Is man getting too big for the world?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The point is that there is no reason to suppose that any god is involved - once we depart from the physics and what might be extrapolated from it, we are guessing.

All the evidence we have is that consciousness can evolve in an environment that has some regularity, not the other way around. Calling physical laws "governance" is just playing word games.

So you are saying that as far as the origin of a universe. quantum events can be extrapolated to explain the universe....without having to say how.......in other words your hypothesis even though apparently backed up by physics...is just guessing.

But......according to you............ it is impossible to extrapolate consciousness in the any way without an appeal to what we observe.

In terms of Governance one might ask why there was a physical law governing a universe which didn't exist?

Finally of course a physicists nothing is of course a something...from which something else can pop out.

Saying there is no reason to evoke a God is merely asserted.
What is your warrant for it?

The following still remain the distilled reasonable alternatives.
Created, appeared spontaneously from a literal nothing, or the universe is an unconscious eternal thing.

Of these, if any could be dropped it is the latter since the universe apparently has a beginning.

Finally are you happy that the theory you put forward is true? and if so why?

[Stranger]

So you are saying that as far as the origin of a universe. quantum events can be extrapolated to explain the universe....without having to say how.......in other words your hypothesis even though apparently backed up by physics...is just guessing.

If you recall (and you don't seem to be paying attention at all, so why would you?), the hypothesis was put forward as an example of how the universe might not have a specific cause.

But......according to you............ it is impossible to extrapolate consciousness in the any way without an appeal to what we observe.

The point is that there is no theory of consciousness that can be extrapolated to one that exists independently of a physical universe. You don't have a starting point.

In terms of Governance one might ask why there was a physical law governing a universe which didn't exist?

In terms of reality, we simply don't know why it would be subject to laws. If we speculate about a god, we would be just as much in the dark about why there is such a being. It's a guess that has no basis and doesn't actually explain anything.

Saying there is no reason to evoke a God is merely asserted.
What is your warrant for it?

No, it's not an assertion. You have totally failed to provide a rational reason for any god - so have your fellow theists.

The following still remain the distilled reasonable alternatives.
Created, appeared spontaneously from a literal nothing, or the universe is an unconscious eternal thing.

This doesn't really make much sense. There is much that is unknown about the ultimate nature of reality and you seem to have totally failed to grasp much of what is known and can be intelligently speculated about.

You have yet to give even the hint of a scintilla of a reason to think that reality is based on a single, omnipotent, consciousness that somehow is just there.

Of these, if any could be dropped it is the latter since the universe apparently has a beginning.

The region of space-time that we inhabit might be bounded in the past time-like direction. That isn't the quite the same thing.

Finally are you happy that the theory you put forward is true? and if so why?

FFS PAY ATTENTION! As I have said several times, no. It's an example of a hypothesis that shows how the universe might not need a specific cause. It isn't even the only one I presented. I gave another from relativity (and again above).

This was all about the problems with the KCA, if you recall, and the reasons it isn't sound.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you recall (and you don't seem to be paying attention at all, so why would you?), the hypothesis was put forward as an example of how the universe might not have a specific cause.

The point is that there is no theory of consciousness that can be extrapolated to one that exists independently of a physical universe.

But isn't that just physicalism and a narrow physicalism at that (see Tegmark)

You still haven't shown warrant for why God can be dismissed as a cause since I have given reason to which you have merely responded by saying we don't know but we know it isn't God.

Even if we remove God from the equation arbitrarily, That leaves either spontaneous appearance of a universe from a literal nothing or an eternal universe with the problem of all we have to observe having come into existence.
Or an unconscious non physical entity represented as inexorable rule for a universe.

I'm sorry You still haven't made your choice to rule out an intelligent creator anything but arbitrary and since we know that virtual universes can be created even by us that makes that arbitrary exclusion perverse.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The region of space-time that we inhabit might be bounded in the past time-like direction. That isn't the quite the same thing.

eh?

[Stranger]

But isn't that just physicalism and a narrow physicalism at that (see Tegmark)

No, it's an observation. The only examples of consciousness we have are associated with complex organic structures. What has Tegmark got to do with it?

You still haven't shown warrant for why God can be dismissed as a cause since I have given reason to which you have merely responded by saying we don't know but we know it isn't God.

PAY ATTENTION: I DID NOT SAY I WAS DISMISSING GOD.

I'm saying that god is no more than a guess (not even a hypothesis based on theories we have evidence for). It has no more value as an idea than any other baseless guess.

