because an "uncaused first cause" didn't make sense to the practical scientists. — Gnomon
That's not correct. Physicists believe they have a good understanding of the state of the universe as far back as 10^-13 seconds after the mathematical singularity entailed by General Relativity. The inflationary period preceded that point, as far back as 10^-36 seconds, but little is known about that era - and nothing is known about times prior to this, including the question of whether or not there were times even before the point of this mathematical singularity. — Relativist

When something doesn't make physical sense to practical physicists, they may put on their philosopher hats and speculate into metaphysical conjectures : e.g. String Theory, Multiverse. But they typically postulate some hypothetical (non god) Potential state prior to the Bang. Do you know of any scientists for whom the notion of an "uncaused first cause" did makes scientific sense? As you said, and as the overview below*1 indicates, the reality or ideality before the Bang is unknowable by scientific methods. So the practical scientists left the exploration of that "unknown territory" to philosophical methods.

Potential vs Actual is a method*2 with a long useful history, in both philosophy and science. For example, when electric storage batteries are labeled with predicted voltage, that Potential voltage is not real (not-yet-actual) prior to connection of storage to circuit or ground. Likewise, when our understanding of the origin of the universe is described as a mathematical Singularity, the Cause of that calculated-but-unmeasured state is a "mystery"*3. Yet, in our real world experience, such improbable events don't happen by happenstance, but as a result of some prior Cause/Potential. Since we have no measurement access to that world-creating state, it's left to philosophers to infer its logically necessary properties. Collectively, those properties define its Potential for causation. :smile:


*1. In the context of the Big Bang theory, an "uncaused first cause" refers to the idea that the initial event which triggered the Big Bang itself had no preceding cause, meaning it came into existence without being brought about by anything else; this is a concept often discussed in philosophical terms, particularly when considering the relationship between science and religion, where the "uncaused first cause" is sometimes associated with a deity. . . . .
Current scientific understanding cannot explain what caused the Big Bang itself, leaving the question of a "first cause" beyond the scope of current physics. ___Google AI overview

*2. A "potential" method refers to a calculation or analysis that determines what could theoretically happen under ideal conditions, while an "actual" method looks at what is happening in reality, taking into account all constraints and limitations, meaning it reflects the true outcome based on existing circumstances. ___Google AI overview

*3. A "Big Bang singularity" refers to the theoretical point in time at the very beginning of the universe, according to the Big Bang theory, where all matter and energy were concentrated in an infinitely small, dense, and hot point, essentially a singularity with infinite density and temperature, which then rapidly expanded to create the universe we observe today; however, it's important to note that our current understanding of physics breaks down at this point, so the exact nature of the singularity remains a mystery and is a topic of ongoing research. ___Google AI overview

Why do you assume the Big Bang is the beginning of material existence? What's your basis for thinking this occurred "ex nihilo"? — Relativist

Since I have no better scientific explanation, I simply accept the expert consensus that the BB theory is the best current explanation for "the beginning of material existence"*4. Unlike some speculative cosmologists, I assume that the BB was ex nihilo*5, in the sense of no prior Actual material existence. But, as a philosophical interpretation, it was not ex nihilo in the sense of creative Potential. :wink:

*4. According to the Big Bang theory, yes, the Big Bang is considered the beginning of material existence, as it describes the moment when all matter and energy in the universe originated from a single, extremely dense point that rapidly expanded, creating space and time as we know them today; essentially marking the start of the universe and all its matter. ___Google AI overview

*5. While the Big Bang theory describes the universe originating from a single, incredibly dense point, which could be interpreted as "nothing," many argue that it does not definitively prove "creation ex nihilo" because the concept of "nothing" in physics is not the same as the philosophical concept of absolute nothingness; therefore, whether the Big Bang is considered "ex nihilo" is a matter of philosophical interpretation, not a definitive scientific conclusion. ___Google AI overview

Ah, a quote from that famous philosopher, Dr. Reddit! As I've discussed, an uncaused first cause does not entail an unembodied mind containing magical knowledge. — Relativist

Yes. But it also does not exclude that possibility. :cool:

The state of the universe today, was caused by past states of the universe - so there's a causal chain, that necessarily begins with an uncaused first-cause. Because it wasn't caused, it follows: 1) that it exists as brute fact; 2) that is is not contingent (for reasons I previously described). — Relativist

Yes. And astronomers have traced the chain of causation back to an event sarcastically labeled the Big Bang, because an "uncaused first cause" didn't make sense to the practical scientists. I guess it's an impractical philosophy quirk to cop-out with a Brute Fact that must be accepted (believed) with no supporting reasons. It's a hypothesis with no evidence, but only a place holder for future facts. :joke:

I'm not sure what you mean. But I do believe the truly fundamental laws of nature existed in the initial state. There may have been some contingency in the laws of nature that are observable today, but (consistent with quantum indeterminacy), any contingent outcomes were present as possibilities in the initial state. — Relativist

So your Brute Fact First Cause just popped into existence 14B years ago --- complete with laws to govern evolution --- with no prior cause? Did BFFC also include the Matter & Energy that eventually became the organized world we now see? Sounds like Omni-potential that popped.

Again, the notion of Something from Nothing didn't make sense to the scientists trying to make sense of the expanding universe, that when run in reverse vanished into a dimensionless point of infinity : the Singularity. Is that your BFFC? They also didn't like the alternative idea of infinite Potential (unlimited possibilities) that could --- for no apparent reason --- become the Actual Universe we know and love. :blush:

As described, the first cause is uncaused - but it's not an "accident", in the traditional sense as being synonymous with "contingent". — Relativist

An uncaused First Cause is traditionally identified with a God of some kind. The Deity's existence is not an "accident" because it is not a Chance event, but either Intentional or a Brute Fact (inexplicable by reference to precedence). Chance accidents only happen in space-time.

Your BFFC sounds a lot like my First Cause, except that I define it as eternal (timeless) and self-existent (un-caused), in order to fill the causal/existential gap prior to the Big Bang. The hypothetical gap-filler had no matter or energy, and consisted of nothing but infinite Potential, which was actualized in the otherwise ex nihilo Big Bang. You and I seem to be talking about the same thing, but using different words. :halo:

Accident : an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

Many say there needs to be an uncaused first cause, which is God. An alternative to this is an infinite causal chain, though few take this position. However, it makes no less sense to believe in an infinite causal chain than it does in God, because God is an infinite being himself, and thus his thought process is an infinite causal chain.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/smla5i/the_uncaused_first_cause_argument_for_god/

The cosmological argument states that there must be an uncaused first cause, or "God", because every event has a cause and the causal chain cannot go back infinitely.
___Google AI overview

In Aristotle's philosophy, potentiality is the capacity for something to be, while actuality is when that capacity is realized through motion, change, or activity:
___Google AI overview
Note --- Motion, Change, and Activity are characteristic of the space-time world. Pure Being is characteristic of infinity-eternity.

As I said previously, I believe the past is finite, and this entails an initial state (=first cause), which exists as brute fact. — Relativist

Is that "belief" based on reasoning from evidence, or just accepted for no particular reason, other than to allow "brute fact" to arbitrarily take the place of transcendental pre-time (eternity/infinity) and intentional causation? :chin:

"Brute fact physicalism" asserts that the fundamental laws of physics, which govern the universe, are "brute facts," meaning they exist as they are without any further explanation or justification; essentially, the way the world is at its most basic level is simply a given that cannot be explained by anything else. ___Google AI overview

I also believe that this initial state/first cause is not contingent, and this is because I believe contingency depends on a source of contingency — Relativist

If the First Cause is "not contingent", that means it is self-existent or self-caused, yes? So far, that sounds like an essential characteristic of a Creator God. In that case, the "source of contingency" could be the intentional act of creating a bubble of space-time within the ocean of eternity. :pray:

In evolutionary theory, sources of contingency include chance variation and genetic drift. However, these sources may not always be strong, as they can be non-chancy in some ways. Shannon's information entropy can be used to measure the strength of a source of contingency. ___Google AI overview

What that first cause/initial state IS, is unknown. Although it's logically possible, I see no reason to think it is a "mind" (i.e. an entity that acts with intent). — Relativist

Surely you can logically infer (reason) some necessary properties of your unknown First Cause. For example, if the Big Bang has produced intelligent and intentional creatures, then the Original Cause must have the Potential for those properties, yes? Or does "Brute Fact" simply mean Something From Nothing for no particular reason? :wink:

I see no objective basis for believing life, or intelligent life, to be objectively special. — Relativist

