

Infinite Regression, Timelessness, and Consciousness

[Replying to fredonly in post #104]

Occam's razor is an epistemic guide, not a metaphysical assumption.

Where did you get that from? I did not say Occam's razor was a "metaphysical assumption".

If your metaphysics depends on it, then I reject it on that basis, and I imagine many deists and theists would as well. No, this doesn't prove your theory false, but it's a brick wall for anyone of like mind with me who rejects an infinite past.

Define "infinite past" as you think of such. If it is simply a case of numbers and counting, then I am not talking about the same thing as you might be.

I am talking about a process of beginnings and endings which are bridged by a timeless eternal thing which has always mindfully existed and from which these periods of beginnings and endings derive.

A finite past allows for the idea of supernaturalism to fill the gap. So I focus on the idea of an infinite past but also explained why there are beginnings and endings and how this process is eternal.

I am happy to drop the phrase if it causes such confusion, because if "infinite" is about counting "the number of things", then it is not the best word to use.

Setting aside my philosophical objection, you have created an infinite regress: your UM's knowledge is built over time. The design of each new universe Un is a product of knowledge gained from all past universes
Un-1 through U-∞.

If UM were to think through it's reason for creating this current universe, it could never complete the thought because it would have to draw on that infinite history.

This would suggest that there is evidence within the current universe that such had to be the case.
Otherwise - no. The UM would not need to draw on every bit of its eternal experience, but only that which is applicable to the formation of functional forms re this current and specifically ongoing organization.

First, understand I'm not aiming to prove your theory impossible. I'm just explaining what I have a problem with, and believe others would also. I gave you my reason for rejecting an infinite past- and you didn't identify a problem with my reasoning, or argue for something more reasonable.

It appears there might be some confusion here. From a metaphysical standpoint, the problem of infinite regression often arises when trying to explain causality in an infinite chain of events.
That has been explained and you have not (to my knowledge) given any critique re the solution I have given to that problem.
It may be that the problem identified has to do with the concept of “infinite” as opposed to “eternal” and if so, then how is the “problem of infinite regression” really a problem, if it cannot logically occur?
For example, the question “Who created God?” – creates the “problem” in the first place but since such regression isn’t possible, then nor is the question logical, or if it is, please explain why.

Then, and now once again, you are implying that a finite past logically entails "something from nothing". Not true. It implies an initial state, and I related a cosmological hypothesis that's consistent with this assumption.

As I have argued already - that "initial state" is in the timeless state between universe manifestations which entail beginnings and endings.
There is nothing wrong with the concept as long as it is understood that such would constitute an eternal series of beginnings and endings (representing the overall state of organization of matter) while the unorganized matter represents a timeless eternal thing between an ending of one universe of organized matter and a beginning of another universe of organized matter.
Essentially the unorganized matter/state of unorganized matter is the real or quintessential state of the universe, while organized matter is the temporal manifestation from the quintessential "initial state".

Thus, the "initial state" isn't itself a beginning, which may be what you are trying to argue, or getting confused about?
It appears that we have identified the problem/cause of confusion. It derives from the use of the phrase "infinite" and I am happy to retract all statements where I have used the phrase (on the grounds that the phrase itself is meaningless) and henceforth will simply use the word "eternal".
Hopefully that will clear things up.

I honestly don't understand what you mean by "timeless state".

Time is measured through observing the interactions of organized functional formations. If these don't exist/have not yet been created, then there is no "time" to measure.

You indicated there's a bedrock particle, so I presume you consider it a mind.

Rather, I took your description of the initial state (bedrock particle) and acknowledged it is mindful. You don't need to "presume" as I have made it clear. My argument re the initial Timeless Unorganized Matter is that is has always existed and is conscious/mindful and thus mindfulness has also always existed. I presently also think that Timeless Unorganized Matter and Mind may be indistinguishable rather than there being two things - Unorganized Matter AND Mind. I think Timeless Unorganized Matter = Mind.

Did the universal mind simply decide to have the particles present themselves this way, this time around in the infinite cycle of universes?

Yes. Also, as I have already said. Natural Philosophy is focused on what is. Now.

