Is god an "It"?

CraigC wrote:

Current thinking is that Particle Physics, i.e., matter as we understand it today, makes up only 5% of the universe - something called Dark Matter (which we do not know what it is) is 25% and something called Dark Energy (which we don't even have any good theories about) is 70% of the universe.

If we don't even know 95% of "what's out there", how could we begin to describe what made "what's out there"?

Good question, but I don't think of god as a maker of anything. I see god more as the ground on which everything emerges.

Aaron wrote:

Good question, but I don't think of god as a maker of anything. I see god more as the ground on which everything emerges.

In my emerging worldview, G*D is the "ground of all Being" but also the "First Cause" of all beings. If so, then by definition, G*d is the "maker" of everything that follows. The Creator is the cause of the Creation. n'est pas?

What if God/Universe came into being spontaneously. That would be the ultimate irony. Creation wouldn't have been created. The atheists would be right yet wrong. Sort of kicks the argument from design in the head though.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

What if God/Universe came into being spontaneously. That would be the ultimate irony. Creation wouldn't have been created. The atheists would be right yet wrong. Sort of kicks the argument from design in the head though.

Thats basically the argument I make in my book.

Gnomon wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Good question, but I don't think of god as a maker of anything. I see god more as the ground on which everything emerges.

In my emerging worldview, G*D is the "ground of all Being" but also the "First Cause" of all beings. If so, then by definition, G*d is the "maker" of everything that follows. The Creator is the cause of the Creation. n'est pas?

I understand what you are saying however the whole maker/made, creator/created relationship is very dualistic. It alludes to a god that is separate from it's creation. That may be the case, but that's not how I view god myself.

I view everything from "the ground of being", to the emergent creative process, to the creation itself, as distinct aspects of the same "thing" and I call that "thing" god.

Aaron wrote:

I understand what you are saying however the whole maker/made, creator/created relationship is very dualistic. It alludes to a god that is separate from it's creation. That may be the case, but that's not how I view god myself.

I view everything from "the ground of being", to the emergent creative process, to the creation itself, as distinct aspects of the same "thing" and I call that "thing" god.

Actually my G*D concept is deliberately non-dualistic. But the wholistic cosmology expressed in my essay INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION may be hard to grasp, if you are not familiar with 21st century Information Theory and related concepts, such as Memetics.

If you think of the Creator as a spirit being, and the Creation as a physical entity, then the world will seem to be completely non-god. But if you imagine G*D as an eternal and infinite MInd, and the universe as an idea in the mind of G*D, then you will see that they are both made of the same indivisible substance: Information, or as I call it: In-Form-Action.

The key to my "enlightenment" was the emerging understanding of Quantum theorists that physical matter and energy are ultimately made of information. I'm sure that sounds counter-intuitive, but it fits perfectly with Claude Shannon's technical definition of Information, as immaterial relationships, that unleashed the digital revolution.

The Mathematics that serves as the foundation of modern science is also nothing more than ratios and relationships. So it seems to me that atheistic 19th and 20th century science is moving inexorably toward a new paradigm: that the essential substance of the universe is insubstantial information. Hence, everything you see around you is a physical "illusion" of metaphysical "reality". Thus I conclude that you and I, our bodies and our souls, are part and parcel of the mind of G*D. We are Holons in the divine Holarchy.

Here's an entry from the IE glossary. Does it remind you of Morphogenesis or Autopoesis?:


Generic Information
Information is almost always defined in terms of its context or container. Raw In-Form-Action has few, if any, definable, perceivable qualities. By itself, Information is colorless, odorless, and formless. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, Information gives physical form to whatever contains it. Like DNA, Information shapes things via internal rather than external constraints. Like the Laws of Physics, Information is the motivating & constraining force of physical reality. Like Energy, Information is the universal active agent of the cosmos. Like Spinoza's God, Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World. Information is the divine, promethean power of transformation. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility.

I agree with your metaphysical view. It would also seem to fit the traditional Platonic view of emanation and evolution where "the One" creates the world through a series of emanations. The traditional chain goes something like this:

"The One" is composed of "pure" Spirit (or In-Form-Action). Spirit throws itself "down" and crystallizes as Soul. Soul throws itself "down" and crystallizes as Mind or Logos. Mind throws itself "down" and crystallizes as Prana or Life (or energy). Prana throws itself "down" and crystallizes as matter.