Is your own Life & Mind nothing (subjectively) special to you? Are you no more special than a rock? Are you lacking in purpose, goals, intentions. Does general Intelligence play no (objectively) special role in the evolving world? Is there no hierarchy of intelligence in your world? Did your Brute Fact (First Cause) have the Potential to produce intentional creatures? Or do you mean not specially selected by the First Cause, hence just a random accident or happenstance? Or do you mean not chosen for a special role in the divine plan? In that case, I'll have to agree with you. :cool:

Special :a thing, such as an event, product, or broadcast, that is designed or organized for a particular occasion or purpose. ___Oxford dictionary

If you require a hypothesis as to what the first cause was, I can simply state that it was probably some natural state of affairs that evolved (in whole or in part) deterministically (inclusive of probabilistic determination) due to laws of nature. — Relativist

Is your "natural state of affairs" the same natural laws that Hawking assumed existed eternally before space-time Nature even began with a Bang?
Are you saying that your deterministic First Cause possessed the power of Determination, including the laws of nature? Again, that sounds like a definition of a creator God. Or are you saying that the cause of this complex world is a Brute Accident? Fortuna was the Roman goddess of dumb Luck. If so, she has been on a statistically impossible streak of Gambler's Luck for 14B years. :smile:

Determination : to decide with the intention to achieve a desired end.
___Merriam-Webster dictionary

The scientific laws of nature are not imposed on nature, they are nature. — EnPassant

Actually, those natural laws are Nature as interpreted by law-abiding humans. As Bohr noted, "What we observe is never nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." So, as usual we humans see ourselves reflected in the mirror of the world. And we call that mirror by various names, but the most general is simply G*D. Spinoza hedged his bets by labeling his pantheistic deity as Deus sive Natura. :smile:

↪Gnomon
I disagree with almost everything you said, and you haven't really refuted anything I said, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing. — Relativist

Thanks for sharing your ideas, and for not responding to my ideas with political put-downs as some do, when faced with belief-challenging concepts of the world. I had no intention of "refuting" anything you said. Instead, this thread is intended to present some ideas from a book by a theist, whose arguments are also valid for Deism : a non-religious philosophical worldview.

Even though it differs from traditional Theism in denial of real-world miracles, Deism retains the necessity for an ideal Mind to create the Real world. Apparently, even the ancient philosophical notion of a First Cause or Prime Mover principle is contrary to your worldview. That's OK, we both have opinions about notions that are unprovable. But how we arrive at those beliefs may vary. :smile:

Your speculation referred to a "world-causing mind", and you also suggested it has intentionality. — Relativist

That is true, yet my "speculation" is based on Science & Philosophy instead of Religion. For example, I accept the Big Bang theory (BBT) --- which is the "most accepted" theory*1 of how the expanding universe began --- and not the Genesis account of creation. But BBT was a shock to some scientists, including Einstein, because their default worldview was that the physical universe was eternal and deterministic. Yet, the sudden ex nihilo appearance of something-from-nothing sounded too much like the Genesis account of Creation. And the Uncertainty of quantum physics undermined the deterministic Newtonian foundation of 19th century science. So, some 20th century scientists began to construct alternative explanations for the otherwise inexplicable existence of an evolving dynamic cosmos, but characterized by Randomness and Entropy instead of Intention and Creativity.

In Stephen Meyer's book, introduced in the OP, he discussed what he labeled as The Cosmological Information Problem. One example is the Hawking-Hartle "no boundary" proposal for how the universe could pop into existence randomly and without any god-like intention. They followed Alexander Vilenkin's suggestion of a quantum basis for the otherwise inexplicable Big Bang. But it assumed the a priori existence of a Universal Quantum Field, complete with god-like logical mathematics & limiting laws. Ironically, the quantum realm has been determined to be fundamentally indeterminate and uncertain.

Stephen Hawking and James Hartle manipulated the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, "based on the use of canonical quantization rules", to calculate the Universal Wave-Function in order to demonstrate how a new universe could be created from random fluctuations of a hypothetical eternal quantum field in a supernatural "superspace". In order to limit the calculation to a world like the one we actually experience though, they arbitrarily pre-set some initial conditions. Ironically, in doing so, they imposed human Intentions on the calculation. As Meyer put it, "the quantum cosmologists are thus like the bakers who allege they have baked a cake before they had the ingredients to do so". So, you could say that they were playing the role of a Designing god. Meyer summarizes, "Hawking and Hartle envision quantum tunneling as an event that converts a preexisting closed universe into a continually expanding universe".

Do you have a better idea --- sans intention --- to explain the existence of our spacetime universe, gradually being deconstructed by Entropy, yet populated by highly-evolved beings who question their origins? Do you take your worldview on faith, or have you done the math? :nerd:

PS___ In a previous post you said a First Cause is plausible, but not an intelligent or logical FC like Plato's Logos. Presumably just dumb matter. How then do you explain the existence of Living & Intelligent beings in the real world? Isn't "brute fact" just a cop-out on a philosophy forum? That's the crux of Chalmers' "hard problem". Material science typically stops at the "boundary" of the Big Bang. But some scientists, such as Hawking, feel philosophically compelled to postulate "no boundaries" in order to legitimize their forays into quantum "speculation" and conjecture.


*1. Yes, the Big Bang theory is widely considered the most accepted theory explaining the origin of the universe, with a vast majority of scientists supporting it based on substantial evidence like the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) and the observation of an expanding universe.
___Google AI overview

*2. Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning
A recent challenge to Stephen Hawking’s biggest idea — about how the universe might have come from nothing — has cosmologists choosing sides.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

You might be interested to know that this book got a savage review in the New York Times from David Albert, who is a professor of physics and expert in interpretations of quantum physics: — Wayfarer

Yes. Meyer's book discusses such alternative Something From Nothing theories in his chapter : The Cosmological Information Problem. He says Krauss' book "attempted to describe how material particles emerged from preexisting energy-rich fields in a preexisting space" : the hypothetical Quantum Foam*1. Meyer also notes that physicist Alexander Vilenkin "showed a keen sense of the paradoxical or even contrary aspects of invoking a mathematical equation developed in a human mind as the cause of an actual universe". Talk about violations of Parsimony! Which is simpler : a preternatural creative quantum Field (theoretical framework in a human mind) or an eternal creative Intellect (analogous to a human mind)? :wink:

PS___ Meyer goes on to ask "how can a mathematical equation create an actual physical universe?" Then, he quotes Stephen Hawking, who asked "what is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"


*1. "Nothing" turns out to be "Quantum Foam" with the laws of Quantum Mechanics already built in.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/1esl10/can_someone_explain_lawrence_krauss_a_universe/

But whether the world is a product of intelligent design is precisely what is at issue. You can't just assume it and then make inferences from it. — Clearbury

I agree. In my thesis, I begin with the "assumption" that the world is as defined by Physics : a dynamic cosmos*1 of Matter, Energy, and Laws. But Einstein equated Matter with Energy. More recently, the Mass-Energy-Information equivalence principle of physicists Melvin Vopson and Rolf Landauer condensed three physical principles into one : Information --- the power to inform ; to give form to the formless ; to create meaning in a mind.

Moreover, the third factor of physics is Law : organizing & governing principles that are most often expressed in terms of abstract Mathematical relationships : Logic. Laws are also defined metaphorically as-if they are the intention of a powerful rule-maker. Yet in practice they are simply regularities that allow a society or a world to operate smoothly & efficiently, and in conformance to the Will of the ruling authority.

Combine that multi-purpose physical power with the psychological factor of meaningful/useful Information, and you can begin to see the influence of something like a human mind : intelligent and wilful. If you doubt that the human mind has causal powers, just look at something like the Birj Khalifa tower in Dubai. Can you imagine something that impressive occurring by accident, or by natural processes, or without confidence in the causal power of a human idea : tallest building in the world? Have you ever seen a mountain with elevators and air conditioning?

So physics has reduced three principles down to one : Information*2 --- Causation & Meaning & Logic. In my thesis I call it EnFormAction*3. In your experience, where can you find all three of those factors in one place? Hint : the human mind. If you don't see any signs of Causation, Meaning and Organization in the world, then Science and Intelligent Design are not for you. :smile:


*1. Cosmos :
Usage of the word cosmos implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity.
The cosmos is studied in cosmology – a broad discipline covering scientific, religious or philosophical aspects of the cosmos and its nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos

*2. What is Information?
what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
___Oxford Dictionary
Note --- The arrangement and sequence of things is what we call Order or Organization.

*3. EnFormAction :
# Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of every-thing in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
# All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
# The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- Philosophically, causal-controlling-constructive EFA can be favorably compared to Schopenhauer's Will : "a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge". How does a blind, unconscious, aimless pig find an acorn? Seldom.