The "because" doesn't address my objection.

Are you objecting? I thought you were looking for clarity as you wrote that this confused you.
I explained that the confusion derives from your having left out the "because".

A metaphysical theory requires an ontology; an ontology defines what exists.

What exists isn't just functional organized forms. The ontology specifical argues that these derive through mindfulness.

The mindfulness defines the functional forms.

What exists=what is real.

The mindfulness is real.

If you assume a simulation, this leads one to ask: what is doing the simulating? If it's the UM, remember that you agreed knowledge entails physically encoded data.

It is that mind which is having the experience which is the actual real. It is that which identifies and acknowledges experience (of self or of apparently objective things in relation to self) which is real.

In that case, all laws of nature are contingent upon the will of the UM. There's nothing to constrain the UM from acting contrary to those laws at any time. This makes your theory indistinguishable from supernaturalism.

No. It is distinguishable because there is no "outside" to the whole process/causing the whole process. The mind is not outside of the matter. Supernaturalism clearly has it that something (another realm/universe) separate from this one, created this one.

I am not arguing, "I'm right, you're wrong". I bring these things up to explain the perspective from which my questions arise. Until this post, it wan't clear to me that the UM was above natural law.

The UM is indeed beholding to the natural laws it created and will be until the end of this current universe cycle.

I simply agreed that the UM could potentially revert to a timeless state where I wrote that "This is partially delving into your earlier question as to why the UM would bother organizing matter into functional form. The answer appears to be “for the experience and because it can. “
There is no reason I can think of as to why the UM could not theoretically change its mind and revert back to the state of timeless unorganized matter (matter without functional form – or “undifferentiated sea of energy” as someone else referred to this “bedrock particle”) and do so in an instant, but – as mentioned, Natural Philosophy is focused on what is. Now."

Re Simulation Theory, why go to the trouble and create something to experience only to abruptly end it before it is completed? By allowing oneself to be beholding to the rules of the finite "game" (so to speak) which one created and invested oneself mindfully into said experience (even to the point of temporarily losing knowledge of oneself through the process) one can "play the game".

Even so, there are apparently "levels" of awareness - as I have already mentioned re galactic minds, star-minds, planet minds, human minds - et al - which the UM is involved with - simultaneously. Some of those states of mind provide the "temporarily losing knowledge of oneself" while others, not so much. Certainly human minds (being human) allows for this "lack of awareness" to occur.

One Mind. Many reference points to experience.

You're saying these particles are not "independent", but don't you mean they aren't completely independent? There are multiple particles, so they are at least numerically distinct. I assume they're also spatially separated: they don't co-exist at one place.

While muti-universes are a concept, there is no reason why we have to assume that they are separate. Our human form is designed to inhibit our mindful awareness of different frequencies and waves - we are engaged within a certain perspective which has it that we cannot detect anything outside a certain range, even that those things exist.

I think of these universes as all superimposed upon each other and altogether make up the one (actual) universe (not just the one we are able to be aware of) so there is no reason at all why these can't all co-exist at "one place" just because we humans cannot detect them with our senses.
This also can explain why "alternate" experiences occur and are reported, such as those mentioned re OOBE and NDE and use of some types of drugs. I know you said that you don't take OBEs seriously, but Natural Philosophy includes them as part of the overall experience humans can have, and superimposed "verses" which altogether make up the whole universe allows for an explanation to these apparent phenomena without resorting to supernaturalism.

Coupled with the speed of light objection, your model appears to have a fatal flaw.

Your speed of light objection was critiqued by me.

On the contrary. In the timeless state, the UM is a functional subject. In order for it to be regarded as an object, there would have to exist a mind outside the UM, which observes the UM as a functional object.

I'm using the term, "object" to refer to anything that exists; i.e. it is part of the ontological furniture of the world. It is something we can talk about. The UM exists, and we've talked about it, so it is an object. It needn't be distinct from other objects. Consider that we can discuss the object we call, "the universe" which includes objects we call galaxies, which include objects we call stars.