From there it goes back up the other way around. Matter evolves into Life, Life into Mind, Mind into Soul and Soul into Spirit.

stretmediq wrote:

The Paineful Truth wrote:

What if God/Universe came into being spontaneously. That would be the ultimate irony. Creation wouldn't have been created. The atheists would be right yet wrong. Sort of kicks the argument from design in the head though.

Thats basically the argument I make in my book.

Do you there suggest an impetus for creation?

Gnomon wrote:

Quote :

The Mathematics that serves as the foundation of modern science is also nothing more than ratios and relationships. So it seems to me that atheistic 19th and 20th century science is moving inexorably toward a new paradigm: that the essential substance of the universe is insubstantial information. Hence, everything you see around you is a physical "illusion" of metaphysical "reality".

But as you point out, our genetic information is contained in a physical, real world double helix, just as the universe contains the quantum computer that determines its natural laws. The only metaphysical part is its supernatural origin or inexplicable spontaneous creation.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Do you there suggest an impetus for creation?

Here is an excerpt from my book:

stretmediq wrote:

Just because something can happen doesn’t mean it will happen so whatever else you can consider can be thought of as not existing without contradiction- but not “God”. The Earth didn’t have to be formed, neither you nor I had to be born but “God” must exist. And because the relationship between It and nothingness is so elementary It can be described as being as basic as that of a straight line to one that curves back in on it’s self. “God”, then, is the simplest possible structure but contains within It all the complexities that can ever be. And therein lies the solution to what I believe is the most vexing problem in Deism. How can a “God” with no influence upon the world create that same world? This way:

Schrodinger’s wave theory of matter we discussed earlier suggests the universe could be thought of as a “ripple” of pure mathematical patterns of probability expanding outward through a higher medium (awareness) the same way they do when a stone is tossed into a still body of water. This is compatible with the concept of the Prime Observer as a perfectly smooth, closed, self-referential concept because, utilizing a technique developed by the French mathematician Jean Baptiste Fourier, for instance adding together all possible waveforms will produce a straight line (because you can't divide zero if you had no line you would get no wave).Take the set of all waves of a certain amplitude you could draw out on a sheet of paper. There are an infinite number of frequencies in such a set so they would be out of phase. Therefore there would always be a peak of a wave that would fall in between the peaks of any other two waves, no matter how close they are to each other, filling in every possible gap. And the same would be true of their negative deflections so every positive point would be countered by a negative one, the two would cancel out leaving a line marking their midpoint. Bending that line back in on itself will give you a perfect circle that can then be spun on one axis to create a sphere which is analogous to the collapse of a concept to a stable state (remember this model is only for convenience in thinking about something far beyond our experience but it does illustrate how an infinity of possibilities can be hidden in one simple concept, personally I think a Klien bottle would better but that is too complicated for this short piece).

It also appears to be somewhat similar to popular explainations of a new school of thought in physics called “M” or membrane theory which describes the cosmos as waving sheets of energy. The neutrality this model requires can be maintained while allowing the distortion in It’s “surface” necessary for the emergence of the world if and only if those convolutions are perfectly balanced. That is for every positive deflection there is a negative one that exactly equals it. In this way a "Prime Observer" can cause the world to exist without actively "creating" it because there is no net change in "God" as a whole and thus It remains immutable.

This implies that universes may occur in pairs just as science says particles tend to do at the quantum level. Twin universes, one positive and one negative, that are exactly equal in value could even explain why there is no appreciable amount of “anti-matter” in our world even though it is commonly produced in the laboratory along with its “matter” counterparts. But these similarities do not mean they are mirror images. At this level all neutrality means is that the initial waveforms that emerge be balanced. But after its formation each individual universe may evolve in a completely different way from its sister guided by nothing more than its own internal dynamics. For example both sides of the equation “7+2+1=5+5” have an absolute value of “10” even though each term is expressed differently.

Imagine each world is like the circumference of the base of each nappe of a cone spreading out from the vertex from which the "rules" that describe and define them emerge. That is whether it is a right cone or an oblique cone and if it is the latter to what extent it is skewed. Since they have a common point in the vertex they would have common "laws" that govern them after they separate. But once they are separate they are on thier own.


Things happen because they can happen and they can happen because those things don’t result in contradiction. And since there are an infinite number of ways a smooth surface may be distorted and still retain Its overall neutrality it follows that as long as they don't depend on decoherence there may be an infinite number of possible worlds with thier own laws of physics, set amount of energy, number of dimensions, etc... that may emerge spontaneously as precipitates from the "ground of being" I call the Prime Observer simply because they have the potential to. We just happen to live in one that is conducive to life. Therefore there is no need to postulate a "creator". But infinity does not excuse explaination.

