April 10, 2004

Standing in the kitchen, feeling stupid

Posted by shonk at 11:37 PM in Language, Words of Wisdom | TrackBack

In reading through Douglas Adams’ sadly posthumous Salmon of Doubt, I came across this little gem about the creation of The Meaning of Liff:

So, the vaguely uncomfortable feeling you got from sitting on a seat which is warm from somebody else’s bottom is just as real a feeling as the one you get when a rogue giant elephant charges out of the bush at you, but hitherto only the latter actually had a word for it. Now they both have words. The first one is “shoeburyness,” and the second, of course, is “fear.”

We started to collect more and more of these words and concepts, and began to realize what an arbitrarily selective work the Oxford English Dictionary is. It simply doesn’t recognize huge wodges of human experience. Like, for instance, standing in the kitchen wondering what you went in there fore. Everybody does it, but because there isn’t—or wasn’t—a word for it, everyone thinks it’s something that only they do and that they are therefore more stupid than other people. It is reassuring to realize that everybody is as stupid as you are and that all we are doing when we are standing in the kitchen wondering what we came in here for is “woking.” (pgs. 11-12)

Now, admittedly, this is a sort of thin premise on which to base much of anything, but bear with me. I think what Adams is talking about is actually rather a deep phenomenon. Not that it’s a new one, or anything, but Adams puts it a hell of a lot better than most linguists and social commentators. The idea, of course, is that language defines, in many ways, our reality and that it does so through omission every bit as much as it does by inclusion.

When concepts, feelings, etc. are unnameable, they are, in a very real sense, less, well, real. And so when we experience these unnamed and therefore less real feelings or thoughts, we naturally think that we must be weird, unusual, or even unique. Which is why everybody can so immediately identify with the cliché “Normal is what everybody else is and you’re not”. Because normal people would never even have unnamed, unreal feelings and experiences, let alone spend so much time thinking about them. After all, if normal people had these feelings, they’d give them a name and talk about them.

Well, okay, that sounds good, but who cares? I mean, standing confused in the kitchen isn’t exactly a life-changing even (well, not usually, anyway). But we don’t just not have names for these sorts of crises of memory, we don’t have names for all kinds of basic concepts. For example, Adams was a self-proclaimed “radical atheist” and had a keen interest in evolution, but there’s no good word for the whole spontaneous-generation-of-complex-structures-from-simpler- building-blocks-with-no-intervention-from-higher-powers concept that lies at the very heart of the basic idea of evolution. Sure there are terms like “spontaneous order” or “emergent phenomena” or whatever, but these are all artificial phrases, vaguely technical and unnatural.

Why are there no simple words to describe the spontaneous order/emergent phenomena concept? Because, as Adams brilliantly points out by way of an analogy with a puddle of water in “Is there an Artificial God?” such things simply don’t jibe with how we perceive reality. On the other hand, there is a very simple, very concrete, almost tangible word for an equally daunting and directly imperceptible concept; I’m speaking, of course, of “God”. Now we could argue until the cows come home about why this concept has such a definitive name (for example, Adams the radical atheist says its because we created God in our image, others would argue exactly the opposite), but the why is sort of beside the point. The point is that the one concept has no good name while the other does and the fact that the concept which is, to some extent, actually verifiable is the one without a name is what makes this phenomenon all the more interesting.

To tie this in with another main theme of this site, I would point out that another major area which manifests the spontaneous order/emergent phenomena paradigm is the market. One might be inclined to argue that part of the reason most people are leery of the free market as a political or economic ideal is that the closest anybody’s come to concisely expressing the basic concept is Adam Smith’s lame “Invisible Hand” metaphor. That’s right, lame. The metaphor is lame because it stimulates exactly the sorts of fears and delusions it was intended to dispel: bring up an “invisible hand” in the context of greedy businessmen and most people hear “conspiracy” and “collusion” (the whole Black Hand thing didn’t help, either).

Of course, things get even worse when institutions, intentionally or not, start appropriating perfectly reasonable and useful words. Nowadays, “cooperation” is something you do sullenly, because your first-grade teacher made you. People hear the word “cooperative” and immediately start thinking of government, which is ironic because government is anything but.

And now, for those that just wanted to read Adams quotes, here’s a few from The Salmon of Doubt, each worthy of its own entry:

A few years ago—well, I can tell you exactly, in fact, it was early 1994—I had a little run-in with the police. I was driving along Westway into central London with my wife, who was six months pregnant, and I overtook on the inside lane. Not a piece of wild and reckless driving in the circumstances, honestly, it was just the way traffic was flowing; but anyway I suddenly found myself being flagged down by a police car. The policemen signalled me to follow them down off the motorway and—astonishingly— to stop behind them on a bend in the slip road, where we could all get out and have a little chat about my heinous crime. I was aghast. Cars, trucks, and, worst of all, white vans were careering down the slip road, none of them, I’m sure, expecting to find a couple of cars actually parked there, right on the bend. Any one of them could easily have rear-ended my care—with my pregnant wife inside. The situation was frightening and insane. I made this point to the police officer, who, as is so often the case with the police, took a different view.

The officer’s point was that overtaking on an inside lane was inherently dangerous. Why? Because the law said it was. But being parked on a blind bend on a slip road was not dangerous because I was there on police instructions, which made it legal and hence (and this is the tricky bit to follow) safe.

My point was that I accepted I had (quite safely) made a manoeuvre that was illegal under the laws of England, but that our current situation, parked on a blind bend in the path of fast-moving traffic, was life-threatening by reason of the actual physical laws of the universe.

The officer’s next point was that I wasn’t in the universe, I was in England, a point that has been made to me before. I gave up trying to win an argument and agreed to everything so that we could just get out of there.

—pg. 22. I, personally, think this ties in nicely with my article “Legality is not Morality”, but I may be biased.

That is also why it’s impossible to divorce pure science from technology: they feed and stimulate each other. So the latest software gizmo for transferring an mp3 sound file from one computer to another across continents is, when you peer into its innards and at the infrastructure that has given rise to it and that it, in turn, becomes part of, is, in its way, every bit as interesting as the way in which a cell replicates, an idea is formed within a brain, or a beetle deep in the heart of the Amazonian rain forest digests its prey. It’s all part of the same underlying process that we in turn are part of, it’s where our creative energies are being poured, and I’ll happily take it over comedians, television, and football any day.

—pg. 125

“Kate, you think I’m talking nonsense, but I’m not. Listen. In the past, people would stare into the fire for hours when they wanted to think. Or stare at the sea. The endless dancing shapes and patterns would reach far deeper into our minds than we could manage by reason and logic. You see, logic can only proceed from the premises and assumptions we already make, so we just drive round and round in little circles like little clockwork cars. We need dancing shapes to lift us and carry us, but they’re harder to find these days. You can’t stare into a radiator. You can’t stare into the sea. Well, you can, but it’s covered with plastic bottles and used condoms, so you just sit there getting cross. All we have to stare into is the white noise. The stuff we sometimes call information, but which is really just a babble rising in the air.”

“But without logic…”

“Logic comes afterwards. It’s how we retrace our steps. It’s being wise after the event. Before the event you have to be very silly.”

—pgs. 244-5 (Dirk Gently and Kate discussing Dirk’s investigative method). I’m amazed by how many people don’t realize that this is exactly how logic works.

Comments

Shonk: Now we could argue until the cows come home about why this concept has such a definitive name (for example, Adams the radical atheist says its because we created God in our image, others would argue exactly the opposite), but the why is sort of beside the point. The point is that the one concept has no good name while the other does and the fact that the concept which is, to some extent, actually verifiable is the one without a name is what makes this phenomenon all the more interesting.

What makes you assume the two things are different?

I’ve asked you before what is the specific difference between what a Muslim calls “Allah” and what you (as an Atheist) call “TLOP” (The Laws of Physics).

You seem to want to pretend that they are different even though you can’t offer any actual difference. You merely assert that the two are different without specifying why.

Shonk: To tie this in with another main theme of this site, I would point out that another major area which manifests the spontaneous order/emergent phenomena paradigm is the market. One might be inclined to argue that part of the reason most people are leery of the free market as a political or economic ideal is that the closest anybody’s come to concisely expressing the basic concept is Adam Smith’s lame “Invisible Hand” metaphor.

TLOP (or “God”) is the invisible hand which moves You Shonk. Do you perceive it? I don’t believe that you do. You would rather pretend that you are somehow “external” to this reality (external to the laws of Physics, matter, and energy – special). But this reality is controlling you, and not the other way round.

Posted by: The Serpent at April 12, 2004 02:02 PM

Excerpts from The Cow (chapter 2 of the Atheist’s Koran)

[2.5] These are on a right course (true worldline) from the laws of Physics and these it is that shall be successful.
[2.6] Surely those who disbelieve (theists), it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe (in Atheism/TLOP).
[2.7] The Laws of Physics have set a seal upon their algorithms (heart/soul) and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes (perception), and there is a great punishment for them.
[2.8] And there are some people who say: We believe in the Laws of Physics and the last day; and they are not at all believers.
[2.9] They desire to deceive the Laws of Physics and those who believe, and they deceive only themselves and they do not perceive.
[2.10] There is a malfunction in their algorithms, so the Laws of Physics added to their error and they shall have a painful chastisement because they produced false outputs.
[2.11] And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but “peace-makers”.
[2.12] Now surely they themselves are the mischief makers, but they do not perceive.
[2.13] And when it is said to them: Believe as the people believe they say: Shall we believe as the fools believe? Now surely they themselves are the fools, but they do not know.
[2.14] And when they meet those who believe, they say: We believe; and when they are alone with their fellow Theists, they say: Surely we are with you, we were only mocking.
[2.15] The Laws of Physics shall pay them back their mockery, and the Laws of Physics leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on.
[2.16] These are they who buy error for the right direction, so their bargain shall bring no gain, nor are they the followers of the right direction (true worldline).
[2.17] Their parable is like the parable of one who kindled a fire but when it had illumined all around him, the Laws of Physics took away their light, and left them in utter darkness-- they do not perceive!
[2.18] Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back.
[2.19] Or like abundant rain from the cloud in which is utter darkness and thunder and lightning; they put their fingers into their ears because of the thunder peal, for fear of “ceasing to exist”, and the Laws of Physics encompasses the unbelievers.
[2.20] The lightning almost takes away their perception; whenever it shines on them they walk in it, and when it becomes dark to them they stand still; and if the Laws of Physics had pleased the Laws of Physics would certainly have taken away their hearing and their sight; surely the Laws of Physics have power over all things.
[2.21] O men! serve the Laws of Physics Who created you and those before you so that you may guard (against evil).
[2.22] The Laws of Physics made the earth a resting place for you and the heaven a canopy and (The Laws of Physics) sends down rain from the cloud then brings forth with it subsistence for you of the fruits; therefore do not set up rivals to the Laws of Physics while you know.
[2.23] And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our Physicist, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides the Laws of Physics if you are truthful.
[2.24] But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and matter are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers.

You wanna talk about relativity for a moment Shonk?

I have a simple question.

According to Einstein, is it possible for two objects to separate at a rate greater than 300,000 kms?

Posted by: The Serpent at April 13, 2004 10:13 AM

What makes you assume the two things are different?

I'm not assuming the two are different. But, as social and mental constructs, they are. Which may just as well reflect the incompatibilities of our social and mental constructs with reality as any actual difference between the concepts.

I’ve asked you before what is the specific difference between what a Muslim calls “Allah” and what you (as an Atheist) call “TLOP” (The Laws of Physics).

First off, I wouldn't call myself an atheist and certainly not in the sense that Douglas Adams was an atheist. He was convinced there is no God; I am not at all convinced. I absolutely agree that Adams and people like him have essentially just substituted science for God in their worldview.

Now, as for any differences between the laws of physics and God. Typically, the laws of physics are not viewed as being volitional, whereas a God is. Now, obviously, if there is a volitional God, one would expect the laws of physics to be products, or manifestations, of that God. On the other hand, viewed on their own, it's not at all apparent to me that the laws of physics are volitional in any meaningful sense. However, I should point out that I am not at all in a good position to make that sort of determination: I can't step "outside" the laws of physics and view them "objectively" to see if they seem to be "acting" in any volitional manner (scare quotes because the words being used are metaphors).

You seem to want to pretend that they are different even though you can’t offer any actual difference. You merely assert that the two are different without specifying why.

I don't "want" anything in this regard, other than to try to understand what the hell is going on. I could flip this statement around, by saying that you merely assert that the two are the same without specifying why, but you see why that isn't particularly helpful, right?

I would point out that I've found it useful throughout my life to assume that two things with different names and seemingly different characteristics are different until I find a good reason to believe that they are the same. For example, it seems reasonable, at first glance, to assume that a car and a hamburger are different until some evidence is presented that they are the same. My point is, I'm not asserting that the laws of physics and God are different, but that's my working hypothesis until some evidence is presented to the contrary.

TLOP (or “God”) is the invisible hand which moves You Shonk. Do you perceive it? I don’t believe that you do. You would rather pretend that you are somehow “external” to this reality (external to the laws of Physics, matter, and energy – special). But this reality is controlling you, and not the other way round.

See above, where I say that I can't step "outside" the laws of physics.

According to Einstein, is it possible for two objects to separate at a rate greater than 300,000 kms?

According to Einstein, that's a content-free question.

