Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am equally sceptical of both; I don't posit an infinite reality and an accepted explanation for what is, I posit it as a viable alternative to a self-creating consciousness to point out the flaw in attempted 'god of the gaps' arguments like 'why something not nothing'.

Why something and not nothing is not a God of the Gaps argument when the something is well, er, virtually everything.

An unconscious infinite entity is almost inconcievable I would have thought since the probabilty that consciousness could arise even spontaneously was quite high in an infinity.

You still haven't realised that something could exist infinitely and yet be maintained and owe it's infinite existence to something else by something external to it. After all if we are postulating a perpetual motion machine, something has to keep it going.

For all the same reasons that I don't believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns or self-creating Zombie Jews.

And those reasons are?

Arguably, no.  God could still be a god, but it wouldn't be 'God' as depicted in the Judao-Christian tradition.

untrue.

Timeless pasta is perfectly al dente no matter how long it's boiled for; divine pasta is a pasta greater than any other pasta that can be conceived, and what pasta is greater than perfectly al dente pasta?

And your posts are Spaghetti Bollocksnase.

[Outrider]

Why something and not nothing is not a God of the Gaps argument when the something is well, er, virtually everything.

The 'gap' in 'god of the gaps' is the gap in our knowledge, not any perceived gap in the phenomena.

An unconscious infinite entity is almost inconcievable I would have thought since the probabilty that consciousness could arise even spontaneously was quite high in an infinity.

And what are you basing those probabilities on?  In an infinite space, even an infinitesimally small probability will occur, that's the beauty of infinity.  Only something truly impossible will not eventually occur.

You still haven't realised that something could exist infinitely and yet be maintained and owe it's infinite existence to something else by something external to it.

No, I know that.  An infinite reality is not intended as a disproof of the concept of a god, but it is a disproof of the cosmological argument for a god.

After all if we are postulating a perpetual motion machine, something has to keep it going.

No, if something (external) is keeping it going, then you don't have a perpetual motion machine, you have a machine.

And those reasons are?

As stated before, the claims lack sufficient evidence that I find convincing.

And your posts are Spaghetti Bollocksnase.

And yet you still have to come back and have another nibble...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The 'gap' in 'god of the gaps' is the gap in our knowledge, not any perceived gap in the phenomena.

Well then we could quite as easily be talking about 'a greater unconscious reality of the Gaps'. I don't suppose you mind that......proving at the end of the day it's just this ''God'' bit that bothers you, not that there is a gap to be filled.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I know that.  An infinite reality is not intended as a disproof of the concept of a god, but it is a disproof of the cosmological argument for a god.

Disproof is too strong, since I have pointed out how something can be maintained and exist infinitely because of something else. And you have just handwaved the question why something and not nothing away.

[jeremyp]

I asked you if you really were unaware of this stunt since it seems you were given your confidence in having made it up.
I have yet to receive a reply.

I was not conscious of having seen the stunt before, but that is irrelevant. The event I described is a fictitious miraculous event. If it was unconsciously based on your Youtube video, which is possible - I see a lot of Youtube videos - it torpedoes your argument about the eye witnesses because it is clearly possible that they could have seen some other non miraculous event and embellished it consciously or unconsciously until it became a miraculous event.

I have torpedoed nothing.

Only in the sense that your arguments are totally insubstantial.

[Outrider]

Well then we could quite as easily be talking about 'a greater unconscious reality of the Gaps'. I don't suppose you mind that......proving at the end of the day it's just this ''God'' bit that bothers you, not that there is a gap to be filled.

It's the 'god' bit that motivates some people to do bad things and seek special exemption from common decency, so yeah that's the bit that bothers me.

O.

[Outrider]

Disproof is too strong, since I have pointed out how something can be maintained and exist infinitely because of something else. And you have just handwaved the question why something and not nothing away.