Absolute nothingness is paradoxical and thus can not exist. The concept of nothingness, however, does exist but is self-contradictory (a concept is not "no thing" it is an idea that represents "nothing") and therefore it is unstable so it must collapse into a state that is stable but in order to do that it has to have something in common with that state. Since the only property I can say nothingness has is it is a concept, I can only reduce it to something else that is also a concept and because concepts by definition must be observed by a mind that fundamental state can only be a concept that is self-referential (since there is nothing else to see it) and thus all it has to do is bend back on itself. So this is not "nothingness" observing itself but instead it is a stable closed, and thus self aware, concept that because of It's neutrality may still define "nothingness" while at the same time giving potential to everything else. But that is all I can conclude from it. Even though consciousness appears to me to be the basis of existence, and the reason there is something instead of nothing, because the world seems to be a mere epiphenomenon I see no evidence of any purpose other than that we make for ourselves.

If there is no divine purpose to the world we may now also dismiss Pascal's wager as unnecessary. If the world is a mere epiphenomenon then there is no commandment to believe in "God" so there is no advantage to believing in "God". It is simply a matter of weighing the evidence available to you and deciding for yourself if it makes sense or not.

Postulating God as a solution to a problem is called the "Argument from Incredulity". It is nothing more than an assertion to fill in "gaps" in knowledge. I don't believe I've done that here. By definition there simply are no gaps for a "non-creator God" to fill. It is the "ground of being" but nothing more than that.

So basically all it says is that while there is good reason to hold consciousness is the basis of all reality there is no need to suppose the world was decreed. Instead it may simply be a precipitate of what I call the Prime Observer.

That's really good Stret! Very well written and enjoyable.

stretmediq wrote:

This implies that universes may occur in pairs just as science says particles tend to do at the quantum level. Twin universes, one positive and one negative, that are exactly equal in value could even explain why there is no appreciable amount of “anti-matter” in our world even though it is commonly produced in the laboratory along with its “matter” counterparts. But these similarities do not mean they are mirror images. At this level all neutrality means is that the initial waveforms that emerge be balanced. But after its formation each individual universe may evolve in a completely different way from its sister guided by nothing more than its own internal dynamics. For example both sides of the equation “7+2+1=5+5” have an absolute value of “10” even though each term is expressed differently.

Yes, I think our views on metaphysics are actually very close. What you describe here is one of the reasons I chose the picture of the tree for my avatar. The tree's branches can't exist without it's roots and it's roots can't exist without the tree's branches. If you are a bird however you may be ignorant that the tree even has roots, and if you are a burrowing insect you may be ignorant that the tree has branches.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

But as you point out, our genetic information is contained in a physical, real world double helix, just as the universe contains the quantum computer that determines its natural laws. The only metaphysical part is its supernatural origin or inexplicable spontaneous creation.

My definition of Metaphysics is quite different from the modern, conventional use of the term. To me, ideas and information, including the enigmatic codes of DNA, are meta-physical.


META-PHYSICS
Literally “after” or “beyond” physics. ~ Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics”. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “meta-physics”. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter). ~ Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed. ~ I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology.

Stretmediq wrote:

Quote :

Absolute nothingness is paradoxical and thus can not exist.

Only if you assume that nothingness, like somethingness, requires an observer to exist or not exist. I do not make that assumption and I don't believe it's justified. Quantum physics is in the process, I believe, in abandoning that idea. The Big Bang and subsequent universe exploded and continues to expand into the nothingness that was there before It. Therefore, no paradox.

In any case, God, being metaphysical/supernatural, could establish a state of physical non-existence as He/It so chooses. If there were such a thing as the necessity of a Prime Observer, it could only be as a result of His/Its will--a will which He/It can apply as He/It sees fit.

Quote :

“God”, then, is the simplest possible structure but contains within It all the complexities that can ever be.

Yes. God=Truth.

Gnomon wrote:

Quote :

META-PHYSICS
Literally “after” or “beyond” physics.

That agrees perfectly with what I wrote: "The only metaphysical part is (the universe's) supernatural origin or inexplicable spontaneous creation." That says nothing about what came before or what is inside or outside of its physical limits.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Stretmediq wrote:

Quote :

Absolute nothingness is paradoxical and thus can not exist.