Even if we remove God from the equation arbitrarily, That leaves either spontaneous appearance of a universe from a literal nothing or an eternal universe with the problem of all we have to observe having come into existence.
Or an unconscious non physical entity represented as inexorable rule for a universe.

This is the religionist propoganda that suggests that if we posit a 'god' then all the hard problems of existence just disappear.

It's bullshit.

The existence of a god is exactly as puzzling as the existence of a universe. In terms of the fundamental puzzle of why things exist and are the way they are, a god explains nothing, it just moves the problem.

eh?

See:-

Relativity also makes it questionable whether the universe had a "beginning to its existence". Time, or rather space-time, is part of the universe. If we take relativity seriously, the universe is a four-dimensional object that contains time.

Time isn't the immutable, Newtonian background to everything, it is part of the space-time manifold. The time dimension may come to an abrupt end at a singularity (or something similar) in the past direction but that would just be the shape of space-time.

If time did start at the big bang, then a preceding cause would be impossible (there being no such time as "before" for it to happen at). If time didn't start at the big bang, then that wouldn't have been the start of the universe.

That's why this is another example of an uncaused universe. This one based on general relativity, rather than quantum mechanics. The truth of the matter is not known but the existence of these possibilities demonstrate that the KCA is not a sound argument.

[Stranger]

Isn't the 'pragmatic intersubjective experience paradigm' exactly the ad pop dressed in its Sunday best.

No, because there is a qualitative difference between our experience of the unavoidable 'objective' world and all the other stuff that goes on in our minds. We can all tell the difference and that world clearly contains things that are true for everyone.

At a basic level, if you live in a village by a lake, nobody argues about where the lake is (it's the big watery thing over there!). If someone decides to believe it's actually dry land and tries to walk across it, they get very wet. It's a 'reality' that is unavoidable.

The systematic study of this 'reality' has given us science and technology. Technology that works for everyone. You don't have to understand or even 'believe in' relativity and quantum mechanics to use a GPS device but it only works because those two theories are very good descriptions of this unavoidable 'objective reality'.

These are not just ideas that most people believe. In fact, in the latter case, most people don't even understand them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is the religionist propoganda that suggests that if we posit a 'god' then all the hard problems of existence just disappear.

I'm not getting you....are you saying that it is reasonable to propose God as the cause of the universe or not. I think you must be since you are not going along with my schema in which God has been removed as a possibility.


Secondly, It sounds as if you don't want the hard problems of existence to go away...I take it we are still on the question of why there is anything anyway..........will a solution to this put you out of a job?

As a theist I would say that there is still scope for the greatest of wonder for that which we don't know about the universe. However it has to be said that for a universe that is eternal or a universe that pops out of a literal nothing God is not necessarily ruled out.......since there remains the question of why something and not nothing. 

Finally I'd like to reiterate Nearly sane's point that religion is more often than not not held purely on the basis of a cosmological formulation........and that it is reasonable to propose a God and with new theories of multiverse which allow for simulated universes it is extra perverse to dispute their reasonableness.

In view of what you say about time Smolin would dispute with you about the nature of time and philosophically an eternal God or cause would not necessarily be bound time itself....again you are choosing to judge these matters strictly by what is observed but relaxing that strictness when discussing extrapolated quantum vacuums etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At a basic level, if you live in a village by a lake, nobody argues about where the lake is (it's the big watery thing over there!). If someone decides to believe it's actually dry land and tries to walk across it, they get very wet. It's a 'reality' that is unavoidable.

I'm tempted to advise you then to talk about this basic stuff and beyond that shut up and let the knowledgeable and interested parties discuss the interesting stuff.

[Stranger]

I'm not getting you....are you saying that it is reasonable to propose God as the cause of the universe or not. I think you must be since you are not going along with my schema in which God has been removed as a possibility.

It would help if you could be arsed to actually read my posts.

Yes, it is possible that the universe was created by some sort of 'god', just as it is possible that none of this is real and I am a Boltzmann brain that spontaneously arose out of infinite random chaos a nanosecond ago, complete with memories ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain ). Or it may, as I've pointed out before, that the universe was created by a spotty teenager in another universe. There are a vast number of possibilities (guesses we could make that aren't impossible). The point about the god one, is why would we take it seriously?

As a theist I would say that there is still scope for the greatest of wonder for that which we don't know about the universe. However it has to be said that for a universe that is eternal or a universe that pops out of a literal nothing God is not necessarily ruled out.......since there remains the question of why something and not nothing.