I've not 'hand-waved' away the argument 'why something and not nothing', I've a) pointed out one possible reason that doesn't rely on gods and b) implicitly already included it in the 'I don't think we have enough evidence to confidently answer that question yet' category.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was not conscious of having seen the stunt before, but that is irrelevant. The event I described is a fictitious miraculous event. If it was unconsciously based on your Youtube video, which is possible - I see a lot of Youtube videos - it torpedoes your argument about the eye witnesses because it is clearly possible that they could have seen some other non miraculous event and embellished it consciously or unconsciously until it became a miraculous event.
Only in the sense that your arguments are totally insubstantial.

When we see a chap walking on the Thames, No embellishment needed Jeremy. It is what it is. How it is what it is is another matter. In this case the fact that it was done by an illusionist and a technical team doesn't reduce the likelihood that he was on the Thames walking around. Also can one truly call a fucking excellent recreation of an alleged miracle something that needs embellishing. I don't know.

This wasn't a miracle but it wasn't your run of the mill non miracle.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've not 'hand-waved' away the argument 'why something and not nothing', I've a) pointed out one possible reason that doesn't rely on gods and b) implicitly already included it in the 'I don't think we have enough evidence to confidently answer that question yet' category.

O.

Well, I think we are still at the ''whatever it was, what could it be like and what couldn't it be like.'' stage and I've already offered a ''whatever it is it isn't bound by anything to do anything''(sovereignty) and it shows remarkable self control''. We can both I think happily speculate at this level without falling out.

[Outrider]

Well, I think we are still at the ''whatever it was, what could it be like and what couldn't it be like.'' stage and I've already offered a ''whatever it is it isn't bound by anything to do anything''(sovereignty) and it shows remarkable self control''.

I'm not sure how, in the absence of any sort of demonstration of consciousness, you could conclude that 'self-control' is meaningful at all.  It's possible that it's show self-control, if it's there (and if it turns out that the whole 'Noah's flood' episode was an exaggeration!), but the idea that it might be free of constraints implies an independence that isn't warranted.

We can both I think happily speculate at this level without falling out.

Just so long as you don't keep dissing the FSM! 

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not sure how, in the absence of any sort of demonstration of consciousness, you could conclude that 'self-control' is meaningful at all.  It's possible that it's show self-control, if it's there (and if it turns out that the whole 'Noah's flood' episode was an exaggeration!), but the idea that it might be free of constraints implies an independence that isn't warranted.

Of course it's warranted. It is only in philosophical naturalism that there is no warrant and once past the universe it's doubtful we can apply that.
An infinite reality responsible for everything would be independent except perhaps from logic. Therefore aside from that it would have complete autonomy or self control.

If it is not independent then it is being controlled and therefore is not the thing we are trying to track down. You see we cannot have it as the ultimate thing but under the control of something else.

As we have settled I think on a neutral title, ''Whatever it is'' or ''WII''. I can see it as being definitionally self controlled whether we are of the view that it has been a bit naughty or not.

[Outrider]

Of course it's warranted. It is only in philosophical naturalism that there is no warrant and once past the universe it's doubtful we can apply that.

The presumption, in the absence of anything, is that there's nothing - if you want a warrant to presume consciousness you've got to establish that.

An infinite reality responsible for everything would be independent except perhaps from logic. Therefore aside from that it would have complete autonomy or self control.  If it is not independent then it is being controlled and therefore is not the thing we are trying to track down.

A purely mechanistic universe need not be being 'controlled' by something else, but it would render the concept of 'self control' to be meaningless.  Autonomy would perhaps fit, although it has implications of 'self' control in common usage.

You see we cannot have it as the ultimate thing but under the control of something else.

Equally you can't necessarily attribute to it traits which imply consciousness - it's plausibly a natural occurence with natural laws that determine it's actvities.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The presumption, in the absence of anything, is that there's nothing

- But only in philosophical naturalism. Which is not supported by methodological naturalism. Whether that makes philosophical materialism more disreputable for it. I don't know.

A purely mechanistic universe need not be being 'controlled' by something else, but it would render the concept of 'self control' to be meaningless.

It would however be more likely to be lawless and chaotic. The very opposite I would have thought to purely mechanistic.

  Autonomy would perhaps fit, although it has implications of 'self' control in common usage.

unavoidably.

Equally you can't necessarily attribute to it traits which imply consciousness - it's plausibly a natural occurence with natural laws that determine it's actvities.