Only if you assume that nothingness, like somethingness, requires an observer to exist or not exist. I do not make that assumption and I don't believe it's justified. Quantum physics is in the process, I believe, in abandoning that idea. The Big Bang and subsequent universe exploded and continues to expand into the nothingness that was there before It. Therefore, no paradox.

I do not just assume that. I reached that conclusion based on the best evidence available to me. This is just a small part of the argument.

Your using an ambiguous definition of nothingness. Absolute nothingness and the concept of nothingness are two different things.

"Nothingness is not nothing" is most definately a paradox. That is why I believe there can be no such state. Just saying "non-existence exists" is absurd. But even though it is a triviality saying "existence exists offers no problems at all. That is how the paradox is avoided.

I am also quite aware of the current state of quantum physics. In fact I talk about it (and relativity and the efforts to reconcile them) quite extensively in my book. There is nothing in this model that conflicts with them.

You may have to scroll up to the beginning but here is a more complete version of the basic argument. However the sections on physics are much too complex to post here: https://panendeism.forumotion.com/deism-f4/the-paradox-of-nothingness-and-the-case-for-the-new-deism-t241.htm#1964

stretmediq wrote:

"Nothingness is not nothing" is most definately a paradox.

I was just reading in Antony Flew's book THERE IS A GOD, and was reminded of your argument regarding "the paradox of nothingness". In an appendix to the book by Roy Varghese, he critiques the "New Atheism" of Richard Dawkins, et al.

For example, regarding the essential symmetries of physical laws and constants, Victor Stenger asserted that " . . . nothing is perfectly symmetrical . . . Where did the symmetries come from? . . .They are exactly the symmetries of the void, because the laws of physics are just what they would be expected to be if they came from nothing." Stenger is drop-dead serious, even though his invisible agent "The Void" sounds like a spooky alien presence in a Star Trek episode.

Varghese responded, "Stenger's fundamental fallacy is an old one: it is the error of treating 'nothing' as a kind of 'something'." He goes on to say, "Absolute nothingness cannot produce something given endless time---in fact, there can be no time in absolute nothingness."

Stenger was attempting to explain why the universe did not need a creator. From Stenger's book, GOD: THE FAILED HYPOTHESIS, Varghese paraphrased the key idea, "that the emergence of the universe from 'nothing' does not violate the principles of physics, because the net energy of the universe is zero."

Such grasping speculations must still assume the prior existence of "a structured space-time, the quantum field, and laws of nature." Stenger makes no attempt to explain where those non-physical "structures" came from. If he did, his story would probably sound too much like the Deist concept of the eternal Ground of Being and the infinite "something" that we sometimes refer to as "God". Which, of course, would be just as absurd as the idea of getting something from nothing. Unless, of course, by "nothing" you mean no-physical-thing.

Gnomon wrote:

Stenger was attempting to explain why the universe did not need a creator. From Stenger's book, GOD: THE FAILED HYPOTHESIS, Varghese paraphrased the key idea, "that the emergence of the universe from 'nothing' does not violate the principles of physics, because the net energy of the universe is zero."

Here is my take on that from my book (don't be put off by the math, if you got a 'c' in pre-algebra in middle school you can understand this):

stretmediq wrote:

The cosmological argument says that if the cosmos (defined as what can be sensed as physical) cannot explain itself then an explanation must be found elsewhere. Einstein showed that the universe is a continuous energy field and the level of energy in it depends upon how much space curves overall. It may have a great deal of curvature locally but if the total curvature is zero because the energy of the outward expansion of the Big Bang is exactly balanced and canceled out by the force of gravity trying to pull it all back in then space/time is flat and there is no net kinetic energy to the universe as a whole...

An argument presents itself here and some philosophers have used this to try to make the connection between existence and non-existence; that the world is nothing more than a fluctuation in a vacuum similar to a virtual particle. This argument attempts to make a connection between something and nothing (if matter is just a form of energy it, too, is equivalent to zero or nothing) but in my opinion it actually fails because it uses the term zero (0) incorrectly.

To see for yourself what kind of problems can arise from the improper use of zero in mathematics study the problem below (the symbol ^2 denotes a square):

start with the equation: “a=b”
next multiplying both sides by “a” gives us “a^2 =ab”
subtract “b^2 from both sides to keep it equal “a^2-b^2 =ab-b^2
then factor “(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)”
now divide both sides by “a-b” “(a+b)(a-b)/a-b=b(a-b)/a-b”
giving us “a+b=b.”