As I said, it can't be ruled out but it doesn't address the problem of why something and not nothing or something entirely different. It's just that the 'something' that exists for no apparent reason would then be god, rather than the universe.

....and that it is reasonable to propose a God and with new theories of multiverse which allow for simulated universes it is extra perverse to dispute their reasonableness.

No idea what this has to do with it. Why is it reasonable to propose a god? How is it different to any other baseless guess?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It would help if you could be arsed to actually read my posts.

Yes, it is possible that the universe was created by some sort of 'god', just as it is possible that none of this is real and I am a Boltzmann brain that spontaneously arose out of infinite random chaos a nanosecond ago, complete with memories ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain ). Or it may, as I've pointed out before, that the universe was created by a spotty teenager in another universe. There are a vast number of possibilities (guesses we could make that aren't impossible). The point about the god one, is why would we take it seriously?

As I said, it can't be ruled out but it doesn't address the problem of why something and not nothing or something entirely different. It's just that the 'something' that exists for no apparent reason would then be god, rather than the universe.

No idea what this has to do with it. Why is it reasonable to propose a god? How is it different to any other baseless guess?

We are nearly in agreement but everything you say about possibilities is against your summary statement that it is a baseless guess.

Also We have to acknowledge that God is not a scientific answer but then your judging the cause by the effect.....and only the scientific effect of a reason that is not witnessed or indeed witnessable by science.

In short your argument that it is a baseless suggestion brings your approach well within being nothing but a bit of Scientism.

[Nearly Sane]

No, because there is a qualitative difference between our experience of the unavoidable 'objective' world and all the other stuff that goes on in our minds. We can all tell the difference and that world clearly contains things that are true for everyone.

At a basic level, if you live in a village by a lake, nobody argues about where the lake is (it's the big watery thing over there!). If someone decides to believe it's actually dry land and tries to walk across it, they get very wet. It's a 'reality' that is unavoidable.

The systematic study of this 'reality' has given us science and technology. Technology that works for everyone. You don't have to understand or even 'believe in' relativity and quantum mechanics to use a GPS device but it only works because those two theories are very good descriptions of this unavoidable 'objective reality'.

These are not just ideas that most people believe. In fact, in the latter case, most people don't even understand them.

Again as with blue hillside, you are conflating the methodology with the experience. That science works us correct and not something I am denying. Indeed the idea that that usmy position is the same straw that bluehillside was using. You make the practical assumption that we deal with a reality and you use science to confirm the details.


However, the issue I was pointing out is that Leonard was using the idea of facts being established simply by people agreeing. There us no method there in that and it is the ad pop fallacy. When blue hillside uses experience without the methodology then it is simply the pop again. Further the methodology is specifically excluded in Leonard's position as he is applying to such 'facts' as gods.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Again as with blue hillside, you are conflating the methodology with the experience. That science works us correct and not something I am denying. Indeed the idea that that usmy position is the same straw that bluehillside was using. You make the practical assumption that we deal with a reality and you use science to confirm the details.

Again you misrepresent me and I think Some too. All I've said (consistently in fact) is that inasmuch as we treat the lived experience as our model for the way the world appears to be, then probabilistic truths arrived at with reason and logic (germs causing disease for example) are to be preferred over probabilistic non-truths ("God" for example) because the former provide functional solutions whereas the latter are just guesses. None of that though makes an appeal to an objective reality, any more than a goldfish in a bowl has a reality outside his environment.   

However, the issue I was pointing out is that Leonard was using the idea of facts being established simply by people agreeing. There us no method there in that and it is the ad pop fallacy. When blue hillside uses experience without the methodology then it is simply the pop again. Further the methodology is specifically excluded in Leonard's position as he is applying to such 'facts' as gods.

And again, no. Here’s what Len actually said that caused you to accuse him of an ad pop (Reply 124):

“I don't think anybody but a fool lies about such things. As I said, facts are obvious truths to everybody ... beliefs are "truths" for only some.”

I’d change the “to” to “for”, but the sense he intended I think is that a fact – like gravity – remains a fact regardless of whether or not someone believes it to be the case, whereas a belief in this context is an opinion that’s not veridical with inter-subjective experience.

And that’s not an ad pop at all.   