BURJ KHALIFA

Your speculation referred to a "world-causing mind", and you also suggested it has intentionality. Why think this unknown state of affairs is a mind and that it acts intentionally? Labelling it "mind" suggests it has some minimum set of properties common to all minds what are these? — Relativist

Yes. I have concluded that this material world had a mental origin. That inference is based primarily on the ubiquitous role of Information in the world. I won't attempt to justify that conditional (non-faith) belief in this thread. But it has been explained step by step in the Enformationism thesis. The bottom line is that Information is both mental and causal*1. It's found in human minds in the form of Ideas, and it operates in the material world in the form of Energy. So, I have deduced that the Source of every thing and every action in this world necessarily had properties in common with both Minds and Energy. So, depending on the context, I label that unidentified Source the Enformer, or the Programmer, or the First Cause.

At the beginning of Philosophy, Plato called the universal principle of the world Logos, to indicate that rational relationships are the structure of reality & mentality & mathematics. Aristotle called the origin of all change in the world Prime Mover, which we would today refer to as Energy. With the exception of those I have dialoged with, few posters on this forum are aware that physicists have equated Energy with Information*2. If you don't believe me, you can Google it.

The book in the OP does not make that kind of argument. But it does use beaucoup scientific "facts" to define the logically necessary properties of the Cause of the Big Bang. The author identifies that Cause with his biblical God, but for unstated scriptural reasons, not scientific theories. So, if you ignore the scriptures in the background, what you have left is what Blaise Pascal sarcastically labeled "the god of the philosophers" as opposed to the god of theologians. It's also not the god of pragmatic scientists. So the scientific evidence must be interpreted philosophically, in order to explain what existed before the beginning of the material world : metaphorically, what's north of the north pole. :smile:

*1. Here's an abbreviated sample from the thesis :

From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self :
One thing that all of these examples of leading-edge science have in common is a prominent role for Information. Not the mundane stuff you get on Google, but the essential stuff as defined by Claude Shannon. In his analysis of communication, he saw that data flows in a manner similar to electricity in wires. Meaningful information is equivalent to potent Energy as opposed to depleted Entropy. Yet in a larger context, Information also has the ability to give meaningful or useful or valuable form or shape to some raw, unformed material. Information is full of potential as opposed to the emptiness of Entropy.

Inspired by that potent metaphor, along with some insights from Quantum Theory, I have concluded that Energy actually consists of Elemental Information. On the most basic levels, such as laws of physics, that invisible “in-formation” is equivalent to the numerical relationships we call mathematics. According to my developing thesis of Enformationism , as we zoom our perspective from micro (smallest) to macro (human scale) to cosmic (largest), the information we find becomes more and more condensed, compressed, and solid, and then it begins to fade away back into the same ethereal stuff it began from.

This is an essential part of the cycle of evolution: the Ourobouros (snake biting tail) information cycle---what goes around, comes around. In other words, evolution begins and ends as information. In the process, this proto-energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes form–-like Proteus, the shape-shifting sea-god of the ancient Greeks.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page5.html

*2. Information is Energy :
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

The development of complexity over time is consistent with statistical thermodynamics. See this. — Relativist

I agree. But only if you include in the statistical analysis a complementary principle (law?) to counteract the destructive effects associated with Entropy. My name for that constructive principle is Enformy. :nerd:

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce Complexity & Progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preternatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

How do you account for your "world-causing mind" having the ability to design a complex universe that will produce life over the course of billions of years? Did it acquire knowledge by trial and error, and reasoning? — Relativist

The default religious answer is Omniscience. But I don't pontificate beyond the bare facts of an inexplicable beginning. Everything else is amateur speculation. And your guess is as good as mine. But, of course, I prefer mine.

The First Cause is a philosophical principle, not a religious deity. But, if you want to conjecture : perhaps an eternal Being passes the timelessness by creating model worlds and learning from failures how to make a world that lasts over 14B sol-cycles.

I don't post on this forum just to parrot scientific facts from "experts". The philosophical fun is in conjecturing beyond what meets the eye, by means of informed inference : reasoning. :smile:

Usually the design proponent likens the designer to an all-powerful, omnibenevolent god, who would prefer universes with life in it, but that has problems too when you think about all the suffering that goes on in the natural world.

Still, like I said earlier. Suppose all you know is that a universe designer exists and you're presented with a universe that lasts a trillionth of a second before it collapses in on itself. Out of all the designs it could have come up with, it settled on that one? I would be surprised. Wouldn't you? — RogueAI

The typical "omnibenevolent" designer proposal would be a Straw Man argument on this thread. The OP indicates that Stephen Meyer carefully avoids advocating the "omnibenevolent" bible-god, and focuses his attention on the scientific evidence for an intelligent First Cause.

Your second point is more to the point, except that it assumes the Designer created a Big Bang, which like fourth of July fireworks explodes into a puff of dust*1 full of suffering for sentient beings. Sounds like the human rocket scientists whose trial runs self-destruct after a few seconds.

Yet, that's not what the science says happened. Instead, the ongoing creation event was a sudden expansion of cosmic Potential from a mathematical Singularity seed (computer operating system) into a self-sustaining (14B years) Evolution of novel Variations (mutations ; options) to be naturally Selected based on criteria in the Initial Conditions (preset values for a computer program). De-selection might involve suffering for variables that don't pass the fitness filter. Would you be surprised if you observed such an unlikely event from your privileged position as a philosopher in the nothingness of pre-space? :nerd:

PS___ If you were raised to believe in an omni-benevolent God, as I was, you might be disappointed to go out into the real world, and discover that it's not all benevolence & blessings. My philosophical First Cause is intelligent & creative, and pragmatic, but not loving. Something like the Vulcans of Star Trek.

*1. God's Debris : A Thought Experiment - Scott Adams
https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Debris-Experiment-Scott-Adams/dp/0740747878

ROCKET SCIENCE


COSMIC DESIGNER


COSMIC EVOLUTION

Are you suggesting the world came from nothing? This would entail a temporally prior state of nothingness, which is metaphysically impossible. — Relativist

No. Just the opposite. I agree that such a notion is "metaphysically impossible". Lawrence Krauss wrote a book named A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. But, his "nothing" turned out to be a strange sort of something : a fluctuating quantum field, complete with governing laws and empowering energy. So, his "nothing" simply meant "no gods".

And yet, his powerful & lawful mathematical field has most of the characteristics of a First Cause, including Reason in the form of mathematical logic, but excepting Intention in the form of an idea to be implemented. Do you act with Intention? If so, how do you think that ability to foresee the future emerged from nothing but random fluctuations? :nerd:

You're assuming the Big Bang was the beginning of material reality. I don't think many cosmologists would agree with you on that. We simply don't know what preceded it. I believe the past is finite for philosophical reasons: it would imply a completed process of infinitely many, temporally sequenced steps — Relativist

Apparently, since you "don't know" the cause of the beginning, the "speculative" Multiverse hypothesis --- "infinitely many, temporally sequenced steps" --- must be just an article of faith for you. I agree that "we don't know what preceded" the Big Bang. So, any preternatural Cause we might postulate is a shot in the dark. That's why I am not a Theist or a Multiversist, but an Agnostic speculating philosopher.

Yet, lack of hard evidence has never deterred philosophers from reasoning about the unknowable. Therefore, just as astronomers reasoned backwards from current conditions to guess at the original state of the cosmos, I observe the world 14B years after the Big Pop, and reason back to the logically necessary conditions required to explode a near-infinite universe into being. One of those conditions is the Potential for Life & Mind must have preceded the Bang. :wink:

The multiverse is a speculative idea that's not considered proven, and there's no direct evidence that it exists. ___Google AI overview

Although some scientists have analyzed data in search of evidence for other universes, no statistically significant evidence has been found. Critics argue that the multiverse concept lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential for scientific inquiry, and that it raises unresolved metaphysical issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

So...you think it MORE probable that a intentional being (with enormous power and an enormously complex mind) that happens to exist uncaused is MORE probable than the gradual development of beings with small power and limited intellect over the course of billions of years in an enormous universe! (fully consistent with entropy, as described in statistical thermodynamics)? — Relativist

Yes. We no longer debate the evidence for "gradual development", just take it for granted. What we do debate is how that process began : by accident or by design? If you don't see evidence of Design in the world, then your definition of "design" may be different from mine. In college, I participated in a Design by Accident exercise, and the lesson learned was that the result of accidents is Chaos instead of Cosmos.

