Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or, conversely, that it is.

On the contrary, I showed why Ockham's Razor justifies warrants that.

I don't need to.

Why would I want to?

You arrived at an appropriate conclusion, but you've made a right balls-up of the route.

O.

I'm not proposing this I'm translating what you said demonstrating at the same time the leap of faith you've made in your argument from several reasons to suggest consciousness to no reasons at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the contrary, I showed why Ockham's Razor justifies warrants that.
.

On the contrary I showed why you couldn't use Ockham's razor here since you don't know the steps and also because we are using the same step namely intricate machine although we could argue that you forewent the infinite intricate machine for something like a bicycle.

[Outrider]

I'm not proposing this I'm translating what you said.

Mistranslating, that's why I corrected it for you.

On the contrary I showed why you couldn't use Ockham's razor here since you don't know the steps

That's when you use Ockham's Razor.  If you know the steps then you have information on which to base a decision; in the absence of information, you apply Ockham's Razor to arrive at the explanation with the fewest or least significant assumptions.

and also because we are using the same step namely intricate machine

And I pointed out that the complexity required for consciousness was in excess of that necessary for an unguided emergence, and therefore Ockham's Razor would necessitate removing the assumption of consciousness.

although we could argue that you forewent the infinite intricate machine for something like a bicycle.

How intricate is intricate?  I pointed out that fabulous complexity of our universe apparently derives from four fundamental effects; I could further point out that consciousness emerges only very specific, very complicated examples of the interactions of those... it's entirely plausible that a relatively low number of component effects operating at a level below that which would produce consciousness could result in our universe emerging.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Mistranslating, that's why I corrected it for you.

That's when you use Ockham's Razor.  If you know the steps then you have information on which to base a decision

Got there in the end. Did you spot how you got from lots of reasons to suggest consciousness to no reasons by shear leap of faith?

[Outrider]

Got there in the end. Did you spot how you got from lots of reasons to suggest consciousness to no reasons by shear leap of faith?

No, I see how I got from no reasons to suggest consciousness to still no reasons to suggest consciousness and decided that I therefore didn't need to include consciousness.  Would you like to explain where it is that you see the need to introduce consciousness to the broader reality responsible for the universe so that I can point out to you again why it's not necessary?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I see how I got from no reasons to suggest consciousness to still no reasons to suggest consciousness and decided that I therefore didn't need to include consciousness.  Would you like to explain where it is that you see the need to introduce consciousness to the broader reality responsible for the universe so that I can point out to you again why it's not necessary?

O.

Already have done. You yourself introducing the idea of the extra universal reality being an intricate mechanism and then wanting to rein back on how intricate and then logically not being able to.

Not knowing what steps or processes are involved in getting from computation to realising the universe.

Suggesting an infinite extra universal entity and then asking us to believe that it's infinite intricacy is limited to something like a bicycle.

However I also pointed out the properties that being underived confer on whatever it is is underived and how they hardly conform to any common understanding of unconsciousness but conforms more to what we understand as self direction, sovereignty, lawmaker etc.

Show us what you think you've got.

[Outrider]

Already have done.

Not to any effect.

You yourself introducing the idea of the extra universal reality being an intricate mechanism and then wanting to rein back on how intricate and then logically not being able to.

I introduce the idea of a mechanism, you were trying to ramp up the necessary complexity - I've pointed out that you can sufficient complexity for a universe without sufficient complexity for consciousness.

Not knowing what steps or processes are involved in getting from computation to realising the universe.

You keep bringing in computation, but there is no need for an intelligence to do any computation, and I've never introduced it.

Suggesting an infinite extra universal entity and then asking us to believe that it's infinite intricacy is limited to something like a bicycle.

Nobody has suggested 'infinite intricacy' - I've posited sufficient intricacy to result in a universe, on the basis that we have observable evidence of one of those.

However I also pointed out the properties that being underived confer on whatever it is is underived and how they hardly conform to any common understanding of unconsciousness but conforms more to what we understand as self direction, sovereignty, lawmaker etc.

