Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[Outrider]

It would be unreasonable not to propose one. Anything 'extra universal' which is unconscious has the same burden of proof since it proceeds from an extension of naturalism to outside (extra) to the universe.

Anything extra-universal and conscious requires more of a burden of proof - you have to have not just the system in which it came to be, but also evidence of it.  Occam's Razor, don't go adding unnecessary elements.

O.

[Udayana]

It would be unreasonable not to propose one. Anything 'extra universal' which is unconscious has the same burden of proof since it proceeds from an extension of naturalism to outside (extra) to the universe.

Once you have reached the point of trying to discuss anything 'extra' or 'outside' the universe, there is no reasonable way to proceed - we can't agree on what words mean there or even if rules of logic apply. 

[Owlswing]

You can propose whatever you like. As I am not a proponent of 'philosophical naturalism' I am ever willing to listen to your arguments and evidence that there is such a consciousness. So far, you have given me nothing to go on. The words 'busted flush' spring to mind.

In this particular context "busted flush"as in "down the toilet"?

[ProfessorDavey]

Anything extra-universal and conscious requires more of a burden of proof - you have to have not just the system in which it came to be, but also evidence of it.  Occam's Razor, don't go adding unnecessary elements.

O.

True - the notion that something has to be 'conscious' is so anthropomorphic and human-centric. It demonstrates an almost wilful lack of perspective. Consciousness is an important characteristic for humans, I get that, but in what way is consiousness important to a small asteroid orbiting a planet in a distant solar system that doesn't contain life - it isn't. But the fundamental laws of physics are just as important to that asteroid as they are to humans.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anything extra-universal and conscious requires more of a burden of proof - you have to have not just the system in which it came to be, but also evidence of it.  Occam's Razor, don't go adding unnecessary elements.

O.

A conscious extra universal ruler is the same number of extra universal rulers as an unconscious one

[ProfessorDavey]

A conscious extra universal ruler is the same number of extra universal rulers as an unconscious one

Define what you mean by 'ruler' please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Define what you mean by 'ruler' please.

An extra universal set of abstract laws cannot effect anything since they have no ability to realise those laws in any shape. We therefore need something that can translate that rule into a reality.

An unconscious ruler would be bound to other extra universal entities a consciousness would be free to produce something ordered. An unconscious ruler is preferABle to you guys as it effectively is just an extension of nature and not extra universal at all.

[ProfessorDavey]

An extra universal set of abstract laws cannot effect anything since they have no ability to realise those laws in any shape. We therefore need something that can translate that rule into a reality.

An unconscious ruler would be bound to other extra universal entities a consciousness would be free to produce something ordered. An unconscious ruler is preferABle to you guys as it effectively is just an extension of nature and not extra universal at all.

I asked you to define what you mean by a 'ruler'.

You don't appear to have done so in this post. I'd be grateful if you would do so please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I asked you to define what you mean by a 'ruler'.

You don't appear to have done so in this post. I'd be grateful if you would do so please.

Something which generates rules and is able to effect or actualise them.

A ruleset is an abstract thing so how does it actualise anything?

[ProfessorDavey]

Something which generates rules and is able to effect or actualise them.

In which case I don't understand what you mean by an unconscious ruler - how could that thing unknowingly and unconsciously generate rules.

I don't think there is an suggestion that something generates the fundamental laws of physics - there is no suggestion that they are generated rather than they simply exist and actualise them.

So I cannot see what you mean by an unconscious ruler (using your definition) - but the notion of a conscious ruler makes sense in principle, but there is of course no evidence whatsoever that the laws of physics are generated, let alone by a conscious ruler.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which case I don't understand what you mean by an unconscious ruler - how could that thing unknowingly and unconsciously generate rules.

Well...…..quite.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well...…..quite.

Which means you comment:

'A conscious extra universal ruler is the same number of extra universal rulers as an unconscious one'

Is non-sense as there is no meaningful notion of an unconscious ruler. So on Occam's the notion of requiring a ruler to generate the fundamental laws of physics adds unnecessary complexity (and is completely unevidenced) and you add a further requirement of consciousness, which further falls foul of Occam and risks the naive notion that human's will create a solution which is human-like (consciousness being a peculiarly human-centric notion) rather than genuinely universal throughout time and space.

Plus, of course, there is no evidence whatsoever for a conscious ruler of the universe, and no requirement for one (except through non-sense god of the gaps arguments, which is simply an argument of ignorance).

[Stranger]

An extra universal set of abstract laws cannot effect anything since they have no ability to realise those laws in any shape. We therefore need something that can translate that rule into a reality.

An unconscious ruler would be bound to other extra universal entities a consciousness would be free to produce something ordered. An unconscious ruler is preferABle to you guys as it effectively is just an extension of nature and not extra universal at all.

This is just you cherry-picking our experiences of the world and applying those bits you like to your little fantasy about something outside of the universe until you get the answer you desperately want. Everything we know about consciousness says that it can only exist in an ordered environment. Also consciousness by itself cannot do anything at all, it needs a functioning body.

There is no reason at all to think that consciousness comes before order, quite the reverse. We have no idea at all about what might be able to "actualize" the laws of physics or even any reason to think that something is needed to do so. This is simply an unknown that you want to populate with your favorite dragons and spirits god.

