I believe absolute fundamentality can only really be found in the void itself, as a property of space one might say. — punos
God is a something from nothing and isn't necessary as the universe could be eternal without intelligent design. God just complicates the matter. I find it easier to contemplate a perpetual causation than the idea of something from nothing. To say that God is eternal yet never does anything (cause anything to happen) is to relegate the notion of god into meaninglessness. How would we know how many Big Bangs have occurred before ours if god is eternal?I too, postulate a philosophical god-like First Cause*1 as an explanation for the something-from-nothing implication of Big Bang theory. The Multiverse hypothesis just assumes perpetual causation, with no beginning or end. — Gnomon
More like how stuff would stop existing, it wouldn't. Stretching the imagination doesn't always mean learning new things, it could be delusion too. — Darkneos
It doesn't mean any of that at all. To say that they're still objects while never being able to point to objects, only processes, is stretching the imagination as a delusion.But they're still objects and that's what leads us to giving a damn about anything. If it's just a process then who cares because that would mean nothing exists... — Darkneos
Perhaps, prior to the 20th century, a self-existent universe may have been plausible. But the astro-physical evidence of a singular point-of-origin for space-time made our cosmos seem contingent upon some outside force. Also, the laws of physics indicate that our evolving space-time world, began with high energy and low entropy, and will eventually end in a Big Sigh*1. Moreover, "Perpetual Causation" is an illicit violation of the second law of Thermodynamics, unless an inexhaustible source of Energy can be found outside the finite physical system we find ourselves dependent upon.God is a something from nothing and isn't necessary as the universe could be eternal without intelligent design. God just complicates the matter. I find it easier to contemplate a perpetual causation than the idea of something from nothing. — Harry Hindu
On a philosophy forum we expect to have disagreements. But we also have a right to expect the disputes to be articulated in calm rational counter-arguments ; instead of infantile schoolyard name-calling with big words, such as "Dunning-Kruger", as a supercilious way to call someone an idiot, and get it past the forum censors, who frown on ad hominems.Really great post! — PoeticUniverse
Thank you, although i'm sure others might not agree. :smile: — punos
:yawn:But the astro-physical evidence of a singular point-of-origin for space-time made our cosmos seem contingent upon some outside force. — Gnomon
This would be a problem for your god as well. As I pointed out before, for you god to exist eternally prior to the universe it would have to have done something, move, think, etc. to exist at all, which would require an inexhaustible source of energy. It seems to me that you're saying that god did not exist until it created the universe.Moreover, "Perpetual Causation" is an illicit violation of the second law of Thermodynamics, unless an inexhaustible source of Energy can be found outside the finite physical system we find ourselves dependent upon. — Gnomon
If intelligence needs an intelligent creator then why would god's intelligent mind not need a creator?Also, the emergence of human intelligence, has yet to be explained in terms of Biology & Physics. So, some kind of apriori creative Mind is a philosophically reasonable account for that explanatory gap. — Gnomon
This isn't creative thinking. This is projection - anthropomorphizing the natural properties and laws of the universe.But there's no law against philosophical speculation is there? Is it pseudoscience or merely creative thinking? — Gnomon
When bullied by a forum troll, the best thing to say is nothing. That's why I long ago stopped responding to my own philosophical gadfly, who doesn't know what he doesn't know. Since he considers himself to be superior, he doesn't need my opinions anyway. My role now is to warn others being browbeaten to use the best pest control : silence. It doesn't affect him, but leaves him isolated in an echo chamber. :cool:Although i agree with you, i'm not sure what to say or how to say it. — punos
Thermodynamics is not a problem for "my god"*1, because it is not a physical system subject to natural laws, but the source of those laws. This Platonic First Cause*2 did not exist as a real thing, but as an Ideal Potential. Potential doesn't do anything until Actualized. Aristotle's Prime Mover doesn't move, because it's the Unmoved Mover. Infinite Eternal Potential --- not limited by space-time --- is, by definition, an "inexhaustible source of energy". Space-time energy is doomed to entropic anihilation ; so where did our limited supply come from?This would be a problem for your god as well. As I pointed out before, for you god to exist eternally prior to the universe it would have to have done something, move, think, etc. to exist at all, which would require an inexhaustible source of energy. It seems to me that you're saying that god did not exist until it created the universe. — Harry Hindu
Space-time energy is doomed to entropic anihilation ; so where did our limited supply come from? — Gnomon
I didn't particularly like this film, but i did love this scene. It's just a reminder for those that know, and a lesson for those that don't. — punos
Thermodynamics is not a problem for "my god"*1, because it is not a physical system subject to natural laws, but the source of those laws. This Platonic First Cause*2 did not exist as a real thing, but as an Ideal Potential. Potential doesn't do anything until Actualized. Aristotle's Prime Mover doesn't move, because it's the Unmoved Mover. Infinite Eternal Potential --- not limited by space-time --- is, by definition, an "inexhaustible source of energy". Space-time energy is doomed to entropic anihilation ; so where did our limited supply come from? — Gnomon