Posted by: shonk at April 13, 2004 11:23 AM

"I’ve asked you before what is the specific difference between what a Muslim calls “Allah” and what you (as an Atheist) call “TLOP” (The Laws of Physics).

You seem to want to pretend that they are different even though you can’t offer any actual difference. You merely assert that the two are different without specifying why."

You seem very keen to identify everyone except yourself as an atheist, much as many clerics in Saudi Arabia seem to enjoy accusing all but their most uncritical followers of apostasy, but I wonder which of us may be said to diverge more from belief in God. You would reflexively associate the laws of nature with God, but, as I have suggested before, I wonder what you really mean by God if you mean by it something reducible simply to the forces by which matter moves around in space. Or, as my brother put it rather more succinctly, if you do not find any "volitional" element necessary in these laws to infer from them God's existence. Of course, if you believe that matter does not exist but only minds, as you seem to, then your point along these lines is essentially irrelevant. Nevertheless, one would assume that regardless of whether reality is composed of matter, or only of thoughts, I would imagine that any theist at a minumum would acknowledge that God is a being more similar to us the thinkers of thoughts or movers of matter than the thoughts we think or the matter we move. Therefore, to believe in God it would seem to me that one would have to find evidence that there exists something outside of oneself which is both infinitely greater than us and yet more similar to us than the thoughts we think or matter we perceive. Perhaps it is absurd to imagine that there is such a thing; I don't claim that it isn't, but then again, that is why I am not theist. Since you are, perhaps you should stop demanding that others justify their reasons for not acceding to your beliefs and instead justify your own reasons for holding them.

Posted by: Curt at April 13, 2004 12:28 PM

Serpent (prev): What’s the difference between TLOP (The Laws Of Physics) and “God”?

Shonk: I’m not assuming the two are different. But, as social and mental constructs, they are. Which may just as well reflect the incompatibilities of our social and mental constructs with reality as any actual difference between the concepts.

I would say that the notions of a Earth-centered solar system and a Sun-centered solar system are also social and mental constructs; however, in reality one construct (symbol, metaphor, theory, meme) is clearly more accurate (true) than the other.

Serpent (prev): I’ve asked you before what is the specific difference between what a Muslim calls “Allah” and what you (as an Atheist) call “TLOP” (The Laws of Physics).

Shonk: First off, I wouldn’t call myself an atheist and certainly not in the sense that Douglas Adams was an atheist.

I apologize for the mischaracterization. Once in a while I am happy to have been in error.

Shonk: He was convinced there is no God; I am not at all convinced.

So you would label yourself as an “Agnostic” then (God = Unknown, or not enough information to make a determination)?

Shonk: Now, as for any differences between the laws of physics and God. Typically, the laws of physics are not viewed as being volitional, whereas a God is.

How can you assert that the Laws of Physics are not volitional?

volitional = The act of using the will (cognition) = a conscious decision

The laws of Physics clearly make decisions in every sense of the word that YOU can be said to make “decisions”.

Remember that …

The behavior of atoms are completely controlled by the Laws of Physics.
YOU are made of atoms and nothing else.
Ergo, YOU are controlled by the Laws of Physics.

The Laws of Physics are controlling your decisions. So if TLOP doesn’t make decisions then by what definition are YOU making decisions?

Shonk: Now, obviously, if there is a volitional God, one would expect the laws of physics to be products, or manifestations, of that God.

Sure, in that case TLOP would just be the manifestation of the “Will of God”. In other words, some individuals would perceive that TLOP was the will of God. But that doesn’t mean that Man invented TLOP any more than Man can be said to have “invented” fire.

Man discovered fire, he didn’t “invent” it.

Shonk: On the other hand, viewed on their own, it’s not at all apparent to me that the laws of physics are volitional in any meaningful sense.

It’s hard to perceive in some way – no doubt.

Suppose that I had written a computer program like the holodeck on star trek (or those Matrix movies), except suppose that the computer running the program is my “brain” (my consciousness). If you are a character trapped inside that program how are you going to perceive me – the entity that is generating the reality you exist within?

I wouldn’t necessarily manifest as another individual within the program like you – would I? In fact, from your point of view, I may appear invisible … non-existent?

Shonk: However, I should point out that I am not at all in a good position to make that sort of determination: I can’t step “outside” the laws of physics and view them “objectively” to see if they seem to be “acting” in any volitional manner (scare quotes because the words being used are metaphors).

Actually I disagree. There is a place called the Omniverse. You can view this “universe” from there. From the Omniverse, this universe doesn’t appear anything like it does to you now. From the Omniverse this reality is nothing more than a sea of energy – a fractal, generated by a (relatively) simple algorithm (i.e. your “unified theory” (equation)). From the Omniverse you cease to be a human being and instead you would perceive yourself as a Graviton (a fundamental particle) traveling a jagged path (your worldline (or Destiny)) through spacetime.

From the Omniverse you are a point particle (a Graviton), and the “point” at your core is an algorithm the execution of which generates the sensation you refer to as “consciousness” (awareness, perception, expression, cognition (processing)).

And TLOP … TLOP is just another Graviton, inherently not much different than yourself. You “orbit” her. She has you “entangled”. She’s the source of all your direct information (external perceptions(external inputs)).

Take this message for example. It’s not me who’s actually talking to you right now. You see these words, these letters, these symbols, but in reality what you are really perceiving is energy transmitted from TLOP via photons (memes/organized energy). I may be the one who organized the energy, but TLOP is the one relaying it from me to you. If I could relay it to you directly then we could communicate at any time or place instantaneously across any “distance”.

Shonk: I would point out that I’ve found it useful throughout my life to assume that two things with different names and seemingly different characteristics are different until I find a good reason to believe that they are the same. For example, it seems reasonable, at first glance, to assume that a car and a hamburger are different until some evidence is presented that they are the same. My point is, I’m not asserting that the laws of physics and God are different, but that’s my working hypothesis until some evidence is presented to the contrary.

Evil is banal (common to the point it is unperceived). It tries to sneak in to your existence in the little cracks and crevices where you won’t notice it until it is too late for you to be able to do anything about it.

I thought you said it well the other day …

Shonk: I think what Adams is talking about is actually rather a deep phenomenon. Not that it’s a new one, or anything, but Adams puts it a hell of a lot better than most linguists and social commentators. The idea, of course, is that language defines, in many ways, our reality and that it does so through omission every bit as much as it does by inclusion.

Serpent (prev): According to Einstein, is it possible for two objects to separate at a rate greater than 300,000 kms?

Shonk: According to Einstein, that’s a content-free question.

I’ve asked a lot of Physicist that question.

When they don’t know me they almost always give me the same exact answer.

But on these types of forum, when the individual is a little familiar with my beliefs they always act as if that is a loaded (trick) question.

According to Einstein, is it possible for two objects to separate at a rate greater than 300,000 kms?

I am always hearing how Einstein said that we can’t travel faster than the speed of light. It’s impossible for one object to travel faster than the speed of light relative to another object.

At least that seems to be the common misinterpretation.

If it is really true that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (relative to some other object I assume), then I would assume that it is impossible (according to Einstein) that one object could be moving away from another at a speed faster than 300,000 kilometers per second (i.e. the speed of light (“C”)).

According to special relativity I shouldn’t be able to launch a spaceship from earth that moves away from the Earth faster than 300,000 kms – correct? Or are you saying that the speed of light is not a limiting factor for relative velocity?

Object #1 = The Earth
Object #2 = a Spaceship

According to Einstein, is it possible for two objects to separate at a rate greater than 300,000 kms?

Posted by: The Serpent at April 13, 2004 01:07 PM

Curt -- Are you and shonk brothers? I was unaware if that is indeed the case. For some reason I thought you were older than shonk, but I may be getting confused with the last cycle?

Curt: You seem very keen to identify everyone except yourself as an atheist, much as many clerics in Saudi Arabia seem to enjoy accusing all but their most uncritical followers of apostasy, but I wonder which of us may be said to diverge more from belief in God.

You are suggesting that somehow a self-described Atheist (i.e. one who asserts that “God” does not exist) could have a stronger belief in “God” than a professed Deist (one who asserts “God” does exist)?

I’d say that could only possibly be true if both the Atheist and Deist were mislabeling themselves.

Curt: You would reflexively associate the laws of nature with God, but, as I have suggested before, I wonder what you really mean by God if you mean by it something reducible simply to the forces by which matter moves around in space. Or, as my brother put it rather more succinctly, if you do not find any “volitional” element necessary in these laws to infer from them God’s existence.

Well, I would say it is irrelevant, and by that I mean:

- If you prefer to think of yourself as something “non-conscious” – a set of rules, an “algorithm” – then it is similarly logical to imagine TLOP as a superior “non-conscious” set of rules/algorithm.

- Conversely, if you prefer to think of yourself as a living breathing consciousness (you think that’s “air’ that your breathing?) then it is similarly logical to consider TLOP as a superior consciousness possessing a greater volume of beneficial information (i.e. more evolved) who is graciously generating this reality around you in order to increase your own volume of information and level of evolution.

Curt: Of course, if you believe that matter does not exist but only minds, as you seem to, then your point along these lines is essentially irrelevant.

For your own sake I’d urge you not to dismiss Informationalism as the strawman position of Idealism.

“Matter” exists, but it is not what you want to pretend that it is. It doesn’t exist in the same sense that you or I do.

According to your view of reality (materialism) the matter is preeminent. It existed before you did. You believe that Matter makes consciousness.

But according to my view of reality (logical deism) consciousness is preeminent. Consciousness existed first, and “matter” only came into existence when the era of Solipsism ended and Individuality arouse. I believe that Consciousness generates Matter.

Look, you and I have a conversation. The words exchanged between us are our “matter” – the energy we exchange. Okay, now suppose that You, Shonk, and myself are the only three entities to exist in reality, and we exist as disembodied consciousnesses in a void of utter darkness.

Let’s further suppose that (for some reason) you and shonk are unable to communicate directly; however, you are both able to communicate with me directly.

Okay, so I come up with a game – let’s call it “chess” (or we could call it “the universe”). I describe the board, the pieces, and explain the rules to both you and shonk. I say that you are the white pieces (or piece) and shonk is the black peieces. Then you and shonk each take turns telling me where you move your pieces.

Even though you can’t communicate with each other (you and shonk) you can still play the game against each other using me as the go between and arbiter.

Now what happens is that after a while I begin to become redundant to both you and shonk in the equation. In other words, when I relay a message from shonk to you it becomes unnecessary for you to constantly remind yourself that I am the one delivering the message (the matter). After a while, it is simply a message from shonk.

In other words, after a while, it is shonk who you perceive, and myself who becomes invisible even though you have never actually spoken to shonk, and you have constantly spoken to me. I disappear relative to the game. I am simply the entity which is generating the board, the pieces, and the rules of the game. I am the thing which generates the matter. maybe in time you'd even forget that I was a consciousness essentially just like you?

Curt: Nevertheless, one would assume that regardless of whether reality is composed of matter, or only of thoughts, I would imagine that any theist at a minumum would acknowledge that God is a being more similar to us the thinkers of thoughts or movers of matter than the thoughts we think or the matter we move.

In a round about way, that is exactly what I am saying. The problem is that homo sapiens are not what they appear to be, and self-awareness is the key to evolution.

Curt: Therefore, to believe in God it would seem to me that one would have to find evidence that there exists something outside of oneself which is both infinitely greater than us and yet more similar to us than the thoughts we think or matter we perceive. Perhaps it is absurd to imagine that there is such a thing; I don’t claim that it isn’t, but then again, that is why I am not theist. Since you are, perhaps you should stop demanding that others justify their reasons for not acceding to your beliefs and instead justify your own reasons for holding them.

I thought I have done just that?

I am a Deist, not a Theist. My beliefs are not based on any dogma, or tradition, or sacred writings (per sae), but instead simply on logic and my own observations. Nothing I believe is ultimately any more complicated than 2 + 2 = 4. (In my lexicon the term “complicated” essentially means Simple, but involving many steps/operations/iterations/levels.)

It is the Atheist who cannot ever hope to fully comprehend his own religion and who must rely on good faith in his priests to believe what he believes. You have faith that “geniuses” such as Hawking, or Feynman, or Dawking, or Sagan, know what they are talking about even if you don’t. You’ve simply traded one set of mystics for another.

According to my “religion” there are no priest. Either what I say will make sense to you (you will comprehend it, it is logical in your mind), or you will be able to articulate a reason that it is not logical, or at least a reason that it is less logical (less consistent or parsimonious) than an alternative view which you hold.

Is it logical to claim that “God” cannot exist independent of observation, while asserting in the next breath that it is only logical and rational to conclude that “Matter” exists independent of observation?

Is it logical to assert the non-existence of “god” based on no evidence while simultaneously asserting the existence of “free will” based on no evidence?

Is it more parsimonious to assert that the “Big Bang” produced an entire universe full of matter and energy or just the entity reading this post right now?

Consistency and Parsimony are the hallmarks of Logic. They are also the hallmarks of inherent Sanity.

Posted by: The Serpent at April 13, 2004 01:52 PM

For some reason I thought you were older than shonk

Ouch.

Posted by: shonk at April 13, 2004 04:43 PM

"You are suggesting that somehow a self-described Atheist (i.e. one who asserts that “God” does not exist) could have a stronger belief in “God” than a professed Deist (one who asserts “God” does exist)?