Please note that I make no assertions about a "complex mind". Instead, the world-causing mind is assumed to be Simple in the sense of unitary, yet with enormous Potential. The complexity of our universe came into existence when infinite Potential transformed into finite Actual in an "enormous" act of Creation. Prior to the Bang, Infinity/Eternity is a simple all-inclusive concept implying "all things possible".

Moreover, it is obvious that the Cause of the Big Bang possessed "enormous power". Regarding the notion of "uncaused first cause", perhaps we should just say "eternal Cause". Which would apply to a God or a Multiverse. If you prefer to think that random rolling of dice produced our lawful and orderly world, I can't prove otherwise. But you can't prove that the initial conditions (like computer settings) just happened without intention. That's a belief, not a fact. :smile:

The point is, the mere fact that something improbable has occurred is not at all remarkable. It would be worth investigating only if it were a statistical anomaly. — Relativist

I'm not competent to judge the statistical improbability of a universe popping into existence, from who knows where or when or how. But if anyone is qualified, perhaps Nobel laureate Roger Penrose is the guy. In a previous reply to Relativist, I noted :
Obviously, Roger Penrose's interest has been piqued by the improbability of our existence. So, he has taken the time to put a number on that near impossibility. If the calculated odds of 10^10^100 to 1 do not sound like a miracle to you, then you may be impervious to philosophical curiosity. :cool:

I think they would argue that the personality of the designer is an extrapolation of the designers we know and there is some basis for assuming a universe designer would prefer non-boring universes. If all you knew was that there was a universe designer, and you were shown this universe, would you be surprised by it? Not surprised at the particulars (e.g., the moon is that exact size and Saturn is exactly X amount of miles from the sun), but rather surprised the universe the designer designed is full of complexity and life? — RogueAI

That is exactly why I don't claim to know anything about the hypothetical designer of the universe. As an agnostic, and Bible unbeliever, I have no direct revelation from God, and no personal relationship. But I do have professional training and experience as a designer (architect). So I feel that I know something about how design works : from immaterial idea (concept) to material instantiation (something that did not exist before).

For example, if the product of design is "full of complexity and life", I must assume that the designer intended to create that kind of product/result/embodiment. Also, the designer must have the potential (creative & constructive power) for such characteristics. A human designer can have one of many personality types. But the Cause of a whole universe must have the potential for all possible types. Not just the tyrannical ruler or loving father personalities. :nerd:

Quantum indeterminacy fits this, but it seems applicable to any conceivable form of contingency.

I'm inclined to believe there is a "first cause" (F) - something that exists uncaused (i.e. its existence is brute fact). F is not contingent, because there is no prior cause to account for (F or ~F). Therefore F exists necessarily. This (assumed) fact of a first cause does not entail a being that acts with intentionality. As I said in my above post to RougeAI: It seems less probable that a designer just happens to exist (uncaused) than that a universe such as ours just happens to exist (uncaused/undesigned). — Relativist

I agree that Quantum Indeterminacy (randomness) is a factor in physical contingency : this before that. But the Ontological contingency of the whole world --- something from nothing --- would be a priori instead of a posteriori. Hence, the fundamental randomness of the physical world must be either an improbable accident*1, or something like an intentional act of a cosmic Designer, in order to allow free choice in both physics and in psychology. In other words, the existential path into the future is not pre-determined, but is post-determined by acts and choices within the world system.

Your probability estimate*2 would be plausible if the universe was eternal and exists (just happens to be) without any reason or cause. But the Big Bang beginning of space-time raises the question of what came before (e.g. timelessness, changelessness). And the odds of accidental creation of a dynamic universe*3, and questioning sentient creatures, would seem to be astronomically unlikely.

You said "first cause does not entail a being that acts with intentionality". That's true, the Big Bang could have been a cosmically destructive explosion, instead of the creative beginning of a world of living and thinking creatures. But the improbability of accidental existence of a 14billion-year-train-wreck, which produces sentient beings who act with intention, does imply an intentional act of creation. :smile:


*1. Improbable Accidental Existence : with no criteria for judging (posterior probability), such a conclusion would not qualify for probability or credibility.

*2. Bayesian probability criteria include:
Posterior probability: The updated probability after considering evidence
Prior probability: The probability before considering evidence
Likelihood: The probability of the evidence given the belief is true
___ Google AI overview

*3. The Accidental Universe :
Physicist Paul Davies gives a survey of the range of apparently miraculous accidents of nature that have enabled the universe to evolve its familiar structure of atoms, ...
https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Universe-P-C-Davies/dp/0521286921

The Accidental Universe :
Physicist Alan Lightman speculates, without evidence, on the prior eternal existence of an infinite Multiverse that blindly & accidentally spawned the living and thinking universe that we know and love. Mverse is a god-model without any redeeming features, other than winning the lottery once in a zillion years. A blind pig sometimes finds an acorn.
https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Universe-World-Thought-Knew/dp/034580595X

"Extremely" contingent? Doesn't that just mean extremely improbable? How is that different from what I said? There are many different ways the universe could have evolved, and each of them is improbable. When all possibilities are equally improbable, it's a certainty that the outcome will be improbable, so it's not anomolous (and not "miraculous"). — Relativist

No. Actually, "contingent" means dependent on some outside force*1. The contingent state, absent some causal input, is indeed "improbable", in the sense that nothing changes. A static state has indeterminate possibilities, and no probabilities. This unchanging state is "anomalous" in the sense that it has no properties, no probabilities, and nothing to relate to.

Imagine a hypothetical pre-big-bang state, whose only property is an arbitrary definition (like Zero or Infinity), and in which all alternative states (patterns of properties) are equally possible --- and "equally improbable" --- because none are actual. Then input some outside force to upset the balance of non-existent internal forces. The effect of that input is to cause a new state, a pattern change. And the new state is contingent upon the causal force*2. Therefore, the new state --- in this case a new world --- is contingent upon some Aristotelian First Cause*3.

The Contingent Cause is "miraculous" in that it comes from outside the natural system that we have evidence for. It's "anomalous" in that it's unpredictable or unexpected : a bolt from the blue. It's "improbable" in that nothing changes without some input of Energy, Force, Causation.

Prior to the Big Bang theory, scientists could confidently assume that the universe itself was self-existent. But the undeniable evidence from Cosmology*4 is that our temporary world is contingent upon some external causation. Which philosophers for millennia have labeled as First Cause, Logos, or God. What would you call the Contingent Cause that precipitated the Big Bang and the emergence of space-time*4 from a background of who-knows-what?*5 The only alternative to space-time is Infinity-Eternity. :smile:


*1. The meaning of CONTINGENT is dependent on or conditioned by something else.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contingent

*2. A contingent cause is a cause that explains the existence of a contingent being, which is a being that could not have existed. The cosmological argument is a line of reasoning that uses the idea of contingent beings to argue for the existence of a necessary being. ___Google AI overview

*3. First Cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (i.e., God) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/first-cause

*4. According to the widely accepted Big Bang theory, spacetime began approximately 13.8 billion years ago when the universe rapidly expanded from a tiny, dense point known as a singularity, marking the start of both space and time as we understand them. ___Google AI overview

*5. The cause of the Big Bang is still a mystery, but scientists have many ideas:
Quantum physics shows that some events happen randomly and without a cause. This means that the Big Bang might not have had a cause, or that we might not be aware of it. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Those random events occur only within the context of space-time-matter-energy. Hence the mystery (miracle?) of an unexplained beginning to space-time. Your guess is as good as mine, and that's why Ontology is a perennial topic of debate for philosophers.

Interesting point of view. Personally, I see no signs of intentionality or teleology. My impression is that those who believe they see it, are basing it on a retrospective analysis of the chain of events that resulted in our existence. Such an analysis shows that our existence is grossly improbable.
Why should that matter? Improbable things are bound to occur in a vast, old universe.

What do you mean by "the contingency of ontology"? It seems to me that the fundamental ground of existence is metaphysically necessary (whatever it is), and the only contingency in the world is quantum indeterminacy. — Relativist

Ontology is the philosophical & metaphysical science of Being, the Why of Existence. If that question does not interest you, then you do you, and I'll do me. Obviously, Roger Penrose's interest has been piqued by the improbability of our existence. So, he has taken the time to put a number on that near impossibility. If the calculated odds of 10^10^100 to 1 do not sound like a miracle to you, then you may be impervious to philosophical curiosity.

When Richard Feynman became frustrated with quantum physicists dabbling in philosophy, he quoted Mermin : "shut up and calculate". Unsurprisingly, Penrose, a mathematical physicist, did just that. And he concluded, not from a "retrospective analysis", but from analysis of gravitational singularities --- such as the Big Bang --- that our actually existing Cosmos is extremely contingent : an unpredictable Chance event, or a miracle?.