I think you are missing the point that something without constraint and without control which is definitionally self control would tend to chaos. With a purely mechanistic and governed universe...by governor I am thinking of a mechanism analogous to the governor of a steam engine.i.e. it either runs away through positive feedback or shuts itself down through negative feedback. We have to ask why an intricate mechanism and not chaos...There's your homework.

[Outrider]

- But only in philosophical naturalism.   Which is not supported by methodological naturalism. Whether that makes philosophical materialism more disreputable for it. I don't know.

No, in any field of investigation you start with no preconceptions, then look to see what you can justify.  Whether that justification comes from observable phenomena or logical deduction or whatever.

It would however be more likely to be lawless and chaotic.  The very opposite I would have thought to purely mechanistic.

Why would it?  Everything we see in nature is mechanistic - we might misinterpret complex interactions on a grand scale as being chaotic.  If there's a logical reason to think that extra-universal nature is somehow different then fine, but I've not seen what that might be.

I think you are missing the point that something without constraint and without control which is definitionally self control would tend to chaos.

I think perhaps you're using 'self control' there in a way that doesn't conform to the common usage.

With a purely mechanistic and governed universe...by governor I am thinking of a mechanism analogous to the governor of a steam engine.i.e. it either runs away through positive feedback or shuts itself down through negative feedback. We have to ask why an intricate mechanism and not chaos...There's your homework.

I'm not sure 'why' makes sense.   Let's presume that either was possible - a reality in which that 'chaotic' nature held sway would collapse and disappear, whereas a moderating feedback would result in something stable.  Given that we have something stable we have to presume at least some element of 'governance', but we can't presume that there's a 'why' to that, although we're perfectly at liberty to go looking for a 'how'.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, in any field of investigation you start with no preconceptions, then look to see what you can justify.  Whether that justification comes from observable phenomena or logical deduction or whatever.

But you have started out with a preconception. The assumption of nothing outside what you can see. Classic philosophical empiricism.

Why would it?  Everything we see in nature is mechanistic

Classic philosophical empiricism and philosophical naturalism - and not may I add universally supported.

I'm reminded of what John Gribben once wrote about science ''The search for the ghost in the machine is futile but not because their is no ghost but because there is no machine.''....... However, I'm going to travel along with you and your eternal mechanism. If ''whatever it is'' is an eternal machine then it's intricacies are eternal. But the question is, if we can accept something as intricate as this existing forever then why not an intelligence forever? Since intelligence is just intricate mechanism....and if consciousness is intricate intelligence then why not an eternal consciousness? If we are starting the heirarchy with a machine we have no warrant not to go the whole hog.

I think perhaps you're using 'self control' there in a way that doesn't conform to the common usage.

Since there is nothing stopping our self governing eternal machine being conscious I cannot really be faulted for it, can I?

I'm not sure 'why' makes sense.   Let's presume that either was possible - a reality in which that 'chaotic' nature held sway would collapse and disappear, whereas a moderating feedback would result in something stable.  Given that we have something stable we have to presume at least some element of 'governance', but we can't presume that there's a 'why' to that, although we're perfectly at liberty to go looking for a 'how'.

The why lies in your eternal mechanism itself the how might be equally inscrutable but hey, that shouldn't stop our speculations should it?

[Outrider]

But you have started out with a preconception. The assumption of nothing outside what you can see.

I offered observable phenomena as one possibility, I also suggested concepts derived from pure logic.  I'm not ideologically beholden to materiality, but it's difficult to look past it to derive an initial basis from anything else.

Classic philosophical empiricism.Classic philosophical empiricism and philosophical naturalism - and not may I add universally supported.

If you have a reliable argument to show something that's demonstrably both natural and non-mechanistic then I'll take a look - again, I don't preclude the possibility, but I work from the balance of probabilities based upon what we already have.

However, I'm going to travel along with you and your eternal mechanism. If ''whatever it is'' is an eternal machine then it's intricacies are eternal.

Possibly - arguably even probably.

But the question is, if we can accept something as intricate as this existing forever then why not an intelligence forever?

It's possible.