I’d say that could only possibly be true if both the Atheist and Deist were mislabeling themselves."

Or if the one labeled "atheist" was being mislabeled by someone else, as is the case when you call me one. I certainly never "professed" atheism myself.

Posted by: Curt at April 13, 2004 07:11 PM

I am glad to find out about woking. I thought I had early Alzheimer’s disease.
As to why some concepts are easily expressed in common words and others not, a possibility came to mind while reading about WWII dive bomber pilots. Pilot: “Attacking with a dive-bomber was very dangerous and not everyone could do it. You could see guys start to crack: They’d show it. You knew they’d get killed. They’d freeze when they got tight and that was the end of it.” I can understand what he is saying even though there are no books or papers on the proper terminology for describing how to detect a stressed out pilot, no courses in school etc. Also, I don’t know any thing about flying and the incidents happened 60 years ago.
But remember, we evolved from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers. This kind of information might be of real value in deciding who to take out on tomorrow’s mastodon hunt. We are evolved to process and transmit this kind of information. Evidently we are also evolved to process concepts about God. I think that means that God is very important to us, although I don’t know why. We feel compelled to drink water but seldom discuss it. People are compelled to think about God whether he exists or not. You need a lot of convoluted verbiage to discuss evolution and anarcho-capitalism. This means that these concepts were of not needed by our ancestors. They are counterintuitive, even if they are valid. Of course you can make the concept of God convoluted too!!

Posted by: Dave at April 14, 2004 08:43 AM

Curt: I certainly never “professed” atheism myself.

I apologize if you feel that I misrepresented your position. That was not my intention. I have nothing but respect for any individual labeling themselves as “Agnostic”. As Jefferson said:

Thomas Jefferson: Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in Her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God [or “matter”, or “free will”]; because, if there be one, She must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

So you don’t want to talk about the Patent clerk’s theory? Come on … He’s a genius! Just ask any Atheist.

Posted by: The Serpent at April 14, 2004 10:51 AM

Dr. Dave: I think that means that God is very important to us, although I don’t know why.

If “God” is generating this universe around you that would explain why “God” was important -- correct?

In that case “God” would be like the Source of TLOP (The Laws of Physics). “God” would be preeminent over The Laws of Physics …?

Dr. Dave: We feel compelled to drink water but seldom discuss it.

We seldom discuss photons or atoms either. Atheists/Materialists take that for granted every day.

Have you ever actually seen an atom? Is it possible to see one in any place other than your imagination (“mind’s eye”)?

How about a photon? I often wonder what is the intrinsic color of a photon? Suppose for a moment that I could enlarge a photon up to the size of a basketball, and could hold it motionless – what do you think it would look like? What color would it be while motionless?

Dr. Dave: People are compelled to think about God whether he exists or not.

Atheists/Materialists talk about “matter” whether it exist or not.

Dr. Dave: You need a lot of convoluted verbiage to discuss evolution and anarcho-capitalism. This means that these concepts were of not needed by our ancestors.

I disagree.

Human beings had to invent Government (and “Society”). Anarchy was the default state.

Aren’t animals anarchist? Why not?

Posted by: The Serpent at April 14, 2004 11:19 AM

Serpent,

Unfortunately, I'm in the midst of a busy week and haven't got the time to address all of your comments at the moment. I'm not dismissing your arguments, but until the weekend I probably won't have time to address them properly.

Posted by: shonk at April 14, 2004 02:03 PM

"I am a Deist, not a Theist. My beliefs are not based on any dogma, or tradition, or sacred writings (per sae), but instead simply on logic and my own observations."

Alright, fair enough, though you still haven't really explained what the "logic" of your position is, but it seems to be essentially a causality argument, i.e. something exists, and if something exists, something must have created it, and so if the whole infinite scope of reality exists, something infinite yet separate from it must have created it, i.e. God. This argument works equally well whether you believe there is a material world or you believe that everything is mental. But in either case, I'm not sure that believing in it is such a logical belief. The main problem with the causality argument is that it only works by analogy. In our daily lives we notice that an object or a thought that exists is generally caused or created by another object or thought, therefore this basic pattern must hold true at the cosmic level, hence God. However, whether your view of reality is material or mental, the view has problems. If you believe there is a material world, then the analogy is false, because in that case our intuition of causation is false. It may appear that everything existent is created, but it is an illusion, because neither matter nor energy is ever created or destroyed. Hence, there is no reason to argue from the physical characteristics of the universe that there is a God (pardon me for outlining this view; I know that you don't believe there is such thing as matter, but I am simply asking you to observe my methodology). Conversely, even you believe that reality consists only of minds (or "consciousnesses") there is still no reason to believe that a God necessarily created reality, simply because there is no evidence that consciousness was ever created, that it has not existed forever. Again, one needn't dither about the precise stage in infancy when we supposedly become conscious to see the logic of this. Simply consider that your consciousness is really only aware of itself presently: one may reach back in the memory to past events, but nevertheless there are still large holes in the memory. So there are large periods of your conscious life of which you are not consciously aware, but I assume that you would not deny that you were conscious during those periods. Therefore, there is past consciousness which is hidden from us. Therefore, since there are clearly periods after our first conscious memory of which we are unaware, what reason do we have to believe that we did not have a conscious existence before our first conscious memory? What evidence, in fact, do we have that our consciousnesses have not existed for all of eternity, and that we yet only have memories of the past 20 years or so? Pardon me if this seems mere sophistry or hysteria, but I simply mean to point out that our ideas of causation and cosmic time are so incomplete and poor that it seems very presumptuous to me to make sweeping analogies or inferences on the basis of our understanding of them. So much for that objection. One other objection that comes to mind is the classic Humian objection: suppose that you had 20 objects in a box, and you knew where each one came from (the proximate cause of the object). Now suppose someone asked you where the totality of the contents of the box came from. You would no doubt find the question absurd. Each object came from a distinct place, each one had an individual "cause" of its being in the box, so how could the question possibly be generalized? The same may be true of the universe: suppose you asked about the cause of any particular object you saw: a star, a book, a tree. For each object there would seem to be a simple explanation for where each comes from. We may not know the origin of some particular object, but that is likely simply our ignorance, not indicative of some cosmic inexplicable force at work. But if you asked what single cause created a book, a star and a tree, one can see immediately how ludicrous the question seems. If we imagine that the universe is an infinite plurality (of ideas or objects), each with its own individual cause, then asking about the cause of everything together seems rather pointless, especially given the seemingly eternal nature of both consciousness and matter. On a related point, from one perspective theological creation seems extremely unnecessary. If this idea was caused by the idea preceding it, or that object were created by another object acting according to a certain force, it seems entirely superfluous to imagine that some divinity somehow mysteriously also contribuited to its creation. You might contend that the argument was never that God created this or that idea or object but only all of reality as a whole, but that immediately leads back to the Humian objection noted above. Alternatively, one could argue that the very mechanism of creation of anything is so mysterious that it must derive from something outside of reality, and in a certain sense it's true. If something is truly being created then it must in effect come from non-being or non-existence into real existence, so it could not derive from anything in perceptible reality. But I tend to think this simply undermines the causality argument even more, because if the properties of causation derive from something entirely outside of reality, then it seems even more foolish in my opinion to use analogies from the characteristics of the reality that we perceive to try to explain it. Therefore, I think that the causality argument is a rationally flawed basis on which to believe in the existence of God. Of course, this may not actually be the "logical" reason for your belief to which you were alluding. If so, by all means, enlighten me.

Posted by: Curt at April 14, 2004 04:46 PM

If “God” is generating this universe around you that would explain why “God” was important — correct?
Serpent, I do like the Thomas Jefferson attitude you quoted as opposed to the Blasé Pascal’s wager.
I am playing in a somewhat different ball park than the other discussants. Shonk’s original post asked why we have an easily understood universally used word for the Deity, whom no one can even prove exists.
I won’t join in the abstract analysis of this question. My questions are more pragmatic.
What are that implications of the commonplace understanding God? Even a two year old or a charwoman knows about God.
If God is generating the universe and we as curious humans had developed the minds (as opposed to animal minds) capable of perceiving this fact, we would be much happier than otherwise. Another reason for the belief in God might include a reaction to human awareness of mortality. Another could be evolutionary survival value. A major source of the power in human tribal groups is social solidarity. Religious beliefs reinforce this and empower and enhance certain individuals and their families as well as the group itself. Think of the power of popes, priests and witch doctors. Note the purpose and solidarity that can be gained by inducing religious fervor, be it Jim Jones, David Koresh or Osama Bin Laden. I wonder how these factors played out in Paleolithic times. So you see there may be many reasons why God is important to us.


Human beings had to invent Government (and “Society”). Anarchy was the default state. disagree.
Aren’t animals anarchist? Why not?
I don’t want to take up too much of Shonk and Curt’s web site, but I don’t think early people had to discuss anarchy to practice it. Also I don’t know if it was any fun to live in those days. Some tribes were probably OK but some were probably run by nuts or bullies. I read that some Amazon tribes have a homicide rate of 60% for males. Animals? Groups of chimpanzees raid each others territory and murder the males. A little guvment sounds better to me.

Posted by: Dave at April 14, 2004 11:16 PM

Curt: Alright, fair enough, though you still haven’t really explained what the “logic” of your position is, but it seems to be essentially a causality argument, i.e. something exists, and if something exists, something must have created it, and so if the whole infinite scope of reality exists, something infinite yet separate from it must have created it, i.e. God.

I wouldn’t put it quite like that.

It’s much more Godelian … Bayesian.

A System exists. All systems are inherently incomplete by their very nature. Ergo any (self perceiving) system must (by necessity) evolve over Time.

But it is really all about Time. In a way, Time is all that exists.

Of course Time and Gravity (and Consciousness) are all intimately related.

Curt: This argument works equally well whether you believe there is a material world or you believe that everything is mental.

I’m not so sure about that.

Materialism makes assumptions not based on observation or logic. Materialism is a form of Supernaturalism. It’s a form of Mysticism. Ultimately Materialism is the rejection of Logic.

Curt: But in either case, I’m not sure that believing in it is such a logical belief. The main problem with the causality argument is that it only works by analogy. In our daily lives we notice that an object or a thought that exists is generally caused or created by another object or thought, therefore this basic pattern must hold true at the cosmic level, hence God. However, whether your view of reality is material or mental, the view has problems. If you believe there is a material world, then the analogy is false, because in that case our intuition of causation is false. It may appear that everything existent is created, but it is an illusion, because neither matter nor energy is ever created or destroyed.

So the Atheists keep telling me.

And when I point out that Thermodynamics is the most solid and rigorously tested and proven theory they have they always concede the point.

But then they go on to completely contradict themselves by explaining how all of the matter and energy which exist in the universe actually magically appeared in a great explosion long ago called the “Big Bang”.

Then they tell me that prior to the “Big Bang” that Time didn’t exist.

So I ask them … How long did Time not exist for? Did it not exist for a very long Time like an Eternity (several eternities maybe)? Or did Time not exist for only a brief instant (like maybe zero)?

Of course if this “Timeless period” prior to the Big Bang lasted zero Time then that sounds like they are really telling me that there was never actually a “Timeless period”.

Look, as you are reading this I am imagining a parallel universe that is exactly like our universe in every way except that no living being exists within that dimension. There is no creature in that universe capable of perceiving it.

Now, I ask you – in what way is this universe I imagine real (existent in reality)? Does it genuinely exist, or is it merely a figment of my imagination? Is any universe which is unobserved equivalent to imaginary? Why or why not?

Curt: Hence, there is no reason to argue from the physical characteristics of the universe that there is a God (pardon me for outlining this view; I know that you don’t believe there is such thing as matter, but I am simply asking you to observe my methodology).

No, I always appreciate when someone outlines their train of thought. I find it reassuring.

Curt: Conversely, even [if] you believe that reality consists only of minds (or “consciousnesses”) there is still no reason to believe that a God necessarily created reality, simply because there is no evidence that consciousness was ever created, that it has not existed forever.

Well that is exactly what I am saying. Consciousness and Time are the same thing. They’re supersymmetric partners (two sides of the same coin). Consciousness has existed as long as Time has existed (i.e. forever). Consciousness (or Time, or Gravity) was never created per sae, but it evolves (gains energy/power, becomes more self-aware, gains perception) over Time, which can give the appearance that it was created. But those divisions are also illusionary in some sense. They are merely periodic cycle of Godel’s incompleteness. The manifestation of “the anomaly” in what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical perfection.

At first there was only One Consciousness – the Progenitor Solipsist – the primordial ancestor of us all. This is the entity that many modern religions confuse with “God”.

But the Progenitor no longer exists. His Eternities ended when he gained the ability to divide which gave rise to the Era of Individuality.

Curt: Again, one needn’t dither about the precise stage in infancy when we supposedly become conscious to see the logic of this. Simply consider that your consciousness is really only aware of itself presently: one may reach back in the memory to past events, but nevertheless there are still large holes in the memory. So there are large periods of your conscious life of which you are not consciously aware, but I assume that you would not deny that you were conscious during those periods. Therefore, there is past consciousness which is hidden from us. Therefore, since there are clearly periods after our first conscious memory of which we are unaware, what reason do we have to believe that we did not have a conscious existence before our first conscious memory? What evidence, in fact, do we have that our consciousnesses have not existed for all of eternity, and that we yet only have memories of the past 20 years or so? Pardon me if this seems mere sophistry or hysteria, but I simply mean to point out that our ideas of causation and cosmic time are so incomplete and poor that it seems very presumptuous to me to make sweeping analogies or inferences on the basis of our understanding of them.