[Nearly Sane]

It is in the context of the conversation, in that Leonard was questioning the honesty of people stating what they believed to be true because they were questioning 'facts'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 All I've said (consistently in fact) is that inasmuch as we treat the lived experience as our model for the way the world appears to be

I'm trying to square how life as lived by most squares with what is called ''the life scientific''.... a kind of alternative geeky and privileged existence enjoyed by well, er, scientists.

Isn't their position a kind of priestly class and the rest of us have a kind of ''folk science''.

This would point at the rest of us being told what to think and loving it because ''we don't have to''.

[Stranger]

We are nearly in agreement but everything you say about possibilities is against your summary statement that it is a baseless guess.

It's a baseless guess until you (or any other theist) can up with some basis for making it, other that "it can't be ruled out". The universe being manufactured by factory staffed by invisible pixies can't be ruled out...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

It's a baseless guess until you (or any other theist) can up with some basis for making it, other that "it can't be ruled out". The universe being manufactured by factory staffed by invisible pixies can't be ruled out...

And nor can an orbiting teapot just beyond the range of our telescopes. Seems chummy has joined Hope's negative proof fallacy club.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a baseless guess until you (or any other theist) can up with some basis for making it, other that "it can't be ruled out". The universe being manufactured by factory staffed by invisible pixies can't be ruled out...

Again you suggest it as a possibility so the question for you is, what is the BASIS of that possibility?...................
The basis is that multiverse theory provides for simulated universe.
You are confusing answers with suggestions I feel.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It is in the context of the conversation, in that Leonard was questioning the honesty of people stating what they believed to be true because they were questioning 'facts'.

I don't read Len's posts as implying that facts are facts because lots of people think them to be facts, and he said expressly that only fools (rather than the mendacious) tells lies about facts so I still don't see an ad pop. Either way though this is getting a bit sterile for me at least now so I'll leave Len to address it or not as he wishes from now on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some,

And nor can an orbiting teapot just beyond the range of our telescopes. Seems chummy has joined Hope's negative proof fallacy club.

You've lost your credibility through your cavalier attitude to category.
First it was Leprechauns and God. Now it is teacups and the reason why there is anything and not nothing.

Now if you take the Russellian  view of these questions i.e. that we must ignore them that's perfectly fine and so you are bound to shut up and talk about mundane matters leaving the interesting stuff to knowledgeable and /or interested posters.

When you committed to argumentum ad ridiculum you really committed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a baseless guess until you (or any other theist) can up with some basis for making it, other that "it can't be ruled out". The universe being manufactured by factory staffed by invisible pixies can't be ruled out...

Yes we know that in multiverse theories a simulated universe is possible.
However if they are invisible how do we know they are pixies?

And how can we tell you made a valid argument rather than an argumentum ad ridiculum?.

[Stranger]

Yes we know that in multiverse theories a simulated universe is possible.

You keep wittering on about multiverses and simulated universes as if they have some relevance. Is there a point struggling to get out...?

However if they are invisible how do we know they are pixies?

By using a baseless guess that cannot be ruled out.

And how can we tell you made a valid argument rather than an argumentum ad ridiculum?.

It's actually a reductio ad absurdum argument against the your argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You keep wittering on about multiverses and simulated universes as if they have some relevance. Is there a point struggling to get out...?

It should be as plain as the nose on your face since we are talking about whether it is reasonable to propose a creator and the provision of simulated universe i.e. created universe with a creator to create them is OBVIOUSLY relevant.

[bluehillside Retd.]

You've lost your credibility through your cavalier attitude to category.
First it was Leprechauns and God. Now it is teacups and the reason why there is anything and not nothing.

Now if you take the Russellian  view of these questions i.e. that we must ignore them that's perfectly fine and so you are bound to shut up and talk about mundane matters leaving the interesting stuff to knowledgeable and /or interested posters.

When you committed to argumentum ad ridiculum you really committed.

If anyone here really wants to feed the house troll please feel free, but for me his unremittingly dishonest idiocy (see above) is making me a bit queasy so I'll leave others to it if that's ok.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If anyone here really wants to feed the house troll please feel free, but for me his unremittingly dishonest idiocy (see above) is making me a bit queasy so I'll leave others to it if that's ok.

Don't let the door get your tush on the way out.

[Stranger]

It should be as plain as the nose on your face since we are talking about whether it is reasonable to propose a creator and the provision of simulated universe i.e. created universe with a creator to create them is OBVIOUSLY relevant.

We were talking about a god, Vlad, not some team of scientists that may be running simulations.