Since intelligence is just intricate mechanism....and if consciousness is intricate intelligence then why not an eternal consciousness? If we are starting the heirarchy with a machine we have no warrant not to go the whole hog.

You need an explanation for the universe we are in - the observable phenomena that we can measure.  An infinite reality is one possibility - amongst others.  Is it, as a mechanistic construct, sufficient an argument to explain the universe - potentially, yes, so why complicate it by adding further complexity or constraint?  I don't discount them, but they aren't necessary for the idea to make sense.

Since there is nothing stopping our self governing eternal machine being conscious I cannot really be faulted for it, can I?

It does add a layer of complexity for which we have no evidence, though; why presume an intelligence, a direction, an intent?

The why lies in your eternal mechanism itself the how might be equally inscrutable but hey, that shouldn't stop our speculations should it?

How always makes sense; if there is an observable phenomenon, to ask 'how does that happen' so far always has a potentially viable answer.  Why, doesn't.  Why implies a choice, a selection, a reason, something deciding 'A' vs 'B'.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you have a reliable argument to show something that's demonstrably both natural and non-mechanistic then I'll take a look - again, I don't preclude the possibility, but I work from the balance of probabilities based upon what we already have.

Possibly - arguably even probably.

It's possible.

You need an explanation for the universe we are in - the observable phenomena that we can measure.  An infinite reality is one possibility - amongst others.  Is it, as a mechanistic construct, sufficient an argument to explain the universe - potentially, yes, so why complicate it by adding further complexity or constraint?  I don't discount them, but they aren't necessary for the idea to make sense.

It does add a layer of complexity for which we have no evidence, though; why presume an intelligence, a direction, an intent?

If we start thinking of it as a sophisticated machine there is nothing logically to stop it being an intelligent sophisticated machine.


We are talking of the infinite machine here. It seems therefore almost perverse for us to conceive of it as something like an appliance all of which we have constructed are subservient to us and all that we have found in nature. You aren't making it into your own image but that of your machine as it were.
 
I have restricted my layers of complexity to sophisticated machinery the same as you have  I have not effectively added more layers of complexity than you, my conception of consciousness here being just sophisticated mechanism. Consciousness being a recognised phenomenon in any case.

I do not add constraint to the eternal machine. Our fate and direction are down to it. It's fate and direction are down to it.

[Outrider]

If we start thinking of it as a sophisticated machine there is nothing logically to stop it being an intelligent sophisticated machine.

But no intrinsic reason to think that it is intelligent.

We are talking of the infinite machine here. It seems therefore almost perverse for us to conceive of it as something like an appliance all of which we have constructed are subservient to us and all that we have found in nature. You aren't making it into your own image but that of your machine as it were.

I'm deducing from the available until I've established the (potentially) necessary, and then stopping at that point.  A mechanistic reality could explain the universe; it doesn't need any additional layers or complexity in order to satisfy the requirements, so until we see something that it can't explain there's no need to go adding elements.

I have restricted my layers of complexity to sophisticated machinery the same as you have  I have not effectively added more layers of complexity than you, my conception of consciousness here being just sophisticated mechanism. Consciousness being a recognised phenomenon in any case.

It's a degree of complexity that isn't warranted to fulfil the requirement of being able to explain the universe.

I do not add constraint to the eternal machine. Our fate and direction are down to it. It's fate and direction are down to it.

That's a phrase that's open to (mis)interpretation - the machine does decide, but the conditions that arise within it determine the outcomes, yes.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But no intrinsic reason to think that it is intelligent.

It is not just a machine it is the infinite machine responsible for the universe but for at least two reasons not dependent on it. Given the nature of the universe we can argue that a high level of sophistication and intricacy could be expected from it. Firstly in terms of computation. On the other hand although there are no logical barriers to how intricate this machine could be and that the choice of a non intelligent machine by you is an arbitrary one. It has other properties as the ultimate thing which I believe render it unlike any unconscious thing in our experience.

I'm deducing from the available until I've established the (potentially) necessary, and then stopping at that point.  A mechanistic reality could explain the universe; it doesn't need any additional layers or complexity in order to satisfy the requirements, so until we see something that it can't explain there's no need to go adding elements.