Then he, perhaps jokingly, referred to the Cause of that "grossly improbable" existence as the work of a Cosmic Censor. That reminds me of Darwin's hypothetical Selector who censored (to weed out) the unfit random possibilities put forth by the Evolutionary mechanism, allowing only the fittest to go on to the next stage. You can choose your own analogy for an ontological censor. Most people call it "God". I call it Primordial Cause.

Yes, improbable things do happen in our ancient world. Yesterday, my alma mater's pitiful football team beat the odds to defeat a team supposedly bound for the national playoffs. Yet Penrose's odds do not apply to our space-time world, but to a hypothetical time before time. If such fortuitous events don't matter to you, that's OK with me. Just don't tell me that I shouldn't speculate or conjecture about the original ontological event on a Philosophy Forum. :smile:

PS___ I may address the Intentionality question in another post.

Cosmic censorship hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_censorship_hypothesis

Thus, no explanatory advantage comes from positing a designer. The odds that there would be a designer who wanted the universe to turn out that way is the same as the odds that chance would produce it. — Clearbury

Actually, that is a key difference between my notion of a cosmic designer and Stephen Meyer's. His creator is the God of Genesis. Mine is not. I have no revelation about what the designer wanted, but I do see signs of intention in such features of the world as Fine Tuning of the original Singularity state. So, lacking any specific information about the designing/programming entity, I simply call it the Cause of our Cosmos.

"Design" is a philosophical inference from data (such as fine tuning) not an observed fact of Physics. Even "Fine-Tuning" is an inference, and "fine" relative to what? So you can feel free to draw your own conclusions from the sparse available evidence. My inference from the contingency of Ontology is that the finite world is not self-existent. Hence, some pre-existing Cause is a logical deduction.

Which is why cosmologists have imagined a variety of non-God alternative Cosmic Causes (e.g. Multiverse ; Many Worlds) for which there is no physical evidence, but only metaphysical inferences. Long story short : I don't think the Cause of the Big Bang "wanted the universe to turn out that way". Instead, the initial conditions of the universe --- like the computer settings of Evolutionary Algorithms*1 --- were intended to be loosely bound and open to a variety of outcomes.

In other words : Free Will (maybe Schopenhauer's Will). So, the intention of the Programmer was to allow the universe to find its own state path through a limited set of possibilities. Hence, homo sapiens was just one instance of a googleplex of possibilities, not the apple of god's eye. :nerd:

*1. An evolutionary algorithm is an evolutionary AI-based computer application that solves problems by employing processes that mimic the behaviors of living things. As such, it uses mechanisms that are typically associated with biological evolution, such as reproduction, mutation and recombination.
https://www.cognizant.com/us/en/glossary/evolutionary-algorithm

Well, now the odds that there would be a designer who wanted the universe to turn out the way it actually did, is 1 in 10 trillion. And that is the same probability that it would just turn out that way by chance. (And again, it does not matter what the odds are, the odds are the same either way). — Clearbury

You seem to interpret the probabilities to be in favor of random chance. But Roger Penrose --- Nobel laureate and certified mathematical genius --- reached a different conclusion. His Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis*2 used the notion of a negative "Censor" (a suppressor of something) instead of a positive "Designer" (creator of something) to characterize the "unimaginably precise fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe". He showed that there were 10^10^101 possible configurations of mass-energy, but only one actual arrangement (the singularity/seed) that cosmologists have inferred to be the origin of space-time and everything we now experience.

So, "the number that Penrose calculated -- 1 in 10^10^123 -- provided a quantitative measure of the unimaginably precise fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe". Does that sound like a dumb accident to you, or an intelligent intentional censorship of zillions of possibilities to allow the design of a cosmic system with only a single pattern of 26 cosmic & physical constants? :smile:


*2. According to Roger Penrose's theories, the possible entropy values for the universe at its initial state are considered to be extremely low, bordering on a state of near-perfect order, which is a key component of his "Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis" and the idea of a "low-entropy initial condition" for the universe. ___Google AI overview

You're inviting scorn quoting Discovery Institute entries on this site, most people won't even look at them. I'm wary of them also, even though I agree with ID proponents about the philosophical shortcomings of naturalism and I do look at that site from time to time. I've read the reviews of Signature in the Cell and I don't think it's all bullshit. It's more that I find their reading of the Bible more problematic than the science. — Wayfarer

Oh, yes, scathing scorn is the default philosophical argument for faithful Naturalist/Materialists. And they don't seem to be aware of the deficiencies of their own alternative explanations. You seem to be unafraid to go against the grain of this forum. Why do you even bother? As long as their slings & arrows are made of information & ideas instead of mass & matter, I will survive.

I knew going in that I would get knee-jerk responses to Intelligent Design arguments. But the Discovery Institute is careful to present arguments that could make sense, not just to true-believers, but also to those with some extensive knowledge of modern science. And Meyer's book is exemplary in its appeal to reason instead of faith. There is no "reading of the Bible" in the book. And there is no "come to Jesus" chapter. It's just a thorough presentation of atheist arguments in favor of a random Chance world, along with counter-arguments to refute them.

Atheist Physicist Leonard Susskind --- A Chorus of Big Bangs ---is quoted saying "without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the the ID (intelligent design) critics." So, Stephen Meyer has provided a comprehensive summary of the questions to be answered. He also gives several scientists an opportunity to respond, so you can see both sides of the design controversy, presented rationally and without rancor.

I have never bothered to read the various Intelligent Design books, in part because I was raised to believe in the designer they are defending. Now I'm looking for evidence of a different kind of designer : one who designs with intelligent Information instead of thus-saith-the-lord. Causal Information (e.g. physical energy) is the kind of creative Intelligence that my non-religious science-based worldview is grounded upon. So, on that point, I am in agreement with Susskind*1. :smile:



*1. Leonard Susskind said Information is indestructible. What kind of information does he mean?
Information is key in the universe. The universe needs to constantly "compute what the present must be like".
https://www.quora.com/Leonard-Susskind-said-Information-is-indestructible-What-kind-of-information-does-he-mean

I think there is another, quite independent, way of undermining the argument from fine-tuning. — Clearbury

We only have evidence for one Big Bang and a single Singularity. So, are you placing your Faith in an imaginary chance-driven infinite series of bangs (Multiverse) to try-out all those alternative settings? Sounds like a new twist on a medieval Scholastic theory for the same old eternal creator deity, except presumed to be blind, deaf & dumb (e.g. Tychism) instead of cosmically intelligent.

Another enthusiastically postulated alternative explanation to avoid the implications of deliberate (non-chance) tuning of Big Bang settings was the 26 dimensional String Theory, which blossomed into dozens of weird variations, none with any supporting physical evidence. Would you believe that String Theory was motivated, not by scientific inquiry, but by the discomfort of scientists with the design implications of Big Bang fine-tuning? ST was supposed to fix the "flatness problem". Yet, as Meyer said in the book : "both the homogeneity and the flatness problems are only considered problems by those who regarded the existence of fine tuning a problem".

Today, String Theory has been abandoned by most physicists because it was leading them down the rabbit hole. Beside, some of its essential predictions (supersymmetry) have failed to materialize over 20 years. So, the fine-tuning evidence remains a problem for those who prefer an accidental universe. Has your alternative produced any plausible evidence, besides elaborate estimates of cosmic odds? :smile:

The Greek goddess Tyche is the goddess of chance, fortune, and fate. ___Google AI overview

The "flatness problem" in the Big Bang theory refers to the observation that our universe appears to be very close to perfectly flat, which would require incredibly precise initial conditions in the early universe, making it seem like a strange coincidence that the density of matter was just right to achieve this flatness; essentially, if the density had been slightly higher or lower, the universe would be significantly curved instead of flat today. ___Google AI overview

String theory is a complex theory that has been the subject of much debate and skepticism. While it has passed many mathematical and theoretical tests, it has not yet been proven to be the fundamental theory of nature. Some say that string theory has been superseded by other theories, while others say that the theory has been extended but not progressed much in understanding the physical world. ___Google AI overview

It's a pretty carefully put-together OP, but on an unpopular topic. — Wayfarer

The OP was intended to be a book review blog post, for an almost non-existent audience. But at the last minute, I thought, hey why not stir-up some controversy on the Philosophy Forum? At least I get more feedback that way. Unfortunately, most of the feedback is of the Ad Hominem and Straw Man type, as I expected. Consequently, I haven't learned much so far. :smile:

PS___Although I don't agree with Meyer's religion, I find his scientific summaries to be very well done.

Frankly, I can't help what I beleive. I have read enough to know something of what's out there and I was for many years connected to the Theosophical Society in Melbourne, so it's not like I sit with Dawkins.