No, they conform to your deist interpretation, hence terms like 'sovereignty'.  Those aren't necessary to the observable phenomena, so they are being left aside until and unless the explanation reaches a point where it's insufficient without them.  We've not reached that point, and we've finished.  You tried to claim 'self direction', without explaining what the evidence was that there was any direction, or indeed anything to manifest a sense of 'self', I didn't accept that point then, and I still don't now.

Show us what you think you've got.

Been there, done that.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

No, I see how I got from no reasons to suggest consciousness to still no reasons to suggest consciousness and decided that I therefore didn't need to include consciousness.  Would you like to explain where it is that you see the need to introduce consciousness to the broader reality responsible for the universe so that I can point out to you again why it's not necessary?

You've doubtless worked this out already, but you're wasting your time. He'll just keep lying about everything you say, no matter how reasonable you are. I have no idea what he gets from it though.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not to any effect.

I introduce the idea of a mechanism, you were trying to ramp up the necessary complexity

I'm afraid it logically ramps itself up and unfortunately you guys have been so successful in reducing consciousness to mere mechanism you have to live with the logical consequences i.e. You have no logical warrant in saying ''This sophisticated and no more'' when stating that greater reality is a mechanism -

I've pointed out that you can sufficient complexity for a universe without sufficient complexity for consciousness.

How did you manage to demonstrate that for goodness sake? Did you in fact show that you can do without intelligence, How did you get round the probability of chaos with unconsciousness?

but there is no need for an intelligence to do any computation, and I've never introduced it.

Positive assertion where's the evidence?

Nobody has suggested 'infinite intricacy'

I did. Please demonstrate why in an infinite reality I am categorically wrong to suggest infinite intricacy.

I've posited sufficient intricacy to result in a universe

I posit sufficient intricacy for the universe but wouldn't presume to state what that is. Nor why an infinite intricacy would be bound to use it's all it's intricacy on setting up a universe

, on the basis that we have observable evidence of one of those.

There is a universe yes, but that offers us nothing.

You tried to claim 'self direction', without explaining what the evidence was that there was any direction

You aren't then owning that we have settled on, for the purposes of our speculation,i.e. an underived greater reality. There is no evidence as such because it is all unfalsifiable. We then proceed from logic although you are riffing on some strange methodology which involves dodging back and forward into science, asking for physical evidence, going on what we can observe etc. whenever logic gets too hot.

The logic of self direction is simple. If it is the underived, infinite reality we are discussing, what else is there that could possibly be that directs it?

The word sovereignty can be used of the non personal to describe autonomy. Hence talk of sovereign nations etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I see how I got from no reasons to suggest consciousness to still no reasons to suggest consciousness and decided that I therefore didn't need to include consciousness. .

Circular argument, perhaps?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Me:However I also pointed out the properties that being underived confer on whatever it is is underived and how they hardly conform to any common understanding of unconsciousness but conforms more to what we understand as self direction, sovereignty, lawmaker etc.

You:

No, they conform to your deist interpretation, hence terms like 'sovereignty'.

No they are legitimate because we talk about natural laws, sovereign nations, Self direction can apply to machinery. So your accusations of spinning this to preference is spurious. Your insistence on a particular level of mechanism though.....More obviously to preference.

Again you are ducking in and out of science and disowning the proposal of a mechanistic greater reality.

There are still problems therefore with unconsciousness and nailing down a necessary sophistication of mechanism. However even if we rule out consciousness  we still have the properties of being underived. Something it seems obvious that you are not used to contemplating as well as the debateability of referring to the extra universal as natural.
 
I would also add that it is possible to that one of the steps to a physical universe is the physical realisation of mathematics, something which we know nothing about how to go about it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Liar boy,

No they are legitimate because we talk about natural laws, sovereign nations, Self direction can apply to machinery. So your accusations of spinning this to preference is spurious. Your insistence on a particular level of mechanism though.....More obviously to preference.