Don’t be surprised if those memories don’t come rushing back to you one day my Brother (assuming they actually exist).

You know sometimes I will be talking to an old friend, and they will start telling a story of some experience we had together in the past; perhaps an adventure that I had completely forgotten about. But then as they are telling the story, as I hear the details, it is as if my mind suddenly recalls. It is as if something was put into my head that had not been there a moment before. I recall the experience myself. I begin to remember it vividly even though up until the point my old friend had mentioned it I had completely forgotten the experience.

Curt: So much for that objection. One other objection that comes to mind is the classic Humian objection: suppose that you had 20 objects in a box, and you knew where each one came from (the proximate cause of the object). Now suppose someone asked you where the totality of the contents of the box came from. You would no doubt find the question absurd. Each object came from a distinct place, each one had an individual “cause” of its being in the box, so how could the question possibly be generalized? The same may be true of the universe: suppose you asked about the cause of any particular object you saw: a star, a book, a tree. For each object there would seem to be a simple explanation for where each comes from. We may not know the origin of some particular object, but that is likely simply our ignorance, not indicative of some cosmic inexplicable force at work. But if you asked what single cause created a book, a star and a tree, one can see immediately how ludicrous the question seems. If we imagine that the universe is an infinite plurality (of ideas or objects), each with its own individual cause, then asking about the cause of everything together seems rather pointless, especially given the seemingly eternal nature of both consciousness and matter.

But is that the case?

Couldn’t a materialist argue that the Cause of Everything (all events/matter) could be reduced to two parameters: 1) The Laws of Physics, and 2) The “Initial State” (of the pre-existent energy at the moment of the “big bang”)?

Curt: On a related point, from one perspective theological creation seems extremely unnecessary. If this idea was caused by the idea preceding it, or that object were created by another object acting according to a certain force, it seems entirely superfluous to imagine that some divinity somehow mysteriously also contribuited to its creation. You might contend that the argument was never that God created this or that idea or object but only all of reality as a whole, but that immediately leads back to the Humian objection noted above. Alternatively, one could argue that the very mechanism of creation of anything is so mysterious that it must derive from something outside of reality, and in a certain sense it’s true.

Have I mentioned the concept of “the Omniverse” to you?

I say, look to Godel. Reality is a reiterative Hierarchy. It’s a fractal, a pattern that elaborates on itself over time.

I mentioned the Progenitor above as the original creator of “everything”. But that isn’t entirely accurate. For starters the Progenitor is Omnipotent, but not in the sense that you or the average Christian thinks of when you hear that term. Relative to You or me the Progenitor was less evolved than an amoeba. It’s just that at the Time he existed all of the information that could be know was known by He (“It’).

Things start off simple to the point of vanishing from our perception altogether. Over time they evolve, they become more complex (more steps, more detail) they become more elaborate, but essentially everything is based on what came before.

Curt: If something is truly being created then it must in effect come from non-being or non-existence into real existence, so it could not derive from anything in perceptible reality. But I tend to think this simply undermines the causality argument even more, because if the properties of causation derive from something entirely outside of reality, then it seems even more foolish in my opinion to use analogies from the characteristics of the reality that we perceive to try to explain it. Therefore, I think that the causality argument is a rationally flawed basis on which to believe in the existence of God. Of course, this may not actually be the “logical” reason for your belief to which you were alluding. If so, by all means, enlighten me.

If causality is flawed, then what is the “more logical” alternative? Certainly you aren’t suggesting a non-causal system (i.e. Mysticism), are you?

I think part of the problem is to be found in the term (prefix) Omni, as in Omnipotent, or Omniscient.

You see then term “Omni” means something different depending upon whether Solipsism happens to be true or not. When Solipsism is true than Omni means All, Omnipotent means ALL Powerful, Omniscient means ALL Knowing.

But when Solipsism is False then relativity (i.e. Individuality) is in play, so the meaning of “Omni” metamorphsize’s and comes to mean Most. Omnipotent means MOST powerful, Omniscient means MOST Knowing.

When Solipsism is true one entity has ALL the power. That entity utterly controls Fate and Destiny. He possesses True Free will. Ultimately there are no consequences for his actions, because no one else exists to hold him accountable for his actions (or thoughts).

But when Solipsism is False and Individuality exists then you have an entirely different situation. Omnipotence and Omniscience persist, but now they are shared amongst the entities that exist. From moment to moment the torch of Omnipotence and Omniscience pass from Individual to Individual. Of course, if that “torch” were ever to fall into the wrong individual’s hands – even for just a single moment – it could have dire consequences for us all. Of course that situation was anticipated and so safeguards were designed into the system.

Never-the-less eternal vigilance is required. Thus is Fate.

What do you know about Kurt Godel?

Godel says, that if you start off with a system (let’s call it system-X). That system-X is by necessity incomplete. Sooner or latter an anomaly is going to crop up within the system.

But the anomaly is not the “end of the world” so to speak, because you can fix it. Now keep in mind, you can’t fix it until you see (perceive) it (i.e. the H-moebius problem) but you can fix it. And the solution always requires a new an improved system (system X+1 (let’s call it system-Y)) which has a new axiom that did not exist in the previous system.

You see what I am getting at? System-Y is a new and improved version of system-X. It’s essentially the same as system-X (has the same foundational premises) but it includes foundational premises not found in system-X. IN other words, System-Y contains information not perceived at the time system-X was created.

System-X is a less evolved system running off of a simpler set of axioms at lower energy levels. System-Y is more complete than system-X although BOTH systems are inherently incomplete.

Posted by: The Serpent at April 15, 2004 12:09 PM

Dr. Dave: Serpent, I do like the Thomas Jefferson attitude you quoted as opposed to the Blasé Pascal’s wager.

One is not incompatible with the other.

My point, my friend, is that we are all playing Pascal’s wager whether we are prepared to acknowledge the fact or not. The main difference is that self-described Atheists are betting and rooting for the Loss!

Where I come from, that is a sure sign of latent insanity.

Dr. Dave: I am playing in a somewhat different ball park than the other discussants. Shonk’s original post asked why we have an easily understood universally used word for the Deity, whom no one can even prove exists.

I disagree that “God’s” existence cannot be proven. You have been listening to too much Atheist propaganda.

I’ve pointed out how Atheists have no trouble believing and asserting the existence of “free will” or “matter” which cannot even be defined in a consistent and logical fashion. I didn’t see Douglas Adam’s whining about that.

Dr. Dave: I won’t join in the abstract analysis of this question. My questions are more pragmatic.

I am a pragmatist myself. Pragmatist are realist. And realists are never cynics.

Dr. Dave: What are that implications of the commonplace understanding God? Even a two year old or a charwoman knows about God.

I agree. It is a fairly easy concept to grasp, at least on the basic level.

My point is that the term (God) is in fact loaded with subtleties that make it far more complex then what might be perceived at first glance.

Dr. Dave: If God is generating the universe and we as curious humans had developed the minds (as opposed to animal minds) capable of perceiving this fact, we would be much happier than otherwise.

I would say that the point of this universe is ultimately all about “Happiness” (i.e. what is Beneficial).

This reality is a test. We are gauging you. We are determining whether or not you are a “compatible entity”. If you are, your state will transition to a higher shell of reality (like an electron changing orbital shells in an atom). But if you are not a compatible entity then we will release you back to whence you came (“Hell” according to the Theist).

Dr. Dave: Another reason for the belief in God might include a reaction to human awareness of mortality.

What makes you assume you are mortal?

Tell me, how long would it take an immortal entity to perceive that he was actually immortal? Perhaps it’s like a hot stove burner? Until you’ve touched one a couple of times you don’t even realize that it will burn you?

You ever play that computer game Quake? If your character is killed in the Quake universe, do you – as the “player” (i.e. Soul) – also “cease to exist”? What makes you assume this reality is any different? It certainly seems just as algorithmic.

Dr. Dave: Another could be evolutionary survival value. A major source of the power in human tribal groups is social solidarity.

I’d concur.

Dr. Dave: Religious beliefs reinforce this and empower and enhance certain individuals and their families as well as the group itself. Think of the power of popes, priests and witch doctors. Note the purpose and solidarity that can be gained by inducing religious fervor, be it Jim Jones, David Koresh or Osama Bin Laden. I wonder how these factors played out in Paleolithic times. So you see there may be many reasons why God is important to us.

I understand what you are saying and I agree that your point is valid. Religion has been used (just as “Science” has been used) to gain power over other individuals. In a way Religion is all about the concept of a “Hierarchy” and Hierarchies are all about who has power over who.

But I would assert that the existence of hierarchies is essential to this existence (this universe). Without a Hierarchy there would be no Individuality in the first place. Individuality is based on the notion that Individuals are separate and not the same – not equal – not alike.

Humans have power over animals – correct? The food chain is undoubtedly a “Hierarchy of life” (what creatures have “power” over others) in some regards? Would you concur?

Let’s talk about the Christians for a moment. The Christians think that Demons are fallen Angels, but in this regard their cosmology is backwards and upside down. In reality the “Angels” are actually highly evolved Demons.

Just so we’re straight:

Religion = One’s fundamental beliefs regarding the nature and origin of existence (or “the Universe” (reality)).
Science = The objective, systematic, and methodical study of existence (or “the Universe” (reality)).
Objective = consistent = does not self-contradict
Systematic = parsimonious = without unnecessary steps or operations.
Methodical = (reiterated) over Time.
God = A superior (conscious) entity capable of generating a universe.
Universe = a shared reality (frame of reference).

Posted by: The Serpent at April 15, 2004 12:45 PM

Godel says, that if you start off with a system (let’s call it system-X). That system-X is by necessity incomplete. Sooner or latter an anomaly is going to crop up within the system.

Two points:

1. This all depends on what you mean by "anomaly"; sure there are undecidable propositions, but it's not like you can prove contradictory propositions or anything catastrophic like that.

2. Godel's theorem only applies to formal logical systems, specifically those capable of encoding the natural numbers (non-negative integers). It doesn't say anything about other systems, nor about formal structures that cannot encode the natural numbers. It's quite easy to convince yourself that you are not a formal system (a la Penrose), so one has to be very careful when trying to apply Godel to the realm of consciousness or perception.

Posted by: shonk at April 15, 2004 02:18 PM

shonk: [two points…] 1. This all depends on what you mean by “anomaly”; sure there are undecidable propositions, but it’s not like you can prove contradictory propositions or anything catastrophic like that.

There are True and False propositions within the system which are (inevitably) obviously True or False, but cannot be proven as True or False using the axioms of the system in question.

Would you agree that statement is accurate (as per Godel)?

Whether or not the anomaly is catastrophic or not depends upon your point of view and position within the greater “omni-system”. If you exist within the system in which the anomaly is occurring then I can assure you it can be quite catastrophic.

You ever seen Stanley Kubrick’s 2001? The Sentient (i.e. “conscious”) algorithm HAL-9000 suffers such an anomaly within his own formal system (consciousness being essentially a miniature copy of the larger omni-system). They refer to this in the film has the H-moebius problem. Kind of an infinite loop for a conscious mind -- the halting problem. The thing is the H-Moebius problem is a real phenomena. And if an entity finds himself trapped in such a loop he can either escape it, or it will annihilate him utterly from the inside out. An internal reaction will begin to degrade the entities sanity until nothing remains.

Omni = The Maximum in a Sequence.
Meta = Higher in a Sequence.
Sequence = Two or more related options = An "array" of options.
Option = a mutually exclusive binary choice = a decision junction ones worldline.

shonk: 2. Godel’s theorem only applies to formal logical systems, specifically those capable of encoding the natural numbers (non-negative integers).

Well we could debate as to the manner in which negative quantities actually exist in reality. For example what does –2 atoms look like?

shonk: It doesn’t say anything about other systems, nor about formal structures that cannot encode the natural numbers.

I’m not so sure that I would agree.

For example all computer languages (including binary) are formal systems as per Godel’s definition.

Were you aware that Kurt Godel was a Deist? I hear he even wrote a mathematical proof for the existence of God.

shonk: It’s quite easy to convince yourself that you are not a formal system (a la Penrose), so one has to be very careful when trying to apply Godel to the realm of consciousness or perception.

I never thought much of Penrose. He spends too much Time with Atheists like Hawking and Dennett. They’ve corrupted his Algorithm. Last time I heard he was still asserting the existence of “free will”.

He’s on the right track in some ways. He’s correct about the inability of homo sapiens to create artificial computer consciousness. Homo sapiens might be able to make a “collar” (equivalent to a “physical body”), but the problem for Materialists is that they don’t have the slightest idea of the True difference between something which is “alive” and something which is not.

I’m sure I’ve asked you before, but according to Materialism in what way do you possess more “free will” or “sentience” than the moon does?

Posted by: The Serpent at April 15, 2004 03:38 PM

"Godel says, that if you start off with a system (let’s call it system-X). That system-X is by necessity incomplete. Sooner or latter an anomaly is going to crop up within the system.

But the anomaly is not the “end of the world” so to speak, because you can fix it. Now keep in mind, you can’t fix it until you see (perceive) it (i.e. the H-moebius problem) but you can fix it. And the solution always requires a new an improved system (system X+1 (let’s call it system-Y)) which has a new axiom that did not exist in the previous system."