It's baseless daydreaming.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which means you comment:

'A conscious extra universal ruler is the same number of extra universal rulers as an unconscious one'

Is non-sense as there is no meaningful notion of an unconscious ruler. So on Occam's the notion of requiring a ruler to generate the fundamental laws of physics adds unnecessary complexity (and is completely unevidenced) and you add a further requirement of consciousness, which further falls foul of Occam and risks the naive notion that human's will create a solution which is human-like (consciousness being a peculiarly human-centric notion) rather than genuinely universal throughout time and space.

Plus, of course, there is no evidence whatsoever for a conscious ruler of the universe, and no requirement for one (except through non-sense god of the gaps arguments, which is simply an argument of ignorance).

Occams razor depends on necessary entities. I think you need to demonstrate that a ruler isn't necessary to effect abstract rules and enforce them. Then of course there are issues around the chances of a viable universe.

Finally when Dawkins coined the phrase 'The Blind Watchmaker' atheism was taken up with a collective wetting of pants with joy and excitement. When I come up with 'The unconscious ruler' I am vilified.

[jeremyp]

Occams razor depends on necessary entities.

No, you are confused. Occam's razor says "do not multiply entities unnecessarily". That's a different meaning of "unnecessarily" to 'the opposite of "contingent"'.

I think you need to demonstrate that a ruler isn't necessary to effect abstract rules and enforce them. Then of course there are issues around the chances of a viable universe.

Physical laws are a kind of rule but there is no ruler that effects them.

Finally when Dawkins coined the phrase 'The Blind Watchmaker' atheism was taken up with a collective wetting of pants with joy and excitement. When I come up with 'The unconscious ruler' I am vilified.

The term "blind watchmaker" was just a metaphor for the fact that evolution has no direction or purpose. But then. you know that already.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Physical laws are a kind of rule but there is no ruler that effects them.

Any evidence for that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you are confused. Occam's razor says "do not multiply entities unnecessarily". That's a different meaning of "unnecessarily" to 'the opposite of "contingent"'.

I wasn't thinking about contingency but entities which are necessary for an explanation.

When someone says therefore that a ruler is not necessary for an explanation how are they backing it up or are they misunderstanding and just going for the least number of entities rather than the least number of necessary entities?

[jeremyp]

When someone says therefore that a ruler is not necessary for an explanation how are they backing it up or are they misunderstanding and just going for the least number of entities rather than the least number of necessary entities?

If you have an explanation and there is no ruler mentioned in it, then a ruler is not necessary for that explanation.

[Stranger]

When someone says therefore that a ruler is not necessary for an explanation how are they backing it up or are they misunderstanding and just going for the least number of entities rather than the least number of necessary entities?

You're getting the burden of proof wrong again. What is the reasoning or evidence that says that a ruler is necessary and that it can somehow exist in the absence of any rules governing it? If something as organised as a ruler can just exist for no reason and without meta-rules, why can't the universe do so by itself? If you can't answer that, it's just special pleading. You get as far as the answer you want and then arbitrarily stop asking questions.

[ProfessorDavey]

Occams razor depends on necessary entities. I think you need to demonstrate that a ruler isn't necessary to effect abstract rules and enforce them.

Quite the reverse - under Occam if you wish to add additional complexity (a ruler) then the onus is on you to prove the necessity for a ruler. Unless or until you do under Occam the less complex situation is assumed, in other words no ruler.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you have an explanation and there is no ruler mentioned in it, then a ruler is not necessary for that explanation.

Yes, what is your explanation for abstract rules effecting and affecting real situations?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quite the reverse - under Occam if you wish to add additional complexity (a ruler) then the onus is on you to prove the necessity for a ruler. Unless or until you do under Occam the less complex situation is assumed, in other words no ruler.

It is not about complexity it is about adding unnecessary entities. If an entity is conscious, does that then count as two entities? I'm not sure it does.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is not about complexity it is about adding unnecessary entities. If an entity is conscious, does that then count as two entities? I'm not sure it does.

Which is exactly what you are doing - adding an additional entity - a ruler. I see no reason why the laws of physics require a ruler so as far as I'm concerned it is an unnecessary additional entity. Under Occam it is for you to justify why this additional entity is necessary - in other words why the laws of physics require a ruler. Until and unless you do that Occam requires us to accept the reduced complexity, and fewer entity state where there is no ruler.

[jeremyp]

Yes, what is your explanation for abstract rules effecting and affecting real situations?

Why do you think a ruler is needed to explain physical law?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is exactly what you are doing - adding an additional entity - a ruler. I see no reason why the laws of physics require a ruler so as far as I'm concerned it is an unnecessary additional entity. Under Occam it is for you to justify why this additional entity is necessary - in other words why the laws of physics require a ruler. Until and unless you do that Occam requires us to accept the reduced complexity, and fewer entity state where there is no ruler.

You are asserting that I am adding an entity but that is not Occam. It's adding unnecessary entities.
You have to justify your positive assertion that a rule setting entity is unnecessary for rules.
I shall quote you in my justification for a rule maker.

In which case I don't understand what you mean by an unconscious ruler - how could that thing unknowingly and unconsciously generate rules.

So not only are you agreeing that rules are generated, and I would add enforced. You are agreeing that something that is unconscious maybe unable to unknowingly and unconsciously generate rules.

Rules therefore are therefore more likely to proceed from a personal source.
Whatever we are left with the mystery of how the Laws exist if not dependent on that existence on time and space and how the laws which look abstract manage to enforce themselves on matter.