If “a=b” and we make “a” equal to 1, then “b” also equals 1, but the last line of the equation states “a+b=b” or substituting 1 for “a” and “b” then 1+1=1 or 2=1. How can this be? If you go back and check all the steps there are no apparent mistakes in operation. This non-sensical answer arises when the equation “(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)” is divided by “a-b.” Until this particular operation is performed there are no difficulties. In fact the resolution of the problem up to that point equals an absolute value of zero. If “a=b” and both are equal to 1 then “a-b” is the same as 1-1=0 but dividing any number, even zero itself, by 0 (0/0 as is done here) is not allowed because it can lead to absurdities just like this if your not carefull (that point is the sole purpose of this demonstration, it is not meant to "prove" anything else so any other translation is a misinterpretation).

The reverse is also true. Zero divided by any number always equals zero:

0/2=0.

It would appear the proponents of this and similar arguments confuse 0 meaning “nothing” with 0 meaning “no difference”. In other words, it is ambiguous. It also violates a fundamental rule of mathematics, that is, zero divided by any number equals zero (half of nothing is still nothing).

In this case zero obviously means equilibrium, like a scale with 1 ounce of gold in each pan. The scale would read zero meaning no difference, but there would still be 2 ounces of gold. So I have no reason to conclude that uncertainty could explain the world “popping” into being like a virtual particle for the simple reason it seems that you must first have something to be uncertain about (besides even virtual particles need an infusion of pre-existing energy in order to become stable and thus “real” and where does that come from?). This doesn’t mean the universe isn’t flat. It very well could be, but this argument cannot be used to explain why it exists.

If the vacuum is a potential (as opposed to a kinetic) energy field and energy, regardless of form, is equivalent to matter (which is something) you can’t then assume the vacuum is the same as nothingness because, by simple logic, the vacuum must also be something (even “virtual” particles are dependent on the inherent uncertainty of a pre-existing continuum).

This argument violates the very foundations of the mathematics it is built upon (zero divided by two equals zero) and if you contradict the premise the conclusion you reach is invalid, so I have no reason to assume the cosmos, as described by this hypothesis, can explain itself. In fact as complexity appears to arise from simplicity, not the other way, around and a “flat” universe in which exactly half the energy in it is positive and attractive (gravity) and the other half is negative and repulsive (the outward expansion) seems to be the simplest possible physical description of the world I have no reason to assume a materialistic explanation can ever be found. This implies that there is something that must be pre-existent in order for the universe to exist. But what? And where did it come from? How can anything, even if it has no beginning in time, be created from nothing if such a thought violates the basic rules which led us here to begin with?

Basically what it boils down to is equating zero, meaning 'no difference' with nothing, meaning 'devoid of property' is an ambiguous use of terms and therefore a fallacy.

Here is how I arrived at the definition of absolute nothingness:

stretmediq wrote:

The relationships that terms in a sentence have to each other are defined by the copula, the linking word(s) connecting subject to predicate. We link words either positively or negatively with “is” or “is not”. Therefore the opposite of +2 is that which is not +2. The color orange is not +2. A television is not +2. Therefore in this example anything that is not +2 is an opposite, but we commonly don’t think of them as such. In fact we usually don’t think of them at all. Negating only one property between two objects only tends to illustrate their closeness to each other. True opposites would have nothing in common. Taking this to its logical conclusion by applying the term “is not” to “being” as a whole we get an opposite of “no being” or absolute nothingness. A vacuum in physics, therefore, is not the same as nothingness. It is a potential energy field that may expand into a universe.

Basically what this says is that for nothingness to be absolute it must be completely devoid of property. But since we can think about it it has at least one property, that of a concept, therefore it is not absolute. And that is where the paradox arises.

stretmediq wrote:

Basically what it boils down to is equating zero, meaning 'no difference' with nothing, meaning 'devoid of property' is an ambiguous use of terms and therefore a fallacy.

Apparently Stenger was equating "nothing" with equilibrium, which is not a problem in mathematics. But for physical and philosophical purposes, his "nothing" was contaminated with properties, hence not "absolutely nothing". So he still bears the burden of explaining where the properties came from. My guess is that non-physical qualia are forms of information, which is a non-physical property of the eternal and infinite and paradoxical "no-thingness" we call G*D.

Whew! I'm guessing that such fine distinctions are best observed while in the meditative state of "no-mind". Unfortunately, my messy mind is always contaminated with properties, even in the absence of concepts.