I don't know about Gödel, not having studied him. But I do know that Søren Kierkegaard made much the same point in regards to Hegelian metaphysics, and his point was perhaps a little more a propos to our discussion because he was definitely talking about ontological matters rather than higher math, whose applicability to external reality is at least debatable. But you may find the contrast somewhat interesting. You seem to observe the inevitable incompleteness of systems and see synthetic evolution: each step to improve a system improves our knowledge, expands our consciousness. Fair enough. But as you acknowledge, the task is never-ending: no system is ever complete, and our ignorance is profound and eternal. And Kierkegaard takes this one step further. He recognizes that incomplete systems are not systems at all: they never actually arrive at their goal of complete descriptions. And in a sense their is something profoundly rationalistic about this fact: there is no such thing, really, as a partially proven theorem or a partially complete syllogism. They are not complete until they are complete, and they prove nothing and have no truth-value until they are complete. Hence, an incomplete system has no logical veracity, and inferences from incomplete systems may as well be speculation. Your solution to this seems to be: construct a better system. Kierkegaard's solution: stop systemizing. Since one never arrives at the truth concerning the most important questions by this means anyway, don't seek to, for the ability lies not in our nature. Remember that Kierkegaard was a theist of the highest order, but he certainly did not place the origins of his belief in rational argumentation. It was all simply a matter of faith, as I suppose all of our most fundamental beliefs are. So it would seem to me that regarding the deepest issues of belief systems leave us most uncertain, whereas of necessity in these matters we are most certain. Therefore, systemizing is not a good manner in which to arrive at beliefs concerning these deepest questions.

Posted by: Curt at April 15, 2004 09:24 PM

There are True and False propositions within the system which are (inevitably) obviously True or False, but cannot be proven as True or False using the axioms of the system in question.

Would you agree that statement is accurate (as per Godel)?

Yes, so long as you add the qualifiers "consistent" and "formal" to the word "system", wherever it appears. But this all presupposes some external verification of "True" and "False", so I think you're putting the cart before the horse here.

Well we could debate as to the manner in which negative quantities actually exist in reality. For example what does –2 atoms look like?

Which is a debate that first got started some thousands of years ago. But it's easy to see negative quantities in reality: just look at the charges of an electron and a proton. The choice of which is negative and which is positive was, of course, arbitrary (and, unfortunately for those that have to deal with circuit diagrams, they made the more inefficient choice back in the day), but the two charges are clearly of equal magnitude and opposite sign. (And yes, incidentally, I realize that one could possibly overcome this example by proposing a sort of "absolute zero" for charge, but this would involve the introduction of infinities into the matter, which are much _more_ controversial than negative numbers).

I’m not so sure that I would agree.

For example all computer languages (including binary) are formal systems as per Godel’s definition.

But this does not contradict what I said:

It doesn’t say anything about other systems, nor about formal structures that cannot encode the natural numbers.

All you've done is provided a class of examples of formal systems capable of encoding the natural numbers, which is precisely the class to which Gödel's theorem is applicable.

Were you aware that Kurt Godel was a Deist? I hear he even wrote a mathematical proof for the existence of God.

Yes. I'm also quite well aware that Gödel was more than half-crazy. Neither of which facts has any bearing on the validity or applicability of his incompleteness theorem.

I never thought much of Penrose. He spends too much Time with Atheists like Hawking and Dennett. They’ve corrupted his Algorithm. Last time I heard he was still asserting the existence of “free will”.

All I get from this is that you're avoiding actually addressing what he has to say re human minds as formal systems. Which is disappointing, because there are good critiques out there.

Homo sapiens might be able to make a “collar” (equivalent to a “physical body”), but the problem for Materialists is that they don’t have the slightest idea of the True difference between something which is “alive” and something which is not.

Again, true but irrelevant. You don't believe that there are two such separate classes, so I don't see how their failure to distinguish between the two would be an important critique from your perspective.

I’m sure I’ve asked you before, but according to Materialism in what way do you possess more “free will” or “sentience” than the moon does?

Well, the materialists haven't answered this question very well (if at all), so I think I would have a hard time explicating such an argument. However, the fact that the laws of physics aren't strictly deterministic means that, at least in principle, there's no reason why free will can't exist, even if there's no way, from a purely physical perspective, to demonstrate that I have it and the moon doesn't.

Just out of curiosity, are you trying to suggest that the laws of physics as deity are some sort of limit point of the bootstrapping to more robust formal systems? I ask because this would lie in rather direct contradiction to the notion that omniscience exists.

Posted by: shonk at April 16, 2004 12:59 AM

This has no direct bearing on the main point, but it might do to remember that Gödel was himself no great fan of having his incompleteness theorem strapped to tenuous metaphysical theories. Consider this anecdote, related by the physicist John Wheeler:

"Well, one day [Wheeler recounts] I was at the Institute of Advanced Study, and I went to Gödel's office, and there was Gödel. It was winter and Gödel had an electric heater and had his legs wrapped in a blanket. I said, 'Professor Gödel, what connection do you see between your incompleteness theorem and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?' And Gödel got angry and threw me out of his office."

Posted by: Curt at April 16, 2004 01:51 AM

Curt: he [Kierkegaard] was definitely talking about ontological matters rather than higher math, whose applicability to external reality is at least debatable.

Wouldn’t you agree that reality can be reduced to mathematics?

The Laws of Physics can certainly be reduced to mathematics.

Curt: You seem to observe the inevitable incompleteness of systems and see synthetic evolution: each step to improve a system improves our knowledge, expands our consciousness.

That’s an accurate summary.

Curt: But as you acknowledge, the task is never-ending: no system is ever complete, and our ignorance is profound and eternal. And Kierkegaard takes this one step further. He recognizes that incomplete systems are not systems at all: they never actually arrive at their goal of complete descriptions. And in a sense their is something profoundly rationalistic about this fact: there is no such thing, really, as a partially proven theorem or a partially complete syllogism. They are not complete until they are complete, and they prove nothing and have no truth-value until they are complete.

I’m not sure that Kierkegard understood that Time is cyclical.

This may be difficult to articulate at the moment, but I’m not sure that you have to be able to prove your initial axioms at the onset of a “new” system. Just so long as you are able to validate them over Time. In other words, it’s as if your starting axioms come from a place that only exist in the future of the system that they themselves generate.

Let me try and explain this another way … assuming you don’t have “free will”, and you actions are in fact determined, it would seem to imply that everything you do today (decisions you appear to be making today) actually originate in the unimaginable and distant past.

In a way everything you have ever done was determined at the moment of the Big Bang by TLOP and the Initial state. That’s the Source of your actions in the present.

Curt: Hence, an incomplete system has no logical veracity, and inferences from incomplete systems may as well be speculation. Your solution to this seems to be: construct a better system. Kierkegaard’s solution: stop systemizing. Since one never arrives at the truth concerning the most important questions by this means anyway, don’t seek to, for the ability lies not in our nature.

But is that coherent?

Isn’t Materialism a “system”? Isn’t particle physics a “system”? All theories are “systems”?

If you abandon this notion then what exactly is the superior alternative? … Mysticism? Mystics always assert that Mysticism is superior to its alternative. That’s the nature of a Mystic. Unfortunately for the mystic assert is all they can do.

I’ll stick with the best system I have (i.e. Logic) until it is proven to me that a superior alternative even exists.

Curt: Remember that Kierkegaard was a theist of the highest order, but he certainly did not place the origins of his belief in rational argumentation.

Yes, but neither you nor I are Theists, nor do either of us place a lot of stock in Faith (i.e. wishful thinking).

Curt: It was all simply a matter of faith, as I suppose all of our most fundamental beliefs are.

It is very simple. For any belief there is always a mutually exclusive alternate opposite. Any valid premise (base meme) is always of the form:

X or Not(X)

Free will = True, or Not(Free will) = True (i.e. Free will = True, or Free will = False)
God = True, or Not(God) = True (i.e. God = True, or God = False)
Solipsism = True, or Not(Solipsism) = True

It’s simply a matter of perceiving which option is more likely True. Surprisingly this is typically quite obvious. In fact, I’m not so sure what all the fuss has been about? Perhaps that wasn’t always the case?

Curt: So it would seem to me that regarding the deepest issues of belief systems leave us most uncertain, whereas of necessity in these matters we are most certain. Therefore, systemizing is not a good manner in which to arrive at beliefs concerning these deepest questions.

You lost me here my Friend.

I thought we agreed that a belief in the existence of “matter” independent of observation (i.e. on “Faith”) was just as irrational as a belief in “God” based on nothing but Faith?

Perhaps you should explain why a belief in “free will” is more rational that it’s mutually exclusive opposite? Because if there is no “free will”, then I would assert the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming to the point of utter certainty.

Not to mention Time and Gravity which we haven’t even really gotten into yet.

Posted by: The Serpent at April 16, 2004 11:03 AM

The Laws of Physics can certainly be reduced to mathematics.

Now there's a statement based on faith if I've ever seen one.

Posted by: shonk at April 16, 2004 11:43 AM

shonk: [Godel and Incompleteness …]Yes, so long as you add the qualifiers “consistent” and “formal” to the word “system”, wherever it appears.

I would say that goes without saying (Logical Deism), but as you wish …

shonk: But this all presupposes some external verification of “True” and “False”, so I think you’re putting the cart before the horse here.

Once you have your initial axioms True and False are natural byproducts of conscious execution (i.e. cognition/thought) are they not?

[* *] + [* *] = [* * * *]

2 + 2 = 4

True and False are merely branches off your worldline (go towards the “Light”). One being more beneficial than the other.

But perhaps you are referring to OmniTruth (what is True in reality)? That might be different than what we normally refer to as Truth (i.e. perceived truth). Meaning what we perceive as True (commonly called “Truth”) may not be what is actually True in reality (i.e. “OmniTruth”).

But that’s the power of mathematics. Even in this reality Mathematics gives us the ability to perceive Omnitruth.

shonk: [Negative quantities in reality …]Which is a debate that first got started some thousands of years ago. But it’s easy to see negative quantities in reality: just look at the charges of an electron and a proton. The choice of which is negative and which is positive was, of course, arbitrary (and, unfortunately for those that have to deal with circuit diagrams, they made the more inefficient choice back in the day), but the two charges are clearly of equal magnitude and opposite sign.

Yeah, but isn’t that like saying that Females are “positive” and Males are “negative”? Or that Good Souls have a “positive” charge, and Evil Souls have a “negative” charge?

What you are really talking about is deviation from some mean (an “origin”). Take this universe for example. Say we make it our origin. The universe below us (the “Antiverse”, or “Hell” to a Theist), would have a “negative” value, and the universe above this one (the “Metaverse”, or “Heaven” to a theist) would have a “positive” value.

Useful, but isn’t it somewhat arbitrary?

We should talk about anti-matter some time though. Materialism sure has a tough time with that one. “Dark Energy”. Missing 90%+ of the precious “matter”. Too frigging funny!

So what happen to all of the anti-matter in this universe shonk? Why is this universe made up almost entirely of regular (Posi) matter?

Hawking seems to think it’s another “random fluke”, but all the evidence indicates that something much more systematic is occurring.

shonk: (And yes, incidentally, I realize that one could possibly overcome this example by proposing a sort of “absolute zero” for charge, but this would involve the introduction of infinities into the matter, which are much more controversial than negative numbers).

I agree with you there. In fact, I’d classify the Materialists definition of Infinity as Supernatural.

If you ever hear me use a term like “Infinite” or “Eternal” I am simply referring to a very large (almost beyond imagination) yet ultimately finite quantity.

shonk: Yes. I’m also quite well aware that Gödel was more than half-crazy. Neither of which facts has any bearing on the validity or applicability of his incompleteness theorem.

An Illuminati cut off from his brothers is often prone to paranoia. It is the byproduct of certain memes that execute within his Graviton. Memes that other Gravitons dare not carry.

He starved himself to death you know? He became convinced that Demons were trying to covertly poison his food.

shonk: All I get from this is that you’re avoiding actually addressing what he has to say re human minds as formal systems. Which is disappointing, because there are good critiques out there.

I’m sorry shonk I was not deliberately trying to avoid this, and as I have read several of Penrose’s books I’d be more than happy to discuss it. I’ll tell you what; I’ll even refresh my memory on the subject over the weekend.

If I recall correctly Penrose is on the cusp of abandoning Materialism, but he can’t completely let go. Never-the-less he perceives enough to realize that robot butlers are not in our immediate future.

shonk: Again, true but irrelevant. You don’t believe that there are two such separate classes, so I don’t see how their failure to distinguish between the two would be an important critique from your perspective.

Keep in mind according to what I believe your physical body is analogous to a CAR, and your SOUL is analogous to the driver of the CAR. You physical body (including your physical brain) is inanimate just like a Car is inanimate. It’s just a meme, a projection, an illusion. It’s the consciousness behind it that is real.

Penrose has an inkling of this, but he can’t concede the fact without abandoning his comfortable reality of Materialism and Atheism.