Again you are ducking in and out of science and disowning the proposal of a mechanistic greater reality.

There are still problems therefore with unconsciousness and nailing down a necessary sophistication of mechanism. However even if we rule out consciousness  we still have the properties of being underived. Something it seems obvious that you are not used to contemplating as well as the debateability of referring to the extra universal as natural.
 
I would also add that it is possible to that one of the steps to a physical universe is the physical realisation of mathematics, something which we know nothing about how to go about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Liar boy,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

From the makers of the courtiers reply...............ugh, You've got Dunning krugers.....No returns for EVER.......You've got Dunning Krugers.......No returns For EVER......... Vlad's got Dunning Kruger........run away everyone.

[Outrider]

Circular argument, perhaps?

I think rather that you have no argument, regardless of shape.

No they are legitimate because we talk about natural laws, sovereign nations, Self direction can apply to machinery. So your accusations of spinning this to preference is spurious. Your insistence on a particular level of mechanism though.....More obviously to preference.

In markedly different contexts we talk about most of those things:
natural laws - yes, that idea of principals of physics bereft of influence from conscious beings
sovereign nations - only exist within the context of the interaction of conscious beings which is what you're trying to demonstrate - where's the circularity there?
self-direction - this can apply to machinery, if it's been built in, but this is where the analogy of machinery and physical laws breaks down, because there's no intrinsic need for natural laws to have been 'built' for a particular purpose, whereas with machinery there is.

Again you are ducking in and out of science and disowning the proposal of a mechanistic greater reality.

No, I'm simply not conferring on that proposed mechanistic greater reality anything more than is required for a universe to manifest. I'm not declaring it impossible, I'm just pointing out that it's not necessary.

There are still problems therefore with unconsciousness and nailing down a necessary sophistication of mechanism.

No, there aren't.  A rock is not 'unconscious'; it's a judgement that has no meaning in that context.  Reality may well be in the same arena.

However even if we rule out consciousness  we still have the properties of being underived.

That's a result of its being infinite.

Something it seems obvious that you are not used to contemplating

Who is?  Infinity, eternality, extra-universal (potentially timeless) physics - no-one has a mental architecture into which that neatly slides, given that our brains have evolved and personally developed in a reality of strict limits.

as well as the debateability of referring to the extra universal as natural.

Why is that debatable?  It was an assumption at the start, it wasn't a conclusion, but it was put forwards as a possibility to see if the framework would hold and so far it has.

I would also add that it is possible to that one of the steps to a physical universe is the physical realisation of mathematics, something which we know nothing about how to go about it.

Given that within the universe we only see examples of mathematics - the symbolic, numerical understanding of physicality - after the fact, is there any reason to presume that it must have been the other way round for the universe to come into being?  Why should we think the understanding should have come first?  Why, fundamentally, should we think that this is planned?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I'm simply not conferring on that proposed mechanistic greater reality anything more than is required for a universe to manifest. I'm not declaring it impossible, I'm just pointing out that it's not necessary.

Fortunately since the greater reality looks underived  and autonomously controlled and not directed we cannot argue an unconscious entity in the traditional sense of something sleepwalking for there is nothing else for it to walk through. However if you are positing that only a certain level of mechanism is needed to start a universe it is encumbent on you to show not only me but a waiting world how you arrived at this since “going with what I see” doesn’t actually do it.

In terms of Maths following the physical rather than the other way round. Maths is arguably what is known as an abstract necessity. That implies it has a consistent reality of its own irrespective of physicality. Physicists who tend to the universe being mathematical have included Wigner and Tegmark and of course there is more mathematics than that which is physically manifest. IMHO that does raise the question how does an abstract necessity get to be physical ?

Unlike you I have no philosophical commitment to empiricism, naturalism, etc.
I have no reason not to suppose that an infinite mechanism probably encompasses consciousness for once mechanism is postulated there are no logical limitations.
However even if we put consciousness aside.