Stretmediq:

Quote :

To see for yourself what kind of problems can arise from the improper use of zero in mathematics study the problem below

I am currently reading a little book by mathematician Charles Seife, ZERO, The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. Are you familiar with it? He says that the ancient Greek philosophers were literally afraid of the Zero concept because it conflicted with their neat, integral, rational, geometric worldview. The very idea of The Void was alien to them.

Gnomon wrote:

Stretmediq:

Quote :

To see for yourself what kind of problems can arise from the improper use of zero in mathematics study the problem below

I am currently reading a little book by mathematician Charles Seife, ZERO, The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. Are you familiar with it? He says that the ancient Greek philosophers were literally afraid of the Zero concept because it conflicted with their neat, integral, rational, geometric worldview. The very idea of The Void was alien to them.

No but it sounds interesting.

Stretmedic wrote:

Quote :

Your using an ambiguous definition of nothingness. Absolute nothingness and the concept of nothingness are two different things.

Ambiguous? My concept of nothingness is absolute.

What was there before the Big Bang that it exploded (and continues to expand) into? Nothing. No energy, no matter, no dimensions, no ether. Within the universe, there is no "empty" space, energy and matter must have something to travel/be transmitted through. The universe is all that there is. There is no(thing) beyond.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Stretmedic wrote:
Ambiguous? My concept of nothingness is absolute.

What was there before the Big Bang that it exploded (and continues to expand) into? Nothing. No energy, no matter, no dimensions, no ether. Within the universe, there is no "empty" space, energy and matter must have something to travel/be transmitted through. The universe is all that there is. There is no(thing) beyond.

The ambiguity stems from the same old materialism/spiritualism or physical/metaphysical debate. To a materialist, "nothingness" refers to the absence of matter and energy. Before Einstein, physicists thought of space as nothingness. But Einstein showed that even the vacuum of space has essential properties that influence matter.

My BothAnd solution to that problem is to define non-physical properties as meta-physical (or supra-physical). Hence even immaterial properties---made of information rather than matter---are "things" in the sense of "thought objects". We can conceive of them as mental ideas, but we can't perceive them as physical objects.

From the materialist perspective, the universe is indeed expanding into utter nothingness (void of matter and energy). But from the metaphysicalist ( I try to avoid "spiritualist") point of view, the universe is expanding into G*D (the eternal abyss of potential). G*D is actual nothingness, but potential everythingness.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

If there were such a thing as the necessity of a Prime Observer, it could only be as a result of His/Its will--a will which He/It can apply as He/It sees fit.

The Prime Observer is what we call God by this argument (what you call He/It here). So in effect what your saying is God is not necessary. But if God is not necessary there is no reason for It to exist. And if that is the case how can It have a will to apply as "He/It" sees fit?

The Paineful Truth wrote:

My concept of nothingness is absolute.

I'm sorry I just don't believe that it is. If nothingness were truly absolute it would have absolutely no properties at all. Not even potential. And without potential there would be no quantum physics.

Nor would there be a God of any kind. For if It exists God would also be something. No, if nothingness were absolute there would be- nothing.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Stretmediq wrote:

Quote :

Absolute nothingness is paradoxical and thus can not exist.

Only if you assume that nothingness, like somethingness, requires an observer to exist or not exist. I do not make that assumption and I don't believe it's justified. Quantum physics is in the process, I believe, in abandoning that idea.

There some physicists that are looking for alternatives thats true. But the only one that realy has made any headway is called the many worlds theory by decoherence. It basically says that if all possible outcomes to situation occur there is no need for an observer. Here is my response to that from my book:

stretmediq wrote:

...In this way God also keeps the cosmos orderly. An infinite observer transcending the “plane” in which the “material” universe exists has the benefit of showing how the conservation laws regarding, for example, particle spin (as well as other phenomena) could be maintained over vast distances because, just as a lookout on a high mountain peak surveying the valley below can simultaneously see two travelers miles apart before they ever get close enough to see each other, a Prime Observer could observe both particles at the same time. Even if said particles are on opposite sides of the universe a Prime Observer conception avoids the problems that arise from what is known as the “many worlds” theory by decoherence a materialistic hypothesis which holds that in order to avoid uncertainty whenever there is an event with more than one possible outcome the entire universe actually splits, like a wave in an interferometer, to accommodate every single one.

Considering the rapidity of nuclear interactions as well as the sheer number of them and the fact that there is more than a handful of probable outcomes for any event and all must occur separately, parallel universes (or as some people call it the “multiverse”) must be being created continuously at a rate that boggles the mind. Imagine tossing just one coin ten times. The first flip would produce two coins, the second would create four since each of those would have two possible outcomes. The third throw makes eight then sixteen, thirty two, sixty four and so on until by the tenth flip you have produced one thousand twenty four coins each in their own separate universe (ten more and you will create over a million)!