But we don't know what is necessary to produce and sustain a universe. In fact, it is likely that it needs to be highly sophisticated. A mechanistic intelligence fulfils so much here if only in terms of computation. It goes no further than being a mechanistic reality. It has the beauty of fulfilling what people have been trying to explain to Alan over countless posts....intelligence and consciousness are mechanistic realities.

It's a degree of complexity that isn't warranted to fulfil the requirement of being able to explain the universe.

We don't actually know that, the limits you are placing are not warranted by logic and are arbitrary. Mechanistic reality is not being exceeded.

That is just one line of speculation though based around the ultimate, infinite machine though. It is debateable whether it acts by chance since a) that would make it not ultimate and b) we would be introducing an entity(chance) beyond necessity against Occam's razor. It's actions derive solely from itself. We can argue from that that how the universe is is derived entirely from how the infinite machine is and how the infinite machine is derives from itself. Since unconscious behaviour is chancey and potentially chaotic then without invoking intelligence and consciousness we can impute order, autonomy, self direction and control to our infinite machine.

[Outrider]

It is not just a machine it is the infinite machine responsible for the universe but for at least two reasons not dependent on it. Given the nature of the universe we can argue that a high level of sophistication and intricacy could be expected from it. Firstly in terms of computation.

You could argue, and it has been done, this is just a rehash of the Intelligent Design argument.  We have no idea how many universes might or might not have emerged from an infinite reality, we have no reason to presume that ours is in any way special in a broader sense, or to presume that it's anything more than the unguided, incidental ongoing reaction to entirely undirected forces.

On the other hand although there are no logical barriers to how intricate this machine could be and that the choice of a non intelligent machine by you is an arbitrary one.

I'm not saying that it's not possible, I'm just arguing that it's not necessary.  The choice is not an arbitrary one, it's an application of Ockham's Razor in the absence of any concrete information; complexity sufficient to manifest consciousness is, in all the examples we're aware of, in excess of the complexity required for undirected natural reactions.

It has other properties as the ultimate thing which I believe render it unlike any unconscious thing in our experience.

Such as?

But we don't know what is necessary to produce and sustain a universe.

No, we don't, we are positing possibilities, not determining truth.

In fact, it is likely that it needs to be highly sophisticated.

Why? The entirety of the universe, so far as we can tell, depends on the interaction of four simple forces, yet it produces everything from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe, from Brisbane to Harry Potter, from Betelguese to Hemel Hempstead... why does the extra-universal reality need to be sophisticated?

A mechanistic intelligence fulfils so much here if only in terms of computation.

You only need computation though, in order to explain this particular existence if you are presuming that we were in some way intended or the point - if we are another sequence of eddies in the currents of energy moving through reality, if you do not presume any external significance to our existence, then you do not need any complex computation.

It goes no further than being a mechanistic reality.

It goes significantly beyond it, because it introduce intent, it presumes significance to certain things for which we do not have any reason.

It has the beauty of fulfilling what people have been trying to explain to Alan over countless posts....intelligence and consciousness are mechanistic realities.

That they are does mean that each and every instance of mechanistic behaviour must exhibit them, though.

We don't actually know that, the limits you are placing are not warranted by logic and are arbitrary. Mechanistic reality is not being exceeded.

I'm not limiting possibilities, I'm simply limiting my presumptions to what might be considered necessary.

That is just one line of speculation though based around the ultimate, infinite machine though. It is debateable whether it acts by chance since a) that would make it not ultimate and b) we would be introducing an entity(chance) beyond necessity against Occam's razor.

It doesn't operate by chance, it operates by strict mechanical physical laws, but there is no reason to presume it does so with any particular direction.  I fail to see how that doesn't make it 'ultimate'.

It's actions derive solely from itself. We can argue from that that how the universe is is derived entirely from how the infinite machine is and how the infinite machine is derives from itself.

We could look at how the universe emerged, certainly.  However, you cannot examine how an infinite reality 'derives' from anything; it's infinite, it doesn't derive at all.

Since unconscious behaviour is chancey and potentially chaotic then without invoking intelligence and consciousness we can impute order, autonomy, self direction and control to our infinite machine.