We still end up with an underived, autonomous, entity which has produced a universe who’s structure is penetrable by reason. Now that reasonableness can only come from the entity itself.

So there we have it..........and so far we have only looked at the aspects of our universe penetrable by science.


[/quote]

[Outrider]

However if you are positing that only a certain level of mechanism is needed to start a universe it is encumbent on you to show not only me but a waiting world how you arrived at this since “going with what I see” doesn’t actually do it.

There are any number of natural processes which achieve complex outcomes which do not require conscious input in order to come to fruition - why should we presume that the emergence of our universe is any different?  I'm not here to prove that this is definitively THE explanation, I am here to posit it as a viable alternative: it's not for me to prove that this has to be a process without a conscious guide, it's for me to suggest that it's possible and for you (or others, if they're interested) to explain why consciousness is required if that's what they feel.

In terms of Maths following the physical rather than the other way round. Maths is arguably what is known as an abstract necessity. That implies it has a consistent reality of its own irrespective of physicality.

Maths has a contextual consistency, but that does not necessitate a separate reality of its own.  Maths is a descriptor of activity that occurs within reality, not an external reality that impinges upon ours.

Unlike you I have no philosophical commitment to empiricism, naturalism, etc.

No, like me you have no philosophical commitment to empiricism; unlike me, you try to ignore it because you don't like when you don't like the conclusions, whereas I have a more pragmatic approach that when pure logic is insufficient, or when there is insufficient certainty on start conditions that the next best most reliable font of knowledge is empirical.

I have no reason not to suppose that an infinite mechanism probably encompasses consciousness for once mechanism is postulated there are no logical limitations.

Except, as noted, Ockham's Razor.

However even if we put consciousness aside. We still end up with an underived, autonomous, entity which has produced a universe who’s structure is penetrable by reason. Now that reasonableness can only come from the entity itself.

Why?  Why is that 'reasonableness' not merely a manifestation of the same consistent set of natural unreasoned laws that hold sway in the broader reality?

So there we have it..........and so far we have only looked at the aspects of our universe penetrable by science.

If you have a reliable methodology to suggest that there are others, and a sufficiently reliable method to be able to claim to have a good confidence about the status of those, by all means introduce them.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

it's not for me to prove that this has to be a process without a conscious guide,

It is since you've asserted it. Trouble is you need to show how it is possible not just assert that it is. I look forward to that immensly. In the meantime I would like to here your justification for discounting the necessity for consciousness in the infinite mechanism.

Maths has a contextual consistency,

Not all maths is expressed in physicality

but that does not necessitate a separate reality of its own.

Reality? Do you mean physicality? since not all maths is expressed physically that is highly debatable. It does remain abstractly necessary and one can guarantee that when you are pulling several g's falling into a black hole you'll find that 1+1 still equals 2.

  Maths is a descriptor of activity that occurs within reality

Not all maths describes physical things,

not an external reality that impinges upon ours.

What??? Again highly debateable.

No, like me you have no philosophical commitment to empiricism; unlike me, you try to ignore it because you don't like when you don't like the conclusions,

We are in the area of unfalsifiability though, we have already conceded for the sake of our speculations that empiricism does not have domain. Hence my accusation of you dodging out of what we are speculating on back to the comfort of the falsifiable

whereas I have a more pragmatic approach that when pure logic is insufficient, or when there is insufficient certainty on start conditions that the next best most reliable font of knowledge is empirical.

Blow me if your not trying to make that all sound like a virtue.... when in fact it's use here could be looked on as a form of  cowardice..... And what you've said is what is called in the trade a commitment to philosophical empiricism

Except, as noted, Ockham's Razor.

I have an old barbeque in my back garden....How did it get there....it grew from seed...how do we know? Ockham's razor of course.

Why?  Why is that 'reasonableness' not merely a manifestation of the same consistent set of natural unreasoned laws that hold sway in the broader reality?