This seems ludicrous on the surface, but so have many other theories in the past that have been confirmed by observation and if it follows from the premise and fits the facts it must be accepted no matter how outlandish it may seem. My own criticism of it must, therefore, be based on what I believe to be logical grounds and I do have reservations about it, the main one being it appears to violate the “laws” of conservation.

Recently the view the conservation laws are absolute has been challenged but, it seems to me, that if it is possible to create “new” energy from nothing then there would be an equal chance “old” energy could be destroyed, the two would cancel out and the level of energy in the universe would remain stable therefore I must accept them as valid. So how can an infinite number of universes be created out of a finite amount of energy?

To my mind that conflicts with the many worlds theory. For example, when a wave of a set amount of energy propagates the total power in it initially stays the same but it spreads out over a greater distance, thinning and thus getting weaker (or cooler or fainter is the case of heat or light respectively) at any particular place. If the ocean is wide enough even a tsunami will eventually become nothing more than a ripple. Splitting a wave only accelerates the process suggesting to me that the cosmos would likewise become so dilute so fast there would never be enough energy in any specific universe long enough to form the matter we see around us and the world as we know it could not exist.

So unless you can explain how an infinite number of universes can come from a finite amount of energy I don't see how you can say postulating a necessary observer is unjustified especially when such an observer not only can explain the world as we see it but also explain Itself.

stretmediq wrote:

The Paineful Truth wrote:

If there were such a thing as the necessity of a Prime Observer, it could only be as a result of His/Its will--a will which He/It can apply as He/It sees fit.

The Prime Observer is what we call God by this argument (what you call He/It here). So in effect what your saying is God is not necessary. But if God is not necessary there is no reason for It to exist. And if that is the case how can It have a will to apply as "He/It" sees fit?

God was necessary as the Prime Mover, not to keep what He/It had set in motion, in motion.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

My concept of nothingness is absolute.

Stretmedic wrote:

I'm sorry I just don't believe that it is. If nothingness were truly absolute it would have absolutely no properties at all. Not even potential. And without potential there would be no quantum physics.

No, we have no reason to believe that quantum mechanics existed before the Big Bang or exists outside the universe.

Quote :

Nor would there be a God of any kind. For if It exists God would also be something. No, if nothingness were absolute there would be- nothing.

I don't include the supernatural in nothingness, which is a description of the absolute absence of the natural, which would include the ether in the natural universe. Sorry, thought that was understood.

Quote :

But the only one that realy has made any headway is called the many worlds theory by decoherence.

I'm given to understand that the Many Worlds Interpretation is even further on the way out than the Copenhagen Interpretation.

stretmediq wrote:

...In this way God also keeps the cosmos orderly. An infinite observer transcending the “plane” in which the “material” universe exists has the benefit of showing how the conservation laws regarding, for example, particle spin (as well as other phenomena) could be maintained over vast distances because, just as a lookout on a high mountain peak surveying the valley below can simultaneously see two travelers miles apart before they ever get close enough to see each other, a Prime Observer could observe both particles at the same time. Even if said particles are on opposite sides of the universe a Prime Observer conception avoids the problems that arise from what is known as the “many worlds” theory by decoherence a materialistic hypothesis which holds that in order to avoid uncertainty whenever there is an event with more than one possible outcome the entire universe actually splits, like a wave in an interferometer, to accommodate every single one.

The Transactional Interpretation explains all quantum weirdness without a reliance on an observer.

Quote :

This seems ludicrous on the surface, but so have many other theories in the past that have been confirmed by observation and if it follows from the premise and fits the facts it must be accepted no matter how outlandish it may seem.

Actually, the bottom line is that TI is more outlandish than the Many Worlds--particles complete their transactions backward in time. It explains the double split experiment like no other theory.

Quote :

So unless you can explain how an infinite number of universes can come from a finite amount of energy I don't see how you can say postulating a necessary observer is unjustified especially when such an observer not only can explain the world as we see it but also explain Itself.

Once again, TI which does not resort to multiverses.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

God was necessary as the Prime Mover, not to keep what He/It had set in motion, in motion.

That sounds like what I call dependant objectivity which I briefly discuss in the Paradox of Nothingness post.