No, you're still presuming an intent and a direction.  There is simply a state, and the inevitable consequences of that state; that is not necessarily a matter of conscious or unconscious, it is 'aconscious' - a waterfall drops because gravitational effects distort space-time into a curve resulting in conserved momentum appearing to change the direction of water, but no-one needs to consciously or unconsciously process that requirement in order for it to happen, it happens independently of any consciousness.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You could argue, and it has been done, this is just a rehash of the Intelligent Design argument.  We have no idea how many universes might or might not have emerged from an infinite reality, we have no reason to presume that ours is in any way special in a broader sense, or to presume that it's anything more than the unguided, incidental ongoing reaction to entirely undirected forces.

The multiverse question just pushes the boundaries of the universe question. You still have these universes deriving from an infinite machine. In other words it does not matter if we are talking one or a million. In terms of intelligent design. There is no merit or virtue in choosing and imposing a limit to the level of sophistication of an intricate machine and one should honestly now be looking at the reasons one is imposing one to suit. Particularly as we can acknowledge intricate mechanism, computing power and self direction and control...Probably therefore most of the goals of developing AI.

I'm not saying that it's not possible, I'm just arguing that it's not necessary.

We need then to see this argument   

The choice is not an arbitrary one

Of course it is since we are mutuality suggesting it is an intricate mechanistic reality there is no logical recourse to limiting it's intricacy

it's an application of Ockham's Razor in the absence of any concrete information;

I hate to say it but this looks like the beginnings of downfall. First of all we agreed our speculation would start with mechanistic reality and therefore because we acknowledged what we are saying was unfalsifiable but not illogical, that we could proceed speculatively using logic. You seem to be doubling back on that suspending logic to go into science as it suits. That methodology is not valid IMHO. We can acknowledge therefore that intricate mechanism might be needed and there are no logical limits to that and that we do not actually know what level of intricacy is necessary. The question then becomes ''Is it possible or valid to use Ockhams razor here at all?'' I would argue it is not but I await your argument for the simplest of intricate mechanisms being sufficient.

complexity sufficient to manifest consciousness is, in all the examples we're aware of, in excess of the complexity required for undirected natural reactions.

But that is, with all due respect, an incomplete description of the universe since within it there is consciousness and there are directed reactions and there are also artificial intelligence. In fact, in our experience the conditions of the early universe are only reproducible with intricate and intelligent mechanism.

It goes significantly beyond it, because it introduce intent, it presumes significance to certain things for which we do not have any reason.

If you can find intent from self direction etc. then that is because it has inevitably come out of what we have mutually proposed. Your objections on it are rather based on your preference rather than logic.

I'm not limiting possibilities, I'm simply limiting my presumptions to what might be considered necessary.

It doesn't operate by chance, it operates by strict mechanical physical laws, but there is no reason to presume it does so with any particular direction.

Anything not going in a particular direction or even a direction IS operating by chance. I am not advocating a particular direction because I have no idea what that is. You seem to be contradicting yourself over this

We could look at how the universe emerged, certainly.  However, you cannot examine how an infinite reality 'derives' from anything; it's infinite, it doesn't derive at all.

I'm not arguing that it derives but clearly in the universe there is derivation occurring. The mechanistic infinite reality doesn't derive therefore and because of that nothing about it can derive from chance nor it's direction derive from anything else.

It remains therefore by your own admission underived and self directed and, obviously ordered and controlled and if that comes out as ''intent'' then so be it.

[Outrider]

The multiverse question just pushes the boundaries of the universe question. You still have these universes deriving from an infinite machine. In other words it does not matter if we are talking one or a million.

It does if you're trying to demonstrate that particular behaviour in this universe can be used to deduce something about the extra-universal state that brought it about.

In terms of intelligent design. There is no merit or virtue in choosing and imposing a limit to the level of sophistication of an intricate machine and one should honestly now be looking at the reasons one is imposing one to suit.

There is merit - it's a degree of complexity beyond what's required.

Particularly as we can acknowledge intricate mechanism, computing power and self direction and control...Probably therefore most of the goals of developing AI.