Is reasonableness the same as unreasoned, I'm not sure. The way of the greater reality is the only way to go. There are no laws governing the greater reality it governs itself since laws could be said to be other. If there were laws governing the greater reality it would not be the ultimate thing would it? The laws then would be the ultimate thing. If the laws and the greater reality were dependent on each other then there is a further explanation to be sought. 

If you have a reliable methodology to suggest that there are others, and a sufficiently reliable method to be able to claim to have a good confidence about the status of those, by all means introduce them.

Empiricism is not a method for the unfalsifiable. So we are left with logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

natural laws - yes, that idea of principals of physics bereft of influence from conscious beings

Physics, as I understand it, has nothing to say about the influence on natural laws but that I would have thought is part of the parameters of science although I believe some physicists do think about fine tuning.

[Outrider]

It is since you've asserted it. Trouble is you need to show how it is possible not just assert that it is. I look forward to that immensly.

Again, you fail to appreciate what this is - I'm not attempting to prove this is the case, I'm proposing a viable alternative to counter the claims of arguments like the Cosmological argument that there must be a creator deity of some kind.  I don't have to prove, I have to establish viability.

In the meantime I would like to here your justification for discounting the necessity for consciousness in the infinite mechanism.

Until, and unless, you can establish that it is a necessity, and not merely a possibility, I don't need to.

Not all maths is expressed in physicality Reality? Do you mean physicality? since not all maths is expressed physically that is highly debatable.

It's not even slightly debatable - imaginary numbers, five- and six-dimensional geometry are just two elements of Mrs. O. degree in Maths that spring to mind which have real correlate.

It does remain abstractly necessary and one can guarantee that when you are pulling several g's falling into a black hole you'll find that 1+1 still equals 2.

The maths, though, is not determined by the physical - it's an indendent, purely abstract conceptualisation which can be used to describe physical reality to a degree, but can also be used to describe other things, and doesn't need to be used to describe physical reality.

Not all maths describes physical things, What??? Again highly debateable.

What is the physical reality represented by 4?

We are in the area of unfalsifiability though, we have already conceded for the sake of our speculations that empiricism does not have domain. Hence my accusation of you dodging out of what we are speculating on back to the comfort of the falsifiable.

You keep forgetting that I'm not the one that needs to make an ironclad case, here.

Blow me if your not trying to make that all sound like a virtue.... when in fact it's use here could be looked on as a form of  cowardice.....

Careful, you're letting those ad hominem admissions that you're losing the argument slip in again.

And what you've said is what is called in the trade a commitment to philosophical empiricism

Call it what you like, but unless you've actually got an argument...

I have an old barbeque in my back garden....How did it get there....it grew from seed...how do we know? Ockham's razor of course.

If you lack sufficient information about the nature and origin of barbecues I can probably find you a website?  If you could do me the same for universes then I'll drop Ockham's Razor, sound like a deal?

Is reasonableness the same as unreasoned, I'm not sure.

The way you appear to pull terms out of the ether I'm not sure either, I've made a best faith attempt to understand what I think you were trying to say.

The way of the greater reality is the only way to go. There are no laws governing the greater reality it governs itself since laws could be said to be other.

Or the laws and the reality are aspects of each other - the same thing seen at a different scale, or different perspectives on the same thing.  Bringing it back to the universe, for the moment, is the universe a space in which particular versions of natural laws apply, or is it the application of those particular physical laws, is it the space in which those particular laws hold sway?

If there were laws governing the greater reality it would not be the ultimate thing would it?

Possibly, see above.

The laws then would be the ultimate thing.

Presuming that the laws and reality were in some way independent.

If the laws and the greater reality were dependent on each other then there is a further explanation to be sought.

For you, I'm happy to posit that it's possible, because that's my remit.

Empiricism is not a method for the unfalsifiable. So we are left with logic.

Empiricism can though be a guide to the possible - again, that's my remit, you have the more rigorous requirement as you're making a definitive claim.

O.