As I explained, in the timeless state, there would have to exist a mind outside the UM, which observes the UM as a functional object. Your critique only works while your mind is "observing" in the time state and therein "other objects" are present.

Even so, we cannot truly observe UM as an "object" or even mind(s) (each other) as "objects" without conflating and confusing the object the mind is experiencing with being the mind itself. The object is the object and the mind is that which is experiencing the object...the conflation has real-world consequences.

even within this current universe we know that speed of light is not the only manner in which information is conveyed. See "Quantum Entanglement"

Special relativity entails the impossibility of information transfer exceeding the speed of light. Quantum entanglement does not provide an exception. See this.

Even so, we a speaking in terms of what the human being is capable of experiencing re information.
A planet mind or a galactic mind may not be so limited, but even if it is the case that this universe is designed so that the minds experiencing it cannot send or receive information faster than the speed of light, I was pointing out that you were arguing re the state of timeless UM but conflating that with time. I indicated the UM maintains knowledge, in the timeless state, and thus "speed" is not a factor and "light" isn't something I argued was how the maintaining of information's is achieved. The physical repository of knowledge IS the Universal Mind. "Where" it is, in that timeless state assumes space. Access of encoded information would not "distance limited", because that assumes both time and space. Special relativity doesn’t apply because special relativity is related to our particular experience of the universe re space-time.
Therein, "speed of light information" is sufficient.
Quantum entanglement isn't so much about information as it is about connection and therein, the idea that a certain particle - while distant from another certain particle is perhaps really the same particle.
But we needn't digress re that.

Running and thinking are non-things. They are actions.

Actions are things. They can be observed and described as things.

Unicorns are also non-things: they simply don't exist.

It is a big universe so we cannot claim they simply don't exist. They only don't exist where we can observe them as a living horse with a horn.

Specific to that, everything is a process, (action) perpetually underway, so your philosophical claim that the universe is a non-thing (if defaulting to said claim) is interesting when couple with simulation theory.

I think it would be better for continuity to drop such notions or at least not to place "mind" in the category of "non things" since clearly, it is ONLY mind which is able to classify what is and what isn't, and it would seem somewhat silly for it to classify itself as a "non-thing" just because it has some difficult in seeing itself.

[fredonly]

[Replying to William in post #105]

For now, I'm going to limit my response to the issues surrounding the past infinite, since it seems to be critical to your theory.


Infinite Regression, Timelessness, and Consciousness

[Replying to fredonly in post #104]

Occam's razor is an epistemic guide, not a metaphysical assumption.

Where did you get that from? I did not say Occam's razor was a "metaphysical assumption".

Fair enough, but it’s also not dogmatic, as you alleged. It’s simply more reasonable than the converse, when judging explanatory hypotheses. On the other hand, your assumption of an infinite past is dogma to your metaphysics, it’s not a point you’ve made a case for. To make a case for it, you’d have to explain why you reject the argument I gave. But you aren’t obligated to do that – it’s fine to make assumptions when defining a metaphysics, but you should accept the fact that such an assumption will be sufficient reason for finite-ists to reject it.

Define "infinite past" as you think of such. If it is simply a case of numbers and counting, then I am not talking about the same thing as you might be.

I am talking about a process of beginnings and endings which are bridged by a timeless eternal thing which has always mindfully existed and from which these periods of beginnings and endings derive.

Let’s start with the basics: what is time? Time reflects the ordered sequence of correlated events. Each universe “begins and ends”, but you still have an ordered sequences of universes.

A finite past allows for the idea of supernaturalism to fill the gap.

So what? Allowing for supernaturalism doesn’t mean it entails supernaturalism. It also allows for naturalism.

So I focus on the idea of an infinite past but also explained why there are beginnings and endings and how this process is eternal.

I am happy to drop the phrase if it causes such confusion, because if "infinite" is about counting "the number of things", then it is not the best word to use.

Set aside “counting”, and focus on the UM’s knowledge. When a universe is born, and later dies – the UM has learned the consequences of the choices it made. This was how you justified the UM having vast knowledge. But it entails a memory of all past universes, and this memory persists – and is built upon, with each cycle.