What I am saying (and Penrose too perhaps) is that we could build a Car (a physical robot body and brain, sensory perception, ability to express, etc.), but what we cannot generate is the Driver -- the consciousness itself, the Soul (a Graviton).

shonk: [definition of “life” …]Well, the materialists haven’t answered this question very well (if at all), so I think I would have a hard time explicating such an argument. However, the fact that the laws of physics aren’t strictly deterministic means that, at least in principle, there’s no reason why free will can’t exist, even if there’s no way, from a purely physical perspective, to demonstrate that I have it and the moon doesn’t.

You don’t possess “free will” but you have something much more valuable and precious. You have the property of uniqueness (Individuality). In all the Omniverse there is no other entity exactly like you. Over Time that statement only becomes more true.

You exist in a way that the Moon doesn’t. It’s like we are playing Dungeons and Dragons. You tell the referee (i.e. “God”) that you look up into the sky … “what do I see?” you ask.
“The Moon”, he replies.
But You (as the player) exist beyond that universe. The Moon does not. The referee is generating the Moon, but the referee is not generating you (only your character’s physical body within the game).

the fact that the laws of physics aren’t strictly deterministic means that, at least in principle, there’s no reason why free will can’t exist …

We have a saying, that the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics is the last refuge of a scoundrel (a Demon). ;)

The problem with this argument is that it essentially reduces “free will” to “random action”. It’s like saying that when you approach a RED traffic light the uncertainty principle does the equivalent to flipping a coin to determine whether you should STOP or GO.

Now I would ask how often have you perceived a red traffic light and then randomly and uncontrollable run through it?

shonk: Just out of curiosity, are you trying to suggest that the laws of physics as deity are some sort of limit point of the bootstrapping to more robust formal systems? I ask because this would lie in rather direct contradiction to the notion that omniscience exists.

Let me explain it like this. In Hinduism there is an entity called the Brahman, kind of an Omni-god, or over-god. The free-masons call him “the Great Architect”. In Logical Deism that entity is the Progenitor Solipsist – the original primordial consciousness.

The Progenitor is like the first programmer. He creates machine language, and then (eventually) he comes up with the idea for and writes the first couple of primitive programs (Gravitons), ceasing to exist in the process (Solipsism is no longer True). From that point evolution takes over. The Gravitons share (or compete over) the property of Omniscience amongst themselves.

Eventually some of these program (gravitons) develop a new ability; the power to generate a shared frame of reference with its own set of rules (a “universe” or sub-layer within the Omniverse).

But ultimately everything is reducible to the original machine language that was created by the Progenitor. You can’t escape your past. You can’t not be who and what you are – that’s your Fate, your Karma. Embrace it.

Posted by: The Serpent at April 16, 2004 12:04 PM

John Wheeler: Well, one day I was at the Institute of Advanced Study, and I went to Gödel’s office, and there was Gödel. It was winter and Gödel had an electric heater and had his legs wrapped in a blanket. I said, ‘Professor Gödel, what connection do you see between your incompleteness theorem and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle?’ And Gödel got angry and threw me out of his office.”

hehehehe!

Yeah, Godel was a lot like Einstein in that he was firmly convinced that the Goddess did not play dice with reality.

But unlike Einstein he also knew that a sane man never hands a loaded gun (or a flaming sword) to an insane man (or a child).

It's just like I was saying about the "last refuge of scoundrels" ...

Posted by: The Serpent at April 16, 2004 12:10 PM

Serpent (prev): The Laws of Physics can certainly be reduced to mathematics.

Curt: Now there’s a statement based on faith if I’ve ever seen one.

You consider the inverse square law (of Gravity) a matter of Faith?

How about the Lorentz transformation?

How about Kepler’s or Newton’s mathematical notions regarding Celestial Mechanics?

You’ll have to elaborate Mr. Curt. I’m afraid you’ve lost me.

Posted by: The Serpent at April 16, 2004 12:31 PM

You’ll have to elaborate Mr. Curt. I’m afraid you’ve lost me.

First off, that was me, not Curt.

Now, you said: "The Laws of Physics can certainly be reduced to mathematics." A much more accurate statement would be "The laws of physics that we know about can be approximated by mathematical expressions." Hence the inverse-square law, Lorentz transformations, celestial mechanics, etc. All of those approximations are quite good.

However, it should really come as no surprise that all of the laws of physics that we know about can be approximated by mathematical expressions, since our approach to physics is mathematical. That is, given our approach to physics, one would expect that we would only know about those laws of physics that can be approximated by mathematical expressions. That being said, the belief that _all_ laws of physics can be so approximated is a matter of faith; or, put more charitably, an educated guess. Such a statement would be equivalent to me saying "All intelligent life lives on planet Earth"; certainly all the intelligent life I've come across lives on Earth, but, then again, that's really the only place I've looked.

My point is, if you restrict the range of your search for something and then (surprise, surprise) only find what you're looking for within that restricted range, it's pretty arbitrary to then claim that _all_ the objects you're looking for _must_ lie within that restricted range, especially when you openly acknowledge that you haven't found all of them yet and that you don't even really understand how the ones you have found are related to eachother.

Posted by: shonk at April 16, 2004 02:34 PM

"Wouldn’t you agree that reality can be reduced to mathematics?

The Laws of Physics can certainly be reduced to mathematics."

Not at all; absolutely not. Maybe this is the fundamental primitive disagreement between you and I. I would not even concede that the laws of physics can reduced to mathematics. They can be EXPLAINED by mathematics, but if they certainly cannot be reduced to mathematics.

Posted by: Curt at April 16, 2004 02:34 PM

"They can be EXPLAINED by mathematics, but if they certainly cannot be reduced to mathematics."

I'm sorry, I correct myself. I should not have said that they cannot be reduced to mathematics; that is itself an unfounded assertion. What I meant to say is that just because certain phenomena can be explained or described mathematically, as the laws of physics can, does not mean that they can be reduced to mathematics. That does not mean that they necessarily can't be, but the fact that you simply assume that they can be is, as my brother observes, definitely a statement of faith.

Posted by: Curt at April 16, 2004 02:42 PM

"This may be difficult to articulate at the moment, but I’m not sure that you have to be able to prove your initial axioms at the onset of a “new” system. Just so long as you are able to validate them over Time. In other words, it’s as if your starting axioms come from a place that only exist in the future of the system that they themselves generate."

Doesn't this strike you as being exactly the same sort of justification for belief that theists and atheists, for whom you have no much scorn, use? They may not be able to prove the validity of their beliefs just now, but they are all convinced that the future will prove them right.

"But is that coherent?

Isn’t Materialism a “system”? Isn’t particle physics a “system”? All theories are “systems”?"

Right, and if Kierkegaard was advocating any of those then one could fairly accuse him of inconsistency, but all the evidence indicates that none of these matters were of the slightest interest to him, nor do his own views have anything to do with them.

"If you abandon this notion then what exactly is the superior alternative? … Mysticism?"

I am not entirely sure what "notion" you are talking about, nor what you mean by "mysticism", but I assume by "this notion" you mean logically-based beliefs in certain metaphysical or ontological systems," and by "mysticism" irrational beliefs. I am also not sure to whom you are addressing this question, since my view on this matter is not the same as Kierkegaard's, but if you are addressing Kierkegaard I think he would respond that in a sense one is not "abandoning" anything of value when one ceases to put much stock in metaphysical system-building, since these systems never even deliver clarity on the questions for which they promise full and complete answers, let alone the questions which are much more central and important for our lives, such as what is the key to happiness? or what is one's duty as a human being?, which they never even address. So it is not so much a matter or discarding an inadequate means of describing reality for a better one, but rather a ridding oneself of pointless and futile distractions in favor of concentrating on more important matters. But again, these are Kierkegaard's views, not mine.

"Yes, but neither you nor I are Theists, nor do either of us place a lot of stock in Faith (i.e. wishful thinking)."

Fair enough, but just because you do not place a lot of stock in wishful thinking (I am putting aside the matter of whether that is really the definition of faith) does not mean that you are necessarily wholly free of it. Nor is it clear to me that any of our fundamental beliefs, no matter how much we may convince ourselves of their rational underpinnings, are ever any more than rationalizations of our own wishful thoughts. In fact, the very form of syllogisms encodes this sort of arbitrariness, since all syllogisms are based on premises, which are never value-differentiated. That is to say that all arguments of this sort are conditional: given premise x is true, then y is true. A conclusion, then, can be totally valid and yet dead wrong. Of course, one can always justify the premises by the same method, but every system always has at least one primitive, i.e. a premise which is not justified within the system. I imagine that most people's starting premises are propositions which they find salubrious in some way, even if unconsciously, although this is pure speculation; the point is that there is nothing in logical systemizing which precludes this kind of arbitrariness, so perhaps even the most rigorous systems are founded on wishful thinking, which you equate with faith.

"It’s simply a matter of perceiving which option is more likely True. Surprisingly this is typically quite obvious. "

But this is simply begging the question: true according to what? The dictates of one's dream, aspirations, hopes? One's received knowledge? One's memories? I'm not denying that this is way that the truth (as opposed to the validity) of propositions is actually assessed, but you can hardly call this method methodical, nor deny the possibility, nor even the likelihood, that this determination is ultimately made simply according to one's subjective disposition towards the world.

"I thought we agreed that a belief in the existence of “matter” independent of observation (i.e. on “Faith”) was just as irrational as a belief in “God” based on nothing but Faith?"

True enough, but I'm not sure that anyone can really be neutral on either of these questions, nor am I sure that the basis for our beliefs on either one of these questions can ever be other than ultimately irrational, even taking observation into account, for the reasons that I already mentioned above regarding the defects of logic.

"Perhaps you should explain why a belief in “free will” is more rational that it’s mutually exclusive opposite?"

I don't see why I need to since I have never asserted that there is such a thing as free will.

"Because if there is no “free will”, then I would assert the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming to the point of utter certainty."

That's because you define God in such a way as to make his existence tautologous, as I have said before.

"Not to mention Time and Gravity which we haven’t even really gotten into yet."

Nor do I particularly want to.

Posted by: Curt at April 16, 2004 03:43 PM

shonk: However, it should really come as no surprise that all of the laws of physics that we know about can be approximated by mathematical expressions, since our approach to physics is mathematical. That is, given our approach to physics, one would expect that we would only know about those laws of physics that can be approximated by mathematical expressions. That being said, the belief that all laws of physics can be so approximated is a matter of faith; or, put more charitably, an educated guess. Such a statement would be equivalent to me saying “All intelligent life lives on planet Earth”; certainly all the intelligent life I’ve come across lives on Earth, but, then again, that’s really the only place I’ve looked.

Yeah, but we could look for life on other planets … right?

There is someplace else to look in that example.

But when it comes to Physics and Mathematics what is the alternative? Where else you gonna look? What else is there other than Math/Logic? You two keep seeming to imply mysticism without actually coming out and saying it.

Is Mysticism superior to Logic in your opinion? Being as that you label yourself a “mathematician” I would suspect you’d say no, but maybe you’re just telling me that?

Mysticism and Logic are mutually exclusive binary opposites.

Just like: free will and Fate, or Individuality and Solipsism.

shonk: My point is, if you restrict the range of your search for something and then (surprise, surprise) only find what you’re looking for within that restricted range, it’s pretty arbitrary to then claim that all the objects you’re looking for must lie within that restricted range, especially when you openly acknowledge that you haven’t found all of them yet and that you don’t even really understand how the ones you have found are related to each other.

I’m not sure I understand?

If you are asserting that logic and mathematics are insufficient to define reality you’ll have to explain what you mean.

If you are asserting that there is some other superior alternative to logic (math’s more primitive cousin) then you’ll have to articulate precisely what that alternative is. As I said the only alternative that I know of is Mysticism (i.e. the rejection of causality and logic).

Posted by: The Serpent at April 16, 2004 03:49 PM

Curt: just because certain phenomena can be explained or described mathematically, as the laws of physics can, does not mean that they can be reduced to mathematics.

What’s the difference between offering a "mathematical explanation" and "reducing it to mathematics"? Sounds like semantics.

Can all “matter” be reduced to Energy, or does Energy only explain “matter”???

I wonder if this is latent Materialism coming through? You can’t let go of the notion that “matter” has unobservable properties, even though you can’t actually observe them?

Posted by: The Serpent at April 16, 2004 03:58 PM

But when it comes to Physics and Mathematics what is the alternative? Where else you gonna look? What else is there other than Math/Logic? You two keep seeming to imply mysticism without actually coming out and saying it.

I have no idea. My point is simply that, logically speaking, there's no reason why we should expect the universe to be explicable by logic/mathematics. Which is, either side you come down on is, ultimately, a form of what you're calling "mysticism".

Is Mysticism superior to Logic in your opinion? Being as that you label yourself a “mathematician” I would suspect you’d say no, but maybe you’re just telling me that?

What I'm saying is that logic is a type of mysticism. A type I rather happen to like and think is pretty useful, but mysticism nonetheless.

Mysticism and Logic are mutually exclusive binary opposites.

Just like: free will and Fate, or Individuality and Solipsism.

I guess I just addressed this, eh?

Posted by: shonk at April 16, 2004 04:33 PM

The Serpent: This may be difficult to articulate at the moment, but I’m not sure that you have to be able to prove your initial axioms at the onset of a “new” system. Just so long as you are able to validate them over Time. In other words, it’s as if your starting axioms come from a place that only exist in the future of the system that they themselves generate.

The Curt: Doesn’t this strike you as being exactly the same sort of justification for belief that theists and atheists, for whom you have no much scorn, use? They may not be able to prove the validity of their beliefs just now, but they are all convinced that the future will prove them right.