For me, philosophy is not so much a search for truth or reality but a search for models and ideas that I can justify. Sure it's fraught. But so are most other approaches. — Tom Storm

Sure you can. Adjusting your own beliefs is a primary goal of philosophy. The alternative is Blind Faith in an adopted model devised by others. My goal is to construct a belief model of my own. It's similar to some others, but also different.

In college I looked into Theosophy. Like Masonic philosophy, I can see the appeal of the general worldview. But I don't have any experience of Mysticism, so I can't relate to the ecstatic communion with God.

Dawkins has been described as an "angry atheist", but I found him open-minded enough to admit that Deism was not contrary to Science. :smile:

This sounds defensive. — Tom Storm

My mashup of 180 and T.Storm comments was indeed defensive. He aggressively and dismissivley attacks my posts with implications that my personal ideas are merely parroted religious doctrines. Since I no longer dialog with him, I sometimes get in a Parthian shot in a post to someone else. I apologize if the arrow came too close for comfort. :yikes:

PARTHIAN SHOT

Hmm, the borrowed quote is not quite right. Slumber is fine - do you know how difficult it is to get a good sleep? Dogmatic - no. I have no inflexible commitments to any particular account of reality as explained. — Tom Storm

Sorry! I was not calling you "dogmatic", only hinting that your chosen philosophical perspective might be missing something that is right under your naturalist nose, so to speak. I appreciate the moderation of your posts. Some other methodological Naturalists are so dogmatic that I don't waste my time dialoging with them. :smile:

I don't think I know any materialists. I would avoid the word materialists and swap it with naturalists, as most would now describe themselves - materialism being understood as too reductive. I would probably consider myself a methodological naturalist but not a metaphysical naturalist. I have not ruled out idealism, for instance. — Tom Storm

Sure you do. You just don't like to rudely call a spade a spade. Do you see the deficiencies of metaphysical Materialism (Energy is physical but immaterial), that are glossed-over in sensable
Naturalism?

From a biased perspective of Methodological Naturalism, any super-naturalism would be invisible and unthinkable. Does the supernatural Multiverse hypothesis make any sense from your perspective? Does Plato's Idealism expand your perspective to include General Principles that are known only via rational inference instead of sensory perception? :smile:


Energy is considered a physical quantity that describes the ability to do work, but it is not a material substance; meaning it cannot be physically touched or seen, unlike matter, and is only observed through its effects on objects or systems. ___Google AI overview

As I’ve often said, belief in gods—or in any supernatural guiding principle—is more like a preference, akin to sexuality. — Tom Storm

For philosophers, such as Plato & Kant, General Principles are inferences, not preferences. Whether they are "guiding" may be more like a gender preference. For Gnomon, they are like Laws of Nature : known only by inference from observing the behavior of the dynamic world. :smile:

However, do you agree 'there is a naturalist (or anti/non-supernaruralist) worldview' of the few in contrast to 'the supernaturalist (or anti/non-naturalist) worldview of the many'? — 180 Proof
Yes, I think that's fair. I dislike The Atheist Worldview because it belongs to those ignorant talking points of Muslim and Christian apologists who have to turn the discourse into a team sport. — Tom Storm

Do you agree with 180's slur that anyone who discusses the nature of Nature on a philosophy forum is a "New Age nut", or perhaps a "Muslim and Christian apologist". Is that an Ad Hominem or a Red Herring or some other fallacy, used to avoid grappling with difficult questions? Are Ontology & Cosmology disallowed in your philosophy? Both attempt to view Nature from the outside. :smile:


Cosmology is the study of the universe's nature, including its origin, development, structure, history, and future.. Google AI overview

In philosophy, a "privileged viewpoint" refers to a perspective or standpoint that is considered to provide a more accurate or complete understanding of a situation due to the unique position or experience of the person holding that view, often implying that this perspective is superior to others due to their specific access to knowledge or insights not readily available to others; this concept is closely tied to "epistemic privilege" where someone has privileged access to certain knowledge, like their own thoughts, through introspection. Google AI overview
Note --- Both Muslims and Christians claim to have access to a "privileged viewpoint" on questions of Epistemology and Ontology. Gnomon does not make such a claim.

But for me as a non-scientist, non-philosopher, I do not have the luxury to speculate about the nature of reality. I leave that to the people with qualifications and stratospheric IQ's. My own preference is that the nature of reality is mostly unimportant and has no bearing on how I conduct my life. — Tom Storm

OK. I apologize for disturbing your "dogmatic slumber". :smile:

“I freely confess: it was the objection of David Hume that first, many years ago, interrupted my dogmatic slumber,” says Kant in the Preface to the Prolegomena

A monkey randomly hitting the keys of a typewriter will eventually produce something resembling all the works of Shakespeare.
These points were made by Hume, but I don't see that anything in the opening post challenges them. — Clearbury

The imaginary random monkey Bard seems to be an article of faith for some believers in providential Chance. Meyer's book does address the mathematical implausibility of the typing monkey myth. The OP does address Hume's argument, by noting the modern scientific facts that he was ignorant of. :smile:


Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-monkey-unable-hamlet-lifetime-universe.html

Richard Dawkins’s Weasel Program Is Bad in Ways You Never Dreamed
The program “evolves” a string of gibberish letters into a line from Hamlet: “Methinks it is like a weasel.”
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss_weasel/

Just as you insist on putting atheists into fanatic scientism boxes? ( :wink: that's just a quip) — Tom Storm

A quip from the hip! :joke:
No, I don't put Atheists into "fanatic scientism boxes". That would be Materialists, who imagine that they have a special relationship with Science. I have another empty box, with no label, for Atheists. My box is also empty, and labeled "Agnostic but Inquisitive". :smile:

PS___ Do you know any Atheists or Materialists, who would like to discuss the philosophical ideas in the OP, instead of just putting them in a pigeonhole that can be easily dismissed as bird-sh*t?

Yet, the Atheist worldview seems to focus mainly on Entropy, which promises to de-evolve inevitably toward cold dark heat death. — Gnomon
There is no atheist worldview. This is a talking point from William Lane Craig. — Tom Storm

I assume you are saying that there is no specific Atheist dogma. Likewise, there is no single Theist creed. But I was thinking about a general attitude toward the world, that varies between Theism on one end and Atheism on the other. My personal view is somewhere in the middle. As far as my Christian relatives are concerned, I qualify as a hell-bound Atheist and unrepentant unbeliever. :wink:

Atheist Worldview :
Atheism is a label that describes a person's answer to the question of whether or not they believe in a god, but it doesn't define their worldview. Atheists typically believe that the existence of a god is unlikely and that there is no good reason to believe in one. However, an atheist's worldview can vary widely, and they can hold a variety of beliefs and values. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Based on my philosophical research over many years, I have concluded that the existence of something like a First Cause/Creator is not only "likely", but also logically necessary. And Meyer's book gives some philosophical & scientific reasons for reaching that deduction from available evidence. I assume that W. L. Craig has come to a similar conclusion, but he's also a "Christian apologist", I am not. Also, due to my dabbling in Deism, the Atheists on this forum probably would not accept me into the cool-guy club. :cool:

I'm more interested in the emotional need such cosmology satisfies. It seems to me that some people need answers to certain quesions, others don't. I often wonder why that is.
Does the argument from contingency interest you too? — Tom Storm

Sounds like you are trying to put me in a fervent religious nut box. But I am by nature and by nurture a Stoic dispassionate person. So, I don't have any visceral "need" for a slam-dunk cosmology or authoritative assurances of answers to vexing questions. My intellectual rejection of the biblical basis of my childhood religion was not accompanied by strong emotions. And yet, I had been told by my religious authorities that eternal Hell was the destination for unbelievers. So, it took a while to get over that uncertainty about my eternal destiny. But I no longer worry about such mythical maybes. Do you have some "emotional need" that motivates you to post on a philosophy forum? Apparently, I do have some intellectual need to ask philosophical questions. Do you? :nerd:

"Argument from contingency" ? No, I've never given that Scholastic reasoning much thought. But the scientific Big Bang theory portrays our space-time world as Contingent (e.g. not eternal): hence without a plausible First Cause, the Cosmos is open-ended and un-defined. Is that OK for you? Apparently, some scientists are bothered by that discrepancy, so they make up just-so stories about 26-dimensional String Worlds, Multiverses, Parallel Universes, and Many Worlds, none of which is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, no more valid than any God postulate. :smile:

The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm

I have even developed a science-based personal worldview that qualifies as an "-ism" (philosophical system). — Gnomon
Why have you found it important to do this? — Tom Storm

I explain the whys & wherefores in great detail in the Enformationism thesis and blog. As the name implies, it is based on the expanding role of Information in 21st century science, and has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Yet, the Materialist worldview seems to focus mainly on Entropy, which promises to de-evolve inevitably toward cold dark heat death. That negative attitude is contrary to the positive outlook of some religions, which are viewed as mawkishly optimistic, and needs to be suppressed by any means necessary.