Setting aside my philosophical objection, you have created an infinite regress: your UM's knowledge is built over time. The design of each new universe Un is a product of knowledge gained from all past universes
Un-1 through U-∞.

If UM were to think through it's reason for creating this current universe, it could never complete the thought because it would have to draw on that infinite history.

This would suggest that there is evidence within the current universe that such had to be the case.

No, it doesn’t suggest there’s evidence. Rather, it’s entailed by the framework you created. You said there was an “infinite series of beginnings and endings”, referring to the birth-death sequence that each universe undergoes. You also said the UM remembers its past experiences with these universes. I had the impression this was essential to your theory: it doesn’t require a UM with a magical omniscience, because you provide a mechanism for the UM to gain knowledge over time (the sequence of universes that are born and die). However, I’m pointing to problems with this model.

The UM would not need to draw on every bit of its eternal experience, but only that which is applicable to the formation of functional forms re this current and specifically ongoing organization.

There would be functional forms in each of the infinitely many universes. That’s an infinite amount of information.

First, understand I'm not aiming to prove your theory impossible. I'm just explaining what I have a problem with, and believe others would also. I gave you my reason for rejecting an infinite past- and you didn't identify a problem with my reasoning, or argue for something more reasonable.

It appears there might be some confusion here. From a metaphysical standpoint, the problem of infinite regression often arises when trying to explain causality in an infinite chain of events.
That has been explained and you have not (to my knowledge) given any critique re the solution I have given to that problem.

I’ve referred to two independent problems:
1) Many of us reject the metaphysical possibility of an infinite past. You haven’t provided a reason why I should change my mind about this, so you need to accept that those of us who believe the past is finite will obviously reject your model.
2) You have an infinite causal chain: the UM’s memory is caused by it’s experiences, and it has experienced infinitely many birth/death cycles of universes.

It may be that the problem identified has to do with the concept of “infinite” as opposed to “eternal” and if so, then how is the “problem of infinite regression” really a problem, if it cannot logically occur?

You defined an ordered, infinite series of birth-death sequences. What appears to exist “eternally” in your model is the UM, however the UM changes over time: it gains knowledge with each cycle; namely: knowledge of the results of the choices it made when the most recent universe played out. This is added to its prior knowledge of all past universes.

For example, the question “Who created God?” – creates the “problem” in the first place but since such regression isn’t possible, then nor is the question logical, or if it is, please explain why.

That issue has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

Then, and now once again, you are implying that a finite past logically entails "something from nothing". Not true. It implies an initial state, and I related a cosmological hypothesis that's consistent with this assumption.

As I have argued already - that "initial state" is in the timeless state between universe manifestations which entail beginnings and endings.

My comment had no direct bearing on your model. I was disputing your assertion that a finite past entails “something from nothing”. This pertained to MY model.
However, you haven’t explained what you mean by a “timeless state”.

There is nothing wrong with the concept as long as it is understood that such would constitute an eternal series of beginnings and endings …

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the concept of a finite past, and you are wrong if you’re claiming it somehow requires an “eternal series of beginnings and endings”. You could still ASSUME there’s an infinite series of beginnings and endings for your model. But you’re using the word “eternal” (“an eternal series of beginnings and endings”). If that’s something different than an infinite series, then please explain what you mean, because your description sounds like a temporal sequence from one universe to the next- an ordered causal chain.

(representing the overall state of organization of matter) while the unorganized matter represents a timeless eternal thing between an ending of one universe of organized matter and a beginning of another universe of organized matter.
Essentially the unorganized matter/state of unorganized matter is the real or quintessential state of the universe, while organized matter is the temporal manifestation from the quintessential "initial state".

One of the things I find confusing: you always refer to the state of affairs that takes place between one universe dying, and the next being born as unorganized, and yet you’ve also acknowledged that the UM has a physical repository of encoded data/information/knowledge that IS organized and this is maintained across the infinite chain of universes. So you can’t claim there is no organization in this state. I don’t think this is fatal, but you should find a better way of describing it.

Thus, the "initial state" isn't itself a beginning, which may be what you are trying to argue, or getting confused about?