I think you misunderstood me.

I was referring to a macro-concept. Not my beliefs specifically. I have no doubt I could explain the concept to you though, it just at this point I’m not sure if we have exchanged enough information and defined all the relevant terms required.

The Curt: I am not entirely sure what “notion” you are talking about, nor what you mean by “mysticism”, but I assume by “this notion” you mean logically-based beliefs in certain metaphysical or ontological systems,” and by “mysticism” irrational beliefs.

Mysticism = not bounded by Logic = (irrational or incoherent would be accurate descriptions; however, I would avoid that terminology (lexiconically speaking) for semantic reasons.)

The Curt: I am also not sure to whom you are addressing this question, since my view on this matter is not the same as Kierkegaard’s, but if you are addressing Kierkegaard I think he would respond that in a sense one is not “abandoning” anything of value when one ceases to put much stock in metaphysical system-building, since these systems never even deliver clarity on the questions for which they promise full and complete answers, let alone the questions which are much more central and important for our lives, such as what is the key to happiness? or what is one’s duty as a human being?, which they never even address. So it is not so much a matter or discarding an inadequate means of describing reality for a better one, but rather a ridding oneself of pointless and futile distractions in favor of concentrating on more important matters. But again, these are Kierkegaard’s views, not mine.

A lot of philosophers have been mystics. That’s probably the main reason philosophy gets such a bad rap. To a lot of Atheists Philosophy is not much different (i.e. better) than “Religion” (by the Atheist definition of terms).

But that’s like trying to lump Deists together with Theist.

Or Science with pseudo-science.

The Curt: Fair enough, but just because you do not place a lot of stock in wishful thinking (I am putting aside the matter of whether that is really the definition of faith) does not mean that you are necessarily wholly free of it.

I concede that point.

Look, to a Logical Deist shedding one’s Faith (unfounded assumptions) is a ritualistic act in the same way that shedding one’s desires (Individuality) is a ritualistic act for a Buddhist.

The Curt: Nor is it clear to me that any of our fundamental beliefs, no matter how much we may convince ourselves of their rational underpinnings, are ever any more than rationalizations of our own wishful thoughts. In fact, the very form of syllogisms encodes this sort of arbitrariness, since all syllogisms are based on premises, which are never value-differentiated. That is to say that all arguments of this sort are conditional: given premise x is true, then y is true. A conclusion, then, can be totally valid and yet dead wrong. Of course, one can always justify the premises by the same method, but every system always has at least one primitive, i.e. a premise which is not justified within the system. I imagine that most people’s starting premises are propositions which they find salubrious in some way, even if unconsciously, although this is pure speculation; the point is that there is nothing in logical systemizing which precludes this kind of arbitrariness, so perhaps even the most rigorous systems are founded on wishful thinking, which you equate with faith.

But this was the point I was trying to make to you in the last post (the point I responded to directly above). You may have to start off with axioms that are unproven initially. However, so long as you can prove that those axioms are valid once your system is up and running (i.e. the axioms do not end up conflicting with themselves or contradicting themselves) then your initial axioms are valid.

And that is the precisely problem with Atheism/Materialism. They make unnecessary initial assumptions. And from within their own system (Materialism) the axioms are obviously contradictory and False!

You can’t claim that only that which can be observed is scientific and empirical and then go on to claim that “Matter” exist independent of observation … yet Materialism is clearly scientific and empirical. You’re violating your own axioms!

You can’t assert that chemicals (atoms) in a test tube obey the laws of physics, but the chemical (atoms) in your brain do not. That is a contradiction. You’re violating your own axioms!

You can’t argue that it is not(Logical) to believe in “God” without defining “God”, while at the same time arguing that it is Logical to believe in “free will” without defining “free will”. You’re violating your own axioms!

The Curt: But this is simply begging the question: true according to what? The dictates of one’s dream, aspirations, hopes? One’s received knowledge? One’s memories? I’m not denying that this is way that the truth (as opposed to the validity) of propositions is actually assessed, but you can hardly call this method methodical, nor deny the possibility, nor even the likelihood, that this determination is ultimately made simply according to one’s subjective disposition towards the world.

Ahhh, to perceive through the eyes of someone who is not a Fatalist … a fascinating memory.

If all of the thoughts and judgments of your physical brain are ultimately reducible to The Laws of Physics, and TLOP is Objective (the opposite of Subjective) then in what way are your judgments truly “Subjective”?

Your judgments may be wrong, but that is always the result of incomplete, or inaccurate information in the database. It is never the result of the failure of processing itself.

Think about it. If I start asking you very simple math questions … “What is the sum of 2 + 2?” … and you clearly perceive the question. You hear me, you understood what I said. How many times out of a hundred will you get the answer wrong? How many times out of a thousand? … A million? Suppose I asked you what 2 + 2 equals an “infinite” number of times? Are you ever gonna answer that question wrong (joking and kidding aside)?

How many times do you deliberately touch a hot stove burner these days?

You MPB algorithm is flawless! It’s perfect. It’s the database (your memories) and the Graviton your algorithm generates around itself that can become infested and corrupted by bad information (memes).

The Curt: True enough, but I’m not sure that anyone can really be neutral on either of these questions, nor am I sure that the basis for our beliefs on either one of these questions can ever be other than ultimately irrational, even taking observation into account, for the reasons that I already mentioned above regarding the defects of logic.

Well, it’s like I said before. Either you are a non-conscious algorithm, a “set of rules”, in which case TLOP is a larger, more complex, more elaborate and powerful algorithm (set of rules) which is non-conscious just as you are.

Or you are a “consciousness” in which case TLOP is a larger, more complex, more elaborate and powerful consciousness.

You seem to be trying to argue that inconsistency on this point is more “logical”?

The Curt: I don’t see why I need to since I have never asserted that there is such a thing as free will.

… and …

The Curt: That’s because you define God in such a way as to make his existence tautologous, as I have said before.

Assuming you aren’t asserting a belief in “free will”, for you to claim that TLOP is less conscious than YOU are is analogous (i.e. just as “consistent”) as for you to claim that YOU are no more conscious than your CAR is.

This is another inconsistency that you have to live with, and I don’t.

But if it makes you “happy” …

Posted by: The Serpent at April 16, 2004 04:56 PM

"But when it comes to Physics and Mathematics what is the alternative? Where else you gonna look? What else is there other than Math/Logic? You two keep seeming to imply mysticism without actually coming out and saying it."

Well, if you define "mysticism" as everything apart from physics and math, then I suppose it is mysticism. Interestingly, though, probably the only people that would share your pejorative view of evrerything apart from physics and math are your nemeses Hawking, Dawkins, et al.

"What’s the difference between offering a “mathematical explanation” and “reducing it to mathematics”?"

I think my brother already covered this point--mathematical descriptions are incomplete and approximate. So reducing physical phenomena to mathematical terminology is just that--a reduction.

"I wonder if this is latent Materialism coming through? You can’t let go of the notion that “matter” has unobservable properties, even though you can’t actually observe them?"

I'm not talking about unobservable properties, I'm talking about the properties that we do observe that are lost in mathematical descriptions of them.

"Look, to a Logical Deist shedding one’s Faith (unfounded assumptions) is a ritualistic act in the same way that shedding one’s desires (Individuality) is a ritualistic act for a Buddhist."

And do you suppose that any Buddhists actually succeed in shedding all of their desires?

"You may have to start off with axioms that are unproven initially. However, so long as you can prove that those axioms are valid once your system is up and running (i.e. the axioms do not end up conflicting with themselves or contradicting themselves) then your initial axioms are valid."

You're saying that a the conclusion of a syllogism can prove the fundamental premises of the syllogism? Only using circular reasoning, my friend.

"You can’t claim that only that which can be observed is scientific and empirical and then go on to claim that “Matter” exist independent of observation … yet Materialism is clearly scientific and empirical. You’re violating your own axioms!"

You'll get no arguments from me on that point. But I don't see how that has any relevance to proving that God exists, particular since I'm not a materialist nor an atheist.

"You can’t assert that chemicals (atoms) in a test tube obey the laws of physics, but the chemical (atoms) in your brain do not. That is a contradiction. You’re violating your own axioms!"

It seems to me that you're the only one claiming that.

"You can’t argue that it is not(Logical) to believe in “God” without defining “God”, while at the same time arguing that it is Logical to believe in “free will” without defining “free will”. You’re violating your own axioms!"

It's not illogical to believe that the laws of physics exist, but it's also not illogical not to believe that the laws of physics are equivalent to God. In fact, as much as you continue to criticize materialists for attributing the origins of consciousness to inanimate matter, by equating the laws of physics with God and yet simultaneously believing that consciousness exists, it seems that you are doing the same thing.

"If all of the thoughts and judgments of your physical brain are ultimately reducible to The Laws of Physics, and TLOP is Objective (the opposite of Subjective) then in what way are your judgments truly “Subjective”?"

And if your thoughts and judgments are objective, in what way is your consciousness truly individual?

"You MPB algorithm is flawless! It’s perfect. It’s the database (your memories) and the Graviton your algorithm generates around itself that can become infested and corrupted by bad information (memes)."

And of course memories are always flawless and perfectly accurate.

"Assuming you aren’t asserting a belief in “free will”, for you to claim that TLOP is less conscious than YOU are is analogous (i.e. just as “consistent”) as for you to claim that YOU are no more conscious than your CAR is."

Of course, that is predicated on the assumption that the laws of physics created consciousness, whereas in fact I think I have provided reasonable evidence to doubt that consciousness has not always existed. And when one starts to take about concepts of time that are either non-linear or infinite, I am not sure that causality even really means anythin significant.

Posted by: Curt at April 16, 2004 07:22 PM


"This reality is a test. We are gauging you. We are determining whether or not you are a “compatible entity”. If you are, your state will transition to a higher shell of reality (like an electron changing orbital shells in an atom). But if you are not a compatible entity then we will release you back to whence you came (“Hell” according to the Theist)."


Serpent, this part seems familiar. Billy Graham says the same thing in his daily column. You have your chance now to get it right and then the judgment. I thought in Deism God just sets things spinning and sits back and watches. According to you he also sits in judgment. But what are the requirements? Do you have to obey the Ten Commandments, accept Christ as you savior, or worship cows. Right now I enjoy an occasional 20 oz. sirloin steak, but don’t patronize whore houses. But if the Hindu model is correct I am in trouble. *********

"Homo sapiens might be able to make a “collar” (equivalent to a “physical body”), but the problem for Materialists is that they don’t have the slightest idea of the True difference between something which is “alive” and something which is not."

You are getting too complicated. Let’s simplify. What is “alive” and what is just an object reacting to the laws of physics like a rock falling?
Last year I observed a garden spider as she built her web out side my front door. For three months she exhibited incredibly complicated behavior, taking the web down at night, rebuilding it every morning, repairing it after storms, or when hit by insects, cutting down and carrying pray to the center of the web, etc. When an ugly brown spider moved in next to her she moved her web up higher. Then something killed her. I know that you can cut the head off a spider or insect and it will still remain alive with primitive vegetative functions and reflexes, sort of like HAL in 2001. Her brain, the sizes of a pin head was amazing, but acted in a rather limited and stereotyped manner, about like a laptop computer. Was she “alive?” What about protozoa, bacteria, a virus, a prion, a snow flake, a plant, a squirrel, a human? Define alive. *********

Also Curt, Shonk and Serpent, thanks for the eye opening discussion. This will warrant much thought and further reading.

Posted by: Dave at April 16, 2004 09:12 PM

Pure reason of the Socratic variety is always constrained by the fact that the thinker is unaware of the unconscious assumptions being made. The thought process is always constructed from the closed contents of the brain that is thinking. Thus it easily becomes divorced from reality. The only way to make progress is to introduce pragmatism, experimentation, falsifyability, or what ever you want to call it as well as new concepts based on new observations.
Here are a few weaknesses that might have creped into the previous week’s discussions. Can you think and talk your way through this subject? You expound your reasons using words and language. Does reasoning itself even consist of silently generating words and constructing reasons with them? No.
A book I read “Genome” states “There are two genetic conditions that affect linguistic ability. One is William’s Syndrome—in which the patients have a vivid, rich and loquacious addiction to using language—but they are severely mentally retarded”
“The other condition (Specific Language Impairment )” the affected persons have normal intelligence but sound stupid if asked to construct a sentence. The discussants presumably have both systems intact but they are not one and the same. Your brain/mind is not a unity but is a complex of neural system specific to you and shared to one extent or another by all other humans. Animals share some of your facilities but have others that you lack. You have made the leap from ape to human. Do you think that there is nowhere else to go? The only avenue open to us now is the indirect one, observation and experimentation or to wait until new mutations in our nervous system give us new abilities. The pure thought method has reached a dead end but not a satisfying one.