We can acknowledge the possibility, but not the necessity.

Of course it is since we are mutuality suggesting it is an intricate mechanistic reality there is no logical recourse to it's limits of intricacy.

Ockham's Razor once again - why presume a sufficiently complex reality as to warrant an overarching consciousness when a less complex (and, therefore, more likely) one without a consciousness is sufficient to explain the observable phenomena.

I hate to say it but this looks like the beginnings of downfall.

To you, perhaps.

First of all we agreed our speculation would start with mechanistic reality and therefore because we acknowledged what we are saying was unfalsifiable but not illogical, that we could proceed speculatively using logic.

Yep.

You seem to be doubling back on that suspending logic to go into science as it suits. That methodology is not valid IMHO.

Is it not logical to look for the nearest analogy?

We can acknowledge therefore that intricate mechanism might be needed and there are no logical limits to that and that we do not actually know what level of intricacy is necessary.

Agreed.

The question then becomes ''Is it possible or valid to use Ockhams razor here at all?'' I would argue it is not but I await your argument for the simplest of intricate mechanisms being sufficient.

Ockham's Razor fairly clearly defines when it is appropriate for use; in the absence of firm information, the explanation with the fewest or least unwarranted assumptions or additional elements is likely the best fit.  In this instance there is nothing that REQUIRES a consciousness in the extra-universal region that decides our universe will be, and in the absence of any evidence regarding any extra-univeral physics we therefore operate as though it's not the case until we find something that leads us to review that.

But that is, with all due respect, an incomplete description of the universe since within it there is consciousness and there are directed reactions and there are also artificial intelligence.

There is also time, yet it seems at least plausible, if not likely, that time (as we understand it) is a facet of the universe, not the broader reality outside it.  If something as apparently fundamental to our understanding as time isn't present, how can we presume that consciousness is?  What would consciousness even mean in a timeless state?

In fact, in our experience the conditions of the early universe are only reproducible with intricate and intelligent mechanism.

I'm not sure what this is intended to imply.

If you can find intent from self direction etc. then that is because it has inevitably come out of what we have mutually proposed.

No, it comes from the implication of 'direction' when there's nothing to suggest that anything is directed in the first instance.

Anything not going in a particular direction or even a direction IS operating by chance.

Yes, but you can't derive anything about intent purely because something is heading in a particular direction.  Iron filings align along magnetic field lines, but there is no intent to that, it's a purely physical reaction to prior causes.

I am not advocating a particular direction because I have no idea what that is. You seem to be contradicting yourself over this I'm not arguing that it derives but clearly in the universe there is derivation occurring.

No, there are results of physical activity, but there is no evidence of an intent in the broader sweep of it.

The mechanistic infinite reality doesn't derive therefore and because of that nothing about it can derive from chance nor it's direction derive from anything else.  It remains therefore by your own admission underived and self directed and, obviously ordered and controlled and if that comes out as ''intent'' then so be it.

No, it's not 'self-directed' - there is no 'direction', there is no 'target' there are just inevitable results of the current situation.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It does if you're trying to demonstrate that particular behaviour in this universe can be used to deduce something about the extra-universal state that brought it about.

There is merit - it's a degree of complexity beyond what's required.

We can acknowledge the possibility, but not the necessity.

Ockham's Razor once again - why presume a sufficiently complex reality as to warrant an overarching consciousness when a less complex (and, therefore, more likely) one without a consciousness is sufficient to explain the observable phenomena.

You need to demonstrate that that is the case for goodness sake

To you, perhaps.

Yep.

Is it not logical to look for the nearest analogy?

Agreed.

Ockham's Razor fairly clearly defines when it is appropriate for use; in the absence of firm information, the explanation with the fewest or least unwarranted assumptions or additional elements is likely the best fit.  In this instance there is nothing that REQUIRES a consciousness in the extra-universal region that decides our universe will be,

we know nothing of the sort.

There is also time, yet it seems at least plausible, if not likely, that time (as we understand it) is a facet of the universe, not the broader reality outside it.  If something as apparently fundamental to our understanding as time isn't present, how can we presume that consciousness is?  What would consciousness even mean in a timeless state?