Apples and oranges: two different models. In my model there’s an absolute initial state. In your model, there is an initial state for each universe, but it was preceded by a prior universe. Therefore your model lacks an overall initial state for material reality, whereas mine has that.

It appears that we have identified the problem/cause of confusion. It derives from the use of the phrase "infinite" and I am happy to retract all statements where I have used the phrase (on the grounds that the phrase itself is meaningless) and henceforth will simply use the word "eternal".
Hopefully that will clear things up.

Nope, but I hope you now understand my objections.

I honestly don't understand what you mean by "timeless state".

Time is measured through observing the interactions of organized functional formations. If these don't exist/have not yet been created, then there is no "time" to measure.

Isn’t it true that during the life of a universe, that the UM=the universe? By “interactions”, I assume you mean all cause-effect relations. In your model, each universe causes the next. (The universe=UM is conscious, the UM is learning the effects of the organization it chose during the life of the universe, and based on this- it chooses differently next time).

Did the universal mind simply decide to have the particles present themselves this way, this time around in the infinite cycle of universes?

Yes. Also, as I have already said. Natural Philosophy is focused on what is. Now.

Your model goes beyond the now, since you depend on the existence of a UM that continues to exist across an infinite series of universes, learning as it goes. This is more than the “now”. But the other part of your answer does explain a lot in your model.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #106]

Occam's razor is an epistemic guide, not a metaphysical assumption.

Where did you get that from? I did not say Occam's razor was a "metaphysical assumption".

Fair enough, but it’s also not dogmatic, as you alleged. It’s simply more reasonable than the converse, when judging explanatory hypotheses.

My reference had to do with applying things which are undeniably true. We can be “dogmatic” about that.

On the other hand, your assumption of an infinite past is dogma to your metaphysics, it’s not a point you’ve made a case for. To make a case for it, you’d have to explain why you reject the argument I gave. But you aren’t obligated to do that – it’s fine to make assumptions when defining a metaphysics, but you should accept the fact that such an assumption will be sufficient reason for finite-ists to reject it.

As you read on it should have become apparent to you that I am not dogmatic about the idea of an infinite past and - through interacting with you have come to realize that it is not the problem some philosophies make it out to being.

Re that, I have skipped over answering those things you are still questioning.

There would be functional forms in each of the infinitely many universes. That’s an infinite amount of information.

If you are speaking about the theory of multiple universes, and that these are "infinite" re "how many", then we can drop that as illogical.

There is an eternal amount of information.

One of the things I find confusing: you always refer to the state of affairs that takes place between one universe dying, and the next being born as unorganized, and yet you’ve also acknowledged that the UM has a physical repository of encoded data/information/knowledge that IS organized and this is maintained across the infinite chain of universes. So you can’t claim there is no organization in this state. I don’t think this is fatal, but you should find a better way of describing it.

I did go over that in a previous post.

Essentially all is physical (there is no non-physical) and I did change the way of describing it by pointing out the timeless state is eternally organized whereas the temporal creations from the timeless state are organized functional forms created for the purpose of experiencing them.

Apples and oranges: two different models. In my model there’s an absolute initial state. In your model, there is an initial state for each universe, but it was preceded by a prior universe. Therefore your model lacks an overall initial state for material reality, whereas mine has that.

One cannot have both and eternal state and an initial state.
What created the initial state? How did it "come into being"? Has it always existed eternally? If it has existed eternally, what was it that activated it to become something other than the initial state?
Those questions are answered in my Natural Philosophy as in there has never been an "initial" state because that involves a beginning (initial state) and an eternal thing has no beginning.

Isn’t it true that during the life of a universe, that the UM=the universe? By “interactions”, I assume you mean all cause-effect relations. In your model, each universe causes the next. (The universe=UM is conscious, the UM is learning the effects of the organization it chose during the life of the universe, and based on this- it chooses differently next time).

Not really. All universes are caused by the UM. A universe begins, and then continues to its end. Its end does not constitute that it created the next universe.

I think if you read this short story - it might help you to understand better.
The Last Question
By Isaac Asimov