[Outrider]

Physics, as I understand it, has nothing to say about the influence on natural laws but that I would have thought is part of the parameters of science although I believe some physicists do think about fine tuning.

Physics is the study of how natural laws affect reality - implicit in that is that natural laws interact with each other, so if something is influencing the natural laws it too is part of the remit of physics.

Some scientists probably do think about fine tuning - most of them probably think 'what a load of old nonsense', whilst a few of them find that they can support the idea but at the expense of going beyond what the evidence will support.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Physics is the study of how natural laws affect reality - implicit in that is that natural laws interact with each other, so if something is influencing the natural laws it too is part of the remit of physics.

Some scientists probably do think about fine tuning - most of them probably think 'what a load of old nonsense', whilst a few of them find that they can support the idea but at the expense of going beyond what the evidence will support.

O.

Not sure they do. Dawkins and Carroll take it so seriously as to advocate multiverse and call it a'problem'. Only to be taken to task byothers,I grant you.

[Outrider]

Not sure they do. Dawkins and Carroll take it so seriously as to advocate multiverse and call it a'problem'. Only to be taken to task byothers,I grant you.

The multiverse is one of the many reasons why it's fairly easy to dismiss the 'fine tuning' argument; they take it seriously because it's an intriguing idea in its own right, it only serves an ancillary purpose of rendering the fine-tuning argument moot.

O.

[jeremyp]

When we see a chap walking on the Thames, No embellishment needed Jeremy. It is what it is.

You understand that walking on water with no hidden platform or other trickery would be a miracle whereas hat the man in the Youtube video did is not?

I claimed a miracle. You think I saw the youtube video and embellished it. Why do you not accept that the mythical eye witnesses to the resurrection - or the people who wrote down the stories - could have embellished a more mundane event?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again, you fail to appreciate what this is - I'm not attempting to prove this is the case, I'm proposing a viable alternative to counter the claims of arguments like the Cosmological argument that there must be a creator deity of some kind.  I don't have to prove, I have to establish viability.

Until, and unless, you can establish that it is a necessity, and not merely a possibility, I don't need to.

It's not even slightly debatable - imaginary numbers, five- and six-dimensional geometry are just two elements of Mrs. O. degree in Maths that spring to mind which have real correlate.

The maths, though, is not determined by the physical - it's an indendent, purely abstract conceptualisation which can be used to describe physical reality to a degree, but can also be used to describe other things, and doesn't need to be used to describe physical reality.

What is the physical reality represented by 4?

You keep forgetting that I'm not the one that needs to make an ironclad case, here.

Careful, you're letting those ad hominem admissions that you're losing the argument slip in again.

Call it what you like, but unless you've actually got an argument...

If you lack sufficient information about the nature and origin of barbecues I can probably find you a website?  If you could do me the same for universes then I'll drop Ockham's Razor, sound like a deal?

The way you appear to pull terms out of the ether I'm not sure either, I've made a best faith attempt to understand what I think you were trying to say.

Or the laws and the reality are aspects of each other - the same thing seen at a different scale, or different perspectives on the same thing.  Bringing it back to the universe, for the moment, is the universe a space in which particular versions of natural laws apply, or is it the application of those particular physical laws, is it the space in which those particular laws hold sway?

Possibly, see above.

Presuming that the laws and reality were in some way independent.

For you, I'm happy to posit that it's possible, because that's my remit.

Empiricism can though be a guide to the possible - again, that's my remit, you have the more rigorous requirement as you're making a definitive claim.

I have acknowledged that we are are in unfalsifiable territory. That is enough. You have yet to wean yourself off the drug of empiricism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You understand that walking on water with no hidden platform or other trickery would be a miracle whereas hat the man in the Youtube video did is not?

Oh, fuck.....just when I thought it was safe to go back on the water............

I claimed a miracle. You think I saw the youtube video and embellished it. Why do you not accept that the mythical eye witnesses to the resurrection - or the people who wrote down the stories - could have embellished a more mundane event?

It was tried once with Elvis Presley, didn't work that time.