However, my philosophical perspective centers on Energy (negentropy ; EnFormAction) as the causal & organizing force behind the progressive stages of evolution that modern science has discovered since the Big Bang creation event. The basic facts are well established, but the interpretation of those data points remains to be worked-out, not by pragmatic scientists, but by theoretical philosophers.

Why is it important? Ask Plato and Aristotle why they produced non-religious theories that have influenced the world for 1500 years. Like them, I remain Agnostic about the pre-bang source of Natural Laws (Logos) and of cosmic causation (First Cause). I don't expect salvation from the Entropic Reaper. But I have nothing better to do with my retirement time than to dabble in Ontological & Epistemological philosophy. :smile:

Enformationism :

This website is a place to explore the meaning and ramifications of a new philosophical and scientific hypothesis that I have chosen to call Enformationism. The term spelled with an "I" had already been used elsewhere in various contexts and meanings, so I looked for an alternative name. Since the new scientific term Enformy was already in use, with a meaning similar to what I had in mind, I simply chose to change the spelling of my proposed coinage.

This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.

I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

It often feels to me that these kinds of arguments come from former devout Muslim or Christians who in the deconstruction of their faith need to salvage some notions of teleological purpose, but frame them in a scientific language to, perhaps, feel less embarrassed about the conclusion. — Tom Storm

The Intelligent Design movement did originate as a response to the aggressive New Atheists in the late 20th century. And their ID arguments were directed mainly at believers who might be swayed by the authority of well-known scientists. But in the intervening years, think-tank organizations such as the Discovery Institute have recruited practicing scientists who can reconcile scientific "facts" with their religious beliefs. Stephen Meyer is one of those experts, and he is not in the least "embarassed" by his controversial conclusions.

Consequently, they can go toe-to-toe and fact-to-fact with the New Atheists, without resorting to "thus saith the lord" assertions. So, I was impressed by Meyers' scientific acumen and his ability to construct plausible philosophical arguments from known scientific facts. However, he makes no attempt to convince the reader of any particular religious creed. Besides, I long ago concluded that the Christian Bible, which was the sole authority for my childhood religion, is not the revealed Word of God, but the tribal myths of priests. So, while I respect the book for its literary importance, I don't accept its jurisdiction in matters of scientific or historical fact.

Nevertheless, I have independently reached the conclusion that the universe, as depicted by a broad array of scientific facts, shows signs of Teleological Evolution (e.g Anthropic principle). But I doubt that the Mind behind the design is the kind of God-king depicted in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. So, while I practice no religion, and remain Agnostic about the implicit designer/programmer, for my philosophical purposes I take Teleology seriously. I have even developed a science-based personal worldview that qualifies as an "-ism" (philosophical system).

My personal "-ism" has been repeatedly attacked by the trolls on this forum, apparently because they feel the need to "salvage" their own "devout" Atheistic metaphysical beliefs. Hence, they typically resort to Ad Hominem and Straw Man arguments instead of scientific or philosophical reasoning. Yet, I posted this thread with the hope that such a hot topic can be discussed calmly and reasonably and philosophically. This assumes that few of us are experts in Physics or Biology or Cosmology. So, we need to remain humble enough to avoid haughty or supercilious attitudes.

Therefore, the topic to be addressed is not Christianity or Islam or Jehovah or Allah, but the notion of trial & error Evolutionary Creation of the current cosmos over eons from law-like Initial Conditions as discovered by Astronomers, not Astrologers. It's a modern concept that was unknown to the writers of ancient scriptures. But 1500 years ago, Greek philosophers postulated the necessity for philosophical principles, such as Logos or First Cause, long prior to our modern notions of Initial Conditions or Big Bang beginning. Can we treat this hot topic, not as a hot potato, but as a legitimate philosophical conundrum? :smile:

So, is it the case that it is just the ultra-wealthy and elite supporting their own candidates? What are your thoughts on the matter of the medium being dominated by conservatives more-so than democrats, and what does this actually mean about having their talking-points heard more than one or the other? — Shawn

Historically, politics has been reserved by and for the rich & powerful, leaving the masses (hoi polloi) to meekly accept whatever policies are decided at the top. Athens had a brief experiment with Democracy, but only for a minority group of nobles & landowners. Even when the unwashed masses were excluded, Plato was skeptical & sarcastic of such a political mechanism : "Democracy... is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike". But he later came to view popular rule as inherently "corrupt and unjust"*1 ; hence his imaginary ideal leader was a Philosopher King. Unfortunately, such rational, ethical, and egalitarian leaders have proven to be rare among the opposing interest groups of human politics.

Modern Democracy has been experimenting with allowing the unruly & irrational & gullible mobs of the masses to have a vote in state policy. But even where universal education is established, the majority of self-interested voters have proven to be no more rational & philosophical than the ego-centric minority of ambitious oligarchs. And both groups are easily swayed by clever con-men, who learn what the various vested interests want to hear, and feed their heart's desires back to them in the form of simplistic myths (MAGA), and by making controversial & ambiguous statements that the mass media feel compelled to cover. He dominates unpaid media exposure by playing to their bias toward covering fears and faith. :smile:


*1. What did Plato say about democracy?
At the death of Socrates, Plato concluded that democracy was a corrupt and unjust form of government. He left Athens and traveled for a few years before returning in 387 B.C. to establish a school of philosophy.
https://teachdemocracy.org/online-lessons/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-19-4-c

↪Gnomon
I read Federico Faggin's 'Silicon' last year, and have started his 'Irreducible'. This last one is difficult material and there's a lot about it I don't understand, but there are some elements beginning to crystallise. — Wayfarer

Since you have already started, maybe I should leave it to you to digest the book into its fundamental elements, and then post your understanding on the forum, for those of us less erudite.

Ancient Atomism postulated that everything in the world can be reduced down to a fundamental/elemental particle of matter. Yet modern Quantum Theory assumed that everything could be reduced down to an irreducible mathematical measurement (quantum)*1 : e.g. a bit of energy (photon)*2. But Planck attempted to define mathematically the smallest "irreducible" units on the quantum scale*3. The quote below says that the lowest limit of measurement is mental not material.

So it shouldn't be surprising that scientists have not been able to "touch bottom" in the ocean of matter. Eventually, they temporarily gave up on the search for an irreducible particle of matter, and instead postulated the Quantum Field as the fundamental element of reality --- so they could "shut up and calculate". Ironically, that "field" is a mathematical construct, not a material object, and the dimensionless "points" are imaginary locations in space, with no material extension --- nothing physical to measure; only metaphysical math.

Since the Irreducible "Atom" of physics turns out to be Immaterial, it's understandable that such ghostly concepts are difficult to understand, and to translate into our materialistic language*4. :smile:


*1. What is a Quantum? :
In physics, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Quantum is a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents. ___Wikipedia

*2. Photons are light quanta that do not have mass or a size because they are neither a wave nor a particle, but both. However, the size of a photon perpendicular to its velocity is constant and is expected to be as small as 10−20 meters. {Meters??? 65 feet!}
___Google AI overview

*3. Is there anything smaller than the Planck scale? :
It is not impossible for anything to be smaller than the Planck length. It is impossible for the laws of physics as we understand them today to describe anything smaller than the Planck length. That is a limit of our ignorance, not a limit of the Universe.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-smaller-than-a-Planck-length-1

*4. Irreducible Mind :
Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates empirically that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms.
___Amazon Books

Folllowing this and his awakening, he rejected scientific materialism as an inadequate foundation for exploring and understanding the nature of consciousness, which has significance for both AI and the relationship of the quantum and classical physical domains. In the new book he takes the next step and attempts to articulate a fully-formed idealist philosophy of quantum and classical physics, consciousness, computers and meaning - technically known as the whole enchilada. — Wayfarer

I've never had anything close to an "awakening" or "mystical experience", but like Faggin, I did have a sudden insight --- upon reading a quantum physicist's unexpected conclusion, while trying to make sense of enigmatic sub-atomic reality --- into the Life & Mind problem of modern physical science and metaphysical philosophy. Speaking of aethereal Photons and other Leptons, he concluded, "it's all information". To which I might add : "all the way down". Or as you said : "the whole {holistic} enchilada".