I'm not sure what this is intended to imply.

No, it comes from the implication of 'direction' when there's nothing to suggest that anything is directed in the first instance.

Yes, but you can't derive anything about intent purely because something is heading in a particular direction.  Iron filings align along magnetic field lines, but there is no intent to that, it's a purely physical reaction to prior causes.

No, there are results of physical activity, but there is no evidence of an intent in the broader sweep of it.

No, it's not 'self-directed' - there is no 'direction', there is no 'target' there are just inevitable results of the current situation.

O.

Of course it's self directed for there is nothing else to do so. There is no room for an accidental pathway or any crack under the door for it to inadvertently flow under. There are no degrees of freedom provided externally or laws external to it. There is nothing aside from itself. Of course there is a direction. It's own. Here then is my advice for you: Don't be so stupid in future. Don't conflate what you have declared underived with the obviously derived and don't confuse or categorise the underived or the universe for that matter with iron filings.

Consciousness is proposed as mechanistic. Having proposed one infinite mechanistic reality it is a bit late and illogical asking how we can have a mechanistic reality. What about intelligence? or the fact that we don't even need to invoke consciousness or intelligence but the obviousness of being underived and autonomous and self directing, self determining as to what is derived from it........You've arrived at that yourself.

[Outrider]

You need to demonstrate that that is the case for goodness sake.

Demonstrate what? That a universe could be the result of blind natural forces in an extra-universal reality? We've already established that we're talking about hypotheticals in the absence of sufficient information to demonstrate anything. Or demonstrate that Ockham's Razor means what I put - that seems the conventional usage, but I'll take feedback if you have it.  Or demonstrate that where we see consciousness in the world it's an example of higher levels of complexity than mere natural reactions?

we know nothing of the sort.

I didn't say that we knew - if we knew, we wouldn't need Ockham's Razor.  What I said was that we don't see anything in the universe that requires a consciousness in order for it to emerge in the universe.

Of course it's self directed for there is nothing else to do so.

You are presuming that there is a direction; nothing is directing, there is no plan, there is no ultimate destination.  There is what is now, and what must inevitably follow given the restrictions of the natural laws that apply - that's not being directed at all, that's simply happening.

There is no room for an accidental pathway or any crack under the door for it to inadvertently flow under. There are no degrees of freedom provided externally or laws external to it. There is nothing aside from itself. Of course there is a direction. It's own.

What 'it'? Reality does not need a direction, reality does not need an intent, reality simply is and moves on under the effects of natural law.  It has no 'self' to 'direct' it, but as it needs no direction it just goes where the effects of natural law take it.

Here then is my advice for you: Don't be so stupid in future.

Here's my advice for you - play the game, not the player. Ad hominems don't add anything to your argument which is failing perfectly well on its own lack of merits without you adding fallacies to pile.

Don't conflate what you have declared underived with the obviously derived and don't confuse or categorise the underived or the universe for that matter with iron filings.

I wasn't planning to, but thanks for the heads up.

Consciousness is proposed as mechanistic.

Conciousness, so far as we can see, is OBSERVED as mechanistic.

Having proposed one infinite mechanistic reality it is a bit late and illogical asking how we can have a mechanistic reality.

What?  I'm not questioning how we can have a mechanistic reality, I'm proposing it as a viable alternative to the deistic creation model.

What about intelligence?

What about it? We see no obvious signs of it, no apparent need for it, so why consider it?  It's not ruled out, but it's an added element that's not required to make the conjecture sufficient.

or the fact that we don't even need to invoke consciousness or intelligence but the obviousness of being underived and autonomous and self directing, self determining as to what is derived from it........You've arrived at that yourself.

Again with the 'direction' and the 'self' and the 'determining'... it's not aimed, there is nothing in the background targetting a particular point. There is matter, there are natural laws, and there is an ongoing process - unguided, undirected, unconscious, simply being.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Demonstrate what? That a universe could be the result of blind natural forces in an extra-universal reality?

If that extra-universal is as you have said underived there is nothing external to it to be blind to. You can be blind in the world but not blind if you are all the world is. In other words what is it you can be blind to and blunder through?