The First Cause concept may seem like Dualism from your perspective, but it's Monism*1 from mine.:roll: Here we go again... dualism on a runaway train. How does a system not subject to natural laws become a source of those laws? — Harry Hindu
It's traditionally called Creation Ex Nihilo. But in my non-dual version it's called EnFormAction : the power to create something new, not from nothing, but from infinite Potential. We don't know anything about infinity or omnipotence, but we have the mental power to imagine such non-things as Zero, Infinity and Mathematics (e.g. transcendent functions). Again, nothing dual here, just a finite world existing as a limited-but-integral component of an infinite singular non-physical whole : the Monad*3. According to Leibniz, you can't get any simpler than Unity. But according to Virgil, you can get e pluribus unum. I feel sure that such philosophical profundities are not too "complicated" for you ; if you think outside the physical box (metaphysics). :nerd::roll: Here we go again... dualism on a runaway train. How does a system not subject to natural laws become a source of those laws? — Harry Hindu
Yes. The architect of our cosmic habitation apparently was designing for non-divine inhabitants who are subject to the same natural laws as the house itself : gravity, entropy, cause & effect. If humans were supposed to be angels, we would be walking on clouds in heaven. Instead we are temporary tenants, not owners. We are no more divine than the other tenants, including rats & roaches. But we do have an extra clause in our lease : we get to complain to the landlord. And self-maintenance is in the contract. But you-break-it-you-fix-it is the rule. :halo:Whatever cosmic architect drew up these plans
Clearly wasn’t thinking about the tenants; — PoeticUniverse
But the answers I get make even less sense than the wikipedia entries on it and so I figured I'd try to ask it on here to see if anyone knows what it is and what it means, because I just get more lost on it. — Darkneos
This is a continuation of my previous post. In which I noted that Whitehead's book seemed to be arguing in favor of Idealism/Mathematical Platonism, and against Materialism/Empirical Realism. Since those conflicting categories (physics vs metaphysics) are commonly cussed & discussed on this forum, I was motivated by your OP to look more deeply into what Whitehead was trying to say. Were you approaching the book from a scientific/materialistic perspective? If so, the book might be contrary to your personal "common sense".But the answers I get make even less sense than the wikipedia entries on it and so I figured I'd try to ask it on here to see if anyone knows what it is and what it means, because I just get more lost on it. — Darkneos
A similar categorical difficulty emerges from Quantum Physics, which concluded that physical particles of Matter (quanta) are ultimately waves of Energy (processes). Again, which is more real or useful depends on your perspective*4. — Gnomon
"Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think" and "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." — Gnomon
But then, Quantum Mechanics came along and made a mishmash of step-by-step deterministic mechanisms at the foundations of physical reality. And Quantum Uncertainty made even the existence of subatomic particles appear probabilistically fuzzy & conceptually immaterial*3 — Gnomon
Apparently, the philosophical implications of this revolutionary New Science created perplexities that jolted his old viewpoint and informed his new worldview. — Gnomon
“You’ve touched the heart of the matter at last:
The teaching’s not meant to deny what is vast
And present before us, but free us to live
Unbound by the concepts we cling to so fast.” — PoeticUniverse
I consider myself a physicalist, which is to say everything is either physical, or the consequence of physical events. When you mix that with Process Philosophy, you get a view of the mind where it makes sense to say "the mind isn't physical, but the mind IS the result of physical events - the mind is the consequence of physical processes". — flannel jesus
. Werner Heisenberg : “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
Note --- What we conceive is not necessarily what we perceive. — Gnomon
:smirk:
As I see it, this is why ...I'm beginning to see why [process] philosophy never really took off. — Darkneos
That assertion depends on how you define "real". If your interest is in statistical mathematical predictions, picturing the wave crests of a quantum field as billiard balls will work. But if you define material objects in terms of definite location & mass, those mathematical particles seem to be more like waves of energy.That’s a common misunderstanding on quantum physics and not actually what it says. Particles are real. — Darkneos
So your unnamed "physicist" is saying that the pioneers of quantum physics didn't understand the philosophical implications of statistical (versus deterministic) quantum mechanics. Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc, all used philosophical metaphors in their attempts to make sense of the non-classical results of their experiments. That Quantum Theory works is not disputed. But what it means, in terms of philosophical worldview*1, remains open to question a century later.Apparently, the philosophical implications of this revolutionary New Science created perplexities that jolted his old viewpoint and informed his new worldview. — Gnomon
Based on what the physicists told me there are no philosophical implications, just people who don’t understand it saying there are. — Darkneos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.