After further investigation, my subsequent thesis, Enformationism, is a mashup of Materialism and Idealism, based on Einstein's equation of Matter & Energy, and later conclusions of physicists that Energy is a physical form of Causal Information : what I call Entention. Physicists can't say what Energy is in material terms, but only what it does : Cause change (action) in the material world. For sentient humans, Information is whatever causes a change in their mental state : e.g. Knowledge.

Although Isaac Newton assumed that God was the ultimate cause of all change, his Classical Physics was generally compatible with a materialistic worldview. But Quantum Physics introduced some concepts, such as Fields and Entanglement, that don't fit the materialist model. Nevertheless, I try to avoid the trap of Quantum Mysticism, by assuming that both Materialism and Idealism are true, in their appropriate contexts. That's what I call my BothAnd philosophy. Why can't I have it both ways? :smile:


"Driven to understand consciousness, Faggin realized that “if we hypothesized that consciousness and free will are irreducible properties of nature, the scientific vision and narrative of reality would radically change and legitimize a profound spirituality, with unexpected consequences for both science and spirituality.”
____Amazon review of Irreducible
In my own thesis, all matter & mind in the world reduces down to causal EnFormAction (power to cause changes in form), as the precursor to physical Energy and to mental Information (meaning). Ultimately, fundamental EFA might be related to what we call Free Will or Schopenhauer's Will as the causal force in the world. My motivation for the thesis was mainly scientific and philosophical, but I suppose you could also call it "spirituality" by contrast with monistic materiality.

Mostly? :yikes: — Wayfarer

Ha! You caught my tongue-in-cheek implication that the Cosmos might consist of something other than, or in addition to, Matter & Energy. I think both are forms of Causal Information : EnFormAction. :joke:

As far as panpsychism is concerned - please have a read of the post I entered in the Quantum Classical thread about Federico Faggin. I'm just dipping my toe in those particular waters, but it's a very different conception of panpsychism, based on the conjecture that consciousness is a quantum field state, not an attribute of what we understand as matter. Perhaps the universe is part of the fabric of consciousness. — Wayfarer

Panpsychism*1 [panP] seems to be a popular --- among theoretical scientists --- post-relativity and post-quantum alternative to traditional simplistic Materialism. The ancient form of [panP] may have been a primitive philosophical attempt to understand Animation (Vital Energy), and the inexplicable behavior of iron & magnets*2. But this modern resurrection of an outdated worldview seems to be a response to such anomalies as the Observer Effect in quantum experiments*3.

My own update is what I call Enformationism*4, which you might say, jumbles together concepts of Panpsychism (all mind) with PanDeism (all god), and with modern Information Field theory (all ratio/logic/relationship). A significant portion of my amateur philosophical/science thesis is based on the universality & ubiquity of the hypothetical (immaterial) Quantum Field, which seems to be nothing but mathematical ratios (logic) and relationships (meaning). Would it be worth my while to read the Faggin book? :nerd:



*1. What is the panpsychism theory?
Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality.
https://iep.utm.edu/panpsych/

*2. Yes, panpsychism is an ancient philosophical concept that originated with pre-Socratic thinkers. It's the idea that all things have a mind or mind-like quality, and that the mind is a fundamental aspect of existence. . . . . Panpsychism was a key part of the cosmology that led to the development of philosophy.
___Google AI overview

*3. Quantum panpsychism is a theory that combines panpsychism with quantum mechanics to explain consciousness and reality.
___Google AI overview

*4. Quantum Surreality :
So if your curiosity gets the better of you, and you start to follow the rabbit down the hole to Wonderland, be prepared to develop your own defenses against the perplexity of paradox. Because, as Alice observed, "it just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser". Quantum Theory began as a serious scientific investigation into physical reality. But it opened Pandora's box, for religious and philosophical crackpots, when word got out that sub-atomic physics was essentially the same thing as metaphysics. This thesis will attempt to substantiate that controversial assertion, but not necessarily the imaginative inferences drawn from it.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page7.html

Philosophically, the key term is 'prior to'. There is temporal priority, coming first in a sequence of events. But then, there's also ontological priority, of what is more fundamental as matter of principle. — Wayfarer

Our Cosmos, at least since the Big Bang, appears to consist mostly of Matter & Energy : Temporal Priority. But some of that gravitationally-influential matter/energy now seems to be missing in action : Dark Energy & Dark Matter. And the BB theory has no explanation for the original source from which the matter/energy emerged into space-time : Ontological Priority. So, which came first : the Ontological Chicken or the Epistemological Egg? :wink:

"Some scientists and philosophers believe that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, and that the mind is a fundamental quality of the universe."
___Google AI overview

Is Consciousness Part of the Fabric of the Universe?
A theory called panpsychism proposes that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality . . . .
The concept proposes that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, like mass or electrical charge.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-part-of-the-fabric-of-the-universe1/

If it was either of the options you gave, it would be part of the Mind element. Now what I call the reputational self is internal and is about how you see yourself, and how you perceive (ie estimate, hypothesize) that others see you. I think those two things are closely linked and can be confused or conflated by the reputational self. And I mean everyone's reputational self, not just Trump's. The reputational self serves a function analogous to the public relations department of a large organization. Its job is to represent 'this brain and this body' to others. And we can all start to believe our own publicity. — GrahamJ

Some years ago, I worked with a woman who had a shapeless obese body, but a pretty face. She would take selfies that carefully excluded the body. I suppose the cropped pictures agreed with her "representational self".

Trump's political appearances seem to use a similar strategy to tobacco companies, promoting the myth instead of the reality. His "genius" is not in business, but in persona public relations. So, the voting public elected a presidential persona. :smile:


A persona is a public image of someone's personality, or the social role they adopt. It can also refer to a strategic mask of identity that someone uses in public.
___Google AI overview

The New York Times Confirms Trump Is a Genius :
contrasting the Trump myth with the reality embedded in the tax returns. . . . .
— Trump is a phony, who really is not that great at business after all. . . . .
“Trump’s image is a sham”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/29/the-new-york-times-confirms-trump-is-a-genius-422837

Trump Company public relations reputation :
The Trump Organization, the company led by former President Trump and his family, finished last in an Axios Harris survey of brand reputations for the second year in a row.
https://thehill.com/business/4016738-trump-organization-finishes-last-in-brand-reputation-survey-for-second-straight-year/

Three stages of self - Damasio — Gnomon
Thanks for the link. Note that the figure you provided is not Damasio's, it's one of the other figures from the linked article. — T Clark

Sorry. Under the heading of "Three stages of self - Damasio" I picked the one that looked most like a diagram instead of text-based tables. :yikes:

Diagram : Structure of the self. — Gnomon
That is a diagram of something else, but it is good to see reputation being mentioned. (I might say more later.) — GrahamJ

Here's a Diagram of the Self as proposed by Damasio --- also from ResearchGate. It's much more complex than the previous image, but may be more like what you had in mind. Click or Double-click the image to enlarge.

Did you look at the You Tube video? How do you think the Body Transfer Illusion is related to the Self Concept?

How would you interpret the Reputation element of the diagram? Does it refer to how a person sees himself, or to how the person thinks others see himself? This might be relevant to President Trump. :smile:

Three stages of self - Damasio
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Three-stages-of-self-Damasio-17_fig3_282489228

It would be nice to have some kind of diagram where Damasio's and Seth's ideas appeared fairly close together, because they are of the same general type, — GrahamJ

FWIW, this simple diagram is from Research Gate*1, and not directly related to Damasio or Seth. It does show Mind & Body as separate categories (boxes) within the general concept of subjective Self.

The Self-Concept is an object of internally-directed conscious attention, not an external material object as represented subjectively by the brain. To represent Introspection you can rotate the externally oriented "I" Arrow to point toward either Mind or Body.

Everything within the dashed circle is imaginary. Ironically, the material body can be seen as external to the self, or vice-versa, as in the Body Transfer Illusion*2. I suppose the Conscious Observer is the mysterious Me*3 in the middle. :nerd:


Diagram : Structure of the self.

*1. ResearchGate is a European commercial social networking site for scientists and researchers to share papers, ask and answer questions, and find collaborators.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shanyang-Zhao/publication/278066526/figure/fig1/AS:391771524747264@1470417018018/Structure-of-the-self.png

*2. Body Transfer Illusion :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_transfer_illusion
You Tube : https://youtu.be/sxwn1w7MJvk?si=tsKNydlCLjFNkRXt

*3. Self/Soul :
The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
This imaginary Me is a low-resolution construct abstracted from the complex web of inter-relationships that actually form the human body, brain, mind, DNA, and social networks in the context of a vast universe.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html