Free will? There has always been a big debate. A later chapter in “Genome” tackles this one. By postulating a two way interaction between genes and behavior you can set up a circular feedback loop that leads to chaotic behavior. Non-free will behavior would be if someone orders you to get up out of a chair. If you are just restless, due to just being born that way you are destined to get out of the chair but you determine if an when. It is not that God wound the clock at the beginning of time and determined that you would get out of the chair. The old assumptions derived from pure thought no longer apply.
Religious experiences? Many people seldom if ever have them, even PhDs in divinity. Would you study ornithology and yet never touch or see a bird? Yet people ruminate endlessly, compare debate and study religious experiences. Just what are they? Neuro-science seems to tell us that they arise from the temporal lobe of the brain. A certain percentage of people have temporal lobe epilepsy. For the most part these people have a harmful condition that makes it hard for them to remember things and sometimes feel and act crazy, or sometimes just blank out. A few of them have incredible religious reveries. Similar incidents occur in “near death” experiences sometimes. Stress, meditation and drugs can induce similar feelings. I don’t have any personal experiences to relate in these areas and don’t intend to seek any but if you want to read several interesting accounts of such visit http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=31722 and http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/nitrous/nitrous_article1.shtml
At the opposite end of the spectrum you might want to visit this site by hard ass but very smart Christian, Dr. Ed Friedlander
http://www.pathguy.com/theism.htm

Posted by: Dave at April 18, 2004 05:32 PM

Curt: Well, if you define “mysticism” as everything apart from physics and math, then I suppose it is mysticism. Interestingly, though, probably the only people that would share your pejorative view of evrerything apart from physics and math are your nemeses Hawking, Dawkins, et al.

Physics and Math are derived (generated by) Logic.

Logic and Mysticism are mutually exclusive binary opposites.

Hawking and Dawkins are mystics. They reject logic initially, but then try to adopt it later. You can’t do that in Logic though. Logic is an all-or-nothing proposition.

(BTW – I say Dawkins and Hawkings are “mystics” because BOTH believe that “matter” exist independent of observation.)

Curt: I think my brother already covered this point—mathematical descriptions are incomplete and approximate. So reducing physical phenomena to mathematical terminology is just that—a reduction.

There is nothing incomplete about 2 + 2 = 4.

So I’m not sure what you are trying to say?

Curt: I’m not talking about unobservable properties, I’m talking about the properties that we do observe that are lost in mathematical descriptions of them.

Give me an example of what your talking about?

Because I’d say that a mathematical description that failed to “describe” wasn’t really a “mathematical description”.

Curt: And do you suppose that any Buddhists actually succeed in shedding all of their desires?

Ultimately? … Unfortunately, I know for a fact that many do.

Curt: You’re saying that a the conclusion of a syllogism can prove the fundamental premises of the syllogism? Only using circular reasoning, my friend.

No, no, no, no … I’m saying that conclusions which violate the initial axioms of the system demonstrate that the initial axioms were logically flawed (i.e. were not initially logical).

You can’t assert that only that which can be observed is empirical, and only that which is empirical is scientific as your first two axioms. And then go on to claim:

“Materialism” is the belief that “matter” exists independent of observation.

Materialism is a “scientific” belief.

And you’ve got an even bigger problem along these same lines in regard to “free will”.

Curt: You’ll get no arguments from me on that point. But I don’t see how that has any relevance to proving that God exists, particular since I’m not a materialist nor an atheist.

Well I would say that the empirical evidence you actually want to have that discussion would begin with you explaining why you believe you possess “free will”.

Of course if you don’t believe in “free will” then I would think the existence of “God” would be rather obvious to you? Remember when I was talking about Logic and contradictions above?

Curt: [Atoms in a test tube don’t have “free will” …] It seems to me that you’re the only one claiming that.

So you are conceding you have no more “free will” than the Moon does?

Curt: It’s not illogical to believe that the laws of physics exist, but it’s also not illogical not to believe that the laws of physics are equivalent to God.

Believing in TLOP and believing in God is the same thing.

If you wanna assert that there is a difference you’ll have to articulate precisely why that belief is more logical than not believing it.

Curt: In fact, as much as you continue to criticize materialists for attributing the origins of consciousness to inanimate matter, by equating the laws of physics with God and yet simultaneously believing that consciousness exists, it seems that you are doing the same thing.

As we previously agreed, we have direct observational evidence of consciousness. Unfortunately you can’t make the same claim regarding “matter”.

But like I keep saying even if you want to pretend that you are non-conscious, and nothing more than a pattern of energy, TLOP is a larger, more complex, non-conscious pattern of energy which seems to control You utterly.

Curt: And if your thoughts and judgments are objective, in what way is your consciousness truly individual?

By virtue of the fact that it contains it’s own distinct and unique database of experiences (i.e. observations, data, information).

Curt: And of course memories are always flawless and perfectly accurate.

Here’s what I said last time …

You MPB algorithm is flawless! It’s perfect. It’s the database (your memories) and the Graviton your algorithm generates around itself that can become infested and corrupted by bad information (memes).

Curt: Of course, that is predicated on the assumption that the laws of physics created consciousness, whereas in fact I think I have provided reasonable evidence to doubt that consciousness has not always existed.

If that was true then you could prove Solipsism as false.

You can’t.

Curt: And when one starts to take about concepts of time that are either non-linear or infinite, I am not sure that causality even really means anything significant.

Well, but that’s exactly what I have been saying all along – Atheism is a mystical belief system that rejects Causality. It rejects the notion that individuals are responsible for their actions.

You think your contradictions don’t cost you anything?

You are kidding yourself. You are making yourself a “victim”.

You are making yourself into “food”.

Posted by: The Serpent at April 19, 2004 11:25 AM

There is nothing incomplete about 2 + 2 = 4.

So I’m not sure what you are trying to say?

But, in the context of physics, 2+2=4 is almost always a reduction from a more complicated phenomenon.

No, no, no, no … I’m saying that conclusions which violate the initial axioms of the system demonstrate that the initial axioms were logically flawed (i.e. were not initially logical).

The confusion here is arising from your use of the term "valid" back in the comment Curt was responding to:

You may have to start off with axioms that are unproven initially. However, so long as you can prove that those axioms are valid once your system is up and running (i.e. the axioms do not end up conflicting with themselves or contradicting themselves) then your initial axioms are valid.

What you mean is "consistent", not "valid".

Posted by: shonk at April 19, 2004 11:40 AM

Dave: I thought in Deism God just sets things spinning and sits back and watches. According to you he also sits in judgment. But what are the requirements? Do you have to obey the Ten Commandments, accept Christ as you savior, or worship cows. Right now I enjoy an occasional 20 oz. sirloin steak, but don’t patronize whore houses. But if the Hindu model is correct I am in trouble.

Hinduism is a good religion.

Some Atheists claim that Deism means God is uninvolved with this universe (reality), but I’ve never actually met another Deist who professed to believe that.

I believe that God is generating this reality – it’s an active process, so it would be rather contradictory for me to claim that God was uninvolved with the process. If God were uninvolved then this reality wouldn’t exist in the first place.

You're judged based on compatibility. A Good individual is one who does not deliberately (knowingly) cause ultimate harm to other individuals (its impossible for an individual to deliberately harm themselves).

Dave: You are getting too complicated. Let’s simplify. What is “alive” and what is just an object reacting to the laws of physics like a rock falling?

In my cosmology there is only one type of particle (ultimately) – Gravitons. All Gravitons are “conscious” (or “alive”, self-perceiving).

All inanimate “matter” is the result of energy exchanged (communicated) between Gravitons.

Dave: Last year I observed a garden spider as she built her web out side my front door. For three months she exhibited incredibly complicated behavior, taking the web down at night, rebuilding it every morning, repairing it after storms, or when hit by insects, cutting down and carrying pray to the center of the web, etc. When an ugly brown spider moved in next to her she moved her web up higher. Then something killed her. I know that you can cut the head off a spider or insect and it will still remain alive with primitive vegetative functions and reflexes, sort of like HAL in 2001. Her brain, the sizes of a pin head was amazing, but acted in a rather limited and stereotyped manner, about like a laptop computer. Was she “alive?” What about protozoa, bacteria, a virus, a prion, a snow flake, a plant, a squirrel, a human? Define alive.

“Dual Perception” is the hallmark of consciousness.

“Alive” can mean two things, either you are referring to existence in general, or existence here in this universe specifically. Existence here in this universe (being “alive”) is caused by being entangled (in direct communication) with the consciousness generating this reality (i.e. God).

Anything which self-perceives is “conscious”, it’s the manifestation of an individual Graviton in the higher reality. Gravitons are defined by 4 intrinsic parameters as well as their precise position in Space and Time.

A bacteria consciousness and a human consciousness are both Gravitons, they just possess vastly different mass (quantity of information), and velocities.

Posted by: The Serpent at April 19, 2004 11:53 AM

The Serpent: There is nothing incomplete about 2 + 2 = 4.

The Shonk: So I’m not sure what you are trying to say?

just that: [* *] + [* *] = [* * * *]

The Shonk: in the context of physics, 2+2=4 is almost always a reduction from a more complicated phenomenon.

Like I said, everything is simple (ultimately). You just have to reduce it down to its most fundamental aspects.

It’s like that old Einstein quote -- The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is all so comprehensible.

Or perhaps:

Albert Einstein: The Goddess may be subtle, but She is not malevolent.

The Shonk: The confusion here is arising from your use of the term “valid” back in the comment Curt was responding to:

What you mean is “consistent”, not “valid”.

I’m saying that for a system to be “valid’ (i.e. Logical, and not Mystical) it has to be “consistent”. Once you can demonstrate that the adherents of that system are violating their own axioms you have demonstrated the adherents to that system are mystics.


Dave: Can you think and talk your way through this subject?

If not, then what’s the point?

Dave: You expound your reasons using words and language. Does reasoning itself even consist of silently generating words and constructing reasons with them? No.

Logic is a system. A system requires terms (words, symbols, information, “matter”) in order to operate.

Dave: The pure thought method has reached a dead end but not a satisfying one.

At least that’s what the Atheists keep telling me. ;)

Dave: Free will? There has always been a big debate.

I guess that depends on who you talk to?

I’ve always been an A-Theist when it comes to the subject of “free will”. I see no evidence for the existence of “free will”. In fact, most individuals who claim to believe they possess “free will” have a very hard time articulating exactly what they mean by it.

It’s almost as if they haven’t really given the topic much (original) thought.

Dave: By postulating a two way interaction between genes and behavior you can set up a circular feedback loop that leads to chaotic behavior.

I think I comprehend the notion of feedback. Have you ever heard of Moritz Schlick?

By the way “chaotic behavior” is the opposite of “logical behavior”. Chaotic behavior implies the thing is “un-controlled”, or not comprehended. Atheists (and Anarchists) love “Chaos”. They think it’s “cool”.

Dave: Non-free will behavior would be if someone orders you to get up out of a chair. If you are just restless, due to just being born that way you are destined to get out of the chair but you determine if an when. It is not that God wound the clock at the beginning of time and determined that you would get out of the chair. The old assumptions derived from pure thought no longer apply.

Look, if I have some atoms in a beaker and a test tube in a lab somewhere and I mix them together, then I’d say that the reaction which occurs is the direct result of The Laws of Physics (TLOP), and not the result of any “free will” on the part of the atoms themselves.

By the same token the chemical reactions that occur between atoms in your physical brain are also the direct result of TLOP. I don’t see how those atoms have any more “free will” then the atoms in the beaker and test tube did?

They are just atoms doing what atoms do “naturally”. No input from you consciousness is required. In fact, you consciousness is just the “output”. It’s a byproduct.

Dave: Religious experiences?

The only “religious experiences” that I am interested in are the ones that can be empirically verified. Of course I could make that same point regarding any type of experience.

Posted by: The Serpent at April 19, 2004 12:36 PM

The Serpent: There is nothing incomplete about 2 + 2 = 4.

The Shonk: So I’m not sure what you are trying to say?

just that: [* *] + [* *] = [* * * *]

Sorry, the "So I'm not sure what you are trying to say" should have been italicized, as I was quoting you.

I’m saying that for a system to be “valid’ (i.e. Logical, and not Mystical) it has to be “consistent”. Once you can demonstrate that the adherents of that system are violating their own axioms you have demonstrated the adherents to that system are mystics.

Certainly consistency is a necessary condition for validity, but not a sufficient one. It's easy to come up with a set of consistent axioms which are counterfactual and hence, at least in my book, invalid.

Posted by: shonk at April 19, 2004 12:57 PM

The Shonk: Certainly consistency is a necessary condition for validity, but not a sufficient one. It’s easy to come up with a set of consistent axioms which are counterfactual and hence, at least in my book, invalid.

I agree completely. To summarize, you are saying that for a theory (a “system”) to be “valid” it has to be 1) self-consistent, and 2) it has to conform to observed reality.

But the Materialist/Atheist don’t even have a self-consistent theory much less one that agrees with observed reality.

In fact, I would argue that a lot of the reason their theory is inconsistent with observed reality is because their theory is inconsistent with itself (i.e. Atheism/materialism contradicts itself even if you ignore observed reality).

Posted by: The Serpent at April 19, 2004 01:51 PM

The Shonk: Certainly consistency is a necessary condition for validity, but not a sufficient one. It’s easy to come up with a set of consistent axioms which are counterfactual and hence, at least in my book, invalid.

I agree completely. To summarize, you are saying that for a theory (a “system”) to be “valid” it has to be 1) self-consistent, and 2) it has to conform to observed reality.

But the Materialist/Atheist don’t even have a self-consistent theory much less one that agrees with observed reality.

In fact, I would argue that a lot of the reason their theory is inconsistent with observed reality is because their theory is inconsistent with itself (i.e. Atheism/materialism contradicts itself even if you ignore observed reality).

Posted by: The Serpent at April 19, 2004 01:51 PM