Stretmedic wrote:

I'm sorry I just don't believe that it is. If nothingness were truly absolute it would have absolutely no properties at all. Not even potential. And without potential there would be no quantum physics.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

No, we have no reason to believe that quantum mechanics existed before the Big Bang or exists outside the universe.

I have no idea what this means. No where do I say anything about quantum physics existing before the Big Bang. I was talking about the potential for anything to exist.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

I don't include the supernatural in nothingness, which is a description of the absolute absence of the natural, which would include the ether in the natural universe. Sorry, thought that was understood.

Absolute means absolute which includes the supernatural. Once you start making exceptions you are no longer talking about absolutes.

stretmediq wrote:

But the only one that realy has made any headway is called the many worlds theory by decoherence.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

I'm given to understand that the Many Worlds Interpretation is even further on the way out than the Copenhagen Interpretation.

The Copenhagen refers to observers in the world not transcendental ones.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

The Transactional Interpretation (TI) explains all quantum weirdness without a reliance on an observer.

That assumes an observer as defined by the Copenhagen intepretation (CI) which I am not referring to. The principle of dependant objectivity is similar to TI in that it frees the world from the type of influence CI suggests observers have without having to resort to waves interferring with each other back and forth through time. Besides that assumes a definition of time I don't happen to agree with either.

I have only read a little on TI so I cannot say if it is viable or not. What I have read of it reminds me somewhat of John Wheeler's anthropic principle. Maybe it is compatible with the model I talk about in the Paradox of Nothingness post may be not. I don't know. I just have not seen any evidence or argument that supports it convincingly. In fact what I have seen seems to contradict it.

The one experiment proponents of TI point to as supporting the theory (called the Afshar experiment) which purports to disprove the principle of complimentarity has been criticized by many leading physicists. The best of these critiques, in my opinion, is by Bill Unruh who shows the experiment does not contradict the standard interpretations of quantum mechanics.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

God was necessary as the Prime Mover, not to keep what He/It had set in motion, in motion.


I don't include the supernatural in nothingness, which is a description of the absolute absence of the natural, which would include the ether in the natural universe. Sorry, thought that was understood.

Perhaps,once set in motion by the Prime Mover, the universe continues to move via the force of Inertia, not by continual inputs of energy as Aristotle assumed.

All of this talk of Nothingness makes me think we could all benefit from a history lesson on the complex meaning of the Null hypothesis. My eyes are currently being opened to a new appreciation of The Void and The Infinite. In ZERO: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, mathematician Charles Seife does a brilliant job of bringing the idea of emptiness to life.

One chapter is titled, The Infinite God of Nothing. He points out that the Renaissance was aided and abetted by a revolution in the concept of God. The medieval church rejected both the philosophical notion of The Void, and the mathematical function of Zero. But a few freethinkers were finding them useful to expand their scientific, philosophical, and religious understanding of God, the Universe, and Everything.

I won't belabor the point any further---for now. But here's a quote referring to Descartes' heretical toying with that dangerous idea:
"All other beings are less than divine; they are finite. They all lie somewhere between God and nought. They are a combination of infinity and zero."

Here is an idea I had for an experiment to see if the world really did behave as if it were being observed. I included it in my book as an appendix. Not being a physicist I don't know if it's feasible or not though.

stretmediq wrote:

My “belief” in a “Prime Observer” (it’s really more of an opinion) is based on philosophical reasoning but the logic that allowed the construction of the model I present here also suggests that there may be a way to do something most regard as impossible - that is to obtain actual empirical evidence that the world is being observed. Unfortunately not being a scientist it is beyond my abilities to perform myself.

The limitation on what the “Prime Observer” is capable of "knowing" may trouble some but I believe it is the key to the problem. Except for being transcendant (and thus not subject to Heisenberg's rule because It is not "in" the world) Natural Idealism defines the Prime Observer as an observer with all the restrictions of any other observer and, it seems to me, we may be able to take advantage of that fact. The experiment I propose, therefore, is an EPR test with a twist and is based on the uncertainty principal as it applies to light.

For example, if one ray of light is passed through a beam splitter made of Icelandic feldspar, a mineral that possesses a property called double refraction, two identical beams should emerge because the crystals atomic structure works just like an interferometer except that it is capable of splitting the wave form of a single photon. If these two daughter beams are sent in different directions, they may both be tested for wavelength but what would happen if a particle detector was inserted into the path of one and the other beam remained in the frequency counter? Wouldn’t that permit the observer to know both position and frequency at the same time since the particle thus detected mirrors its twin in the other beam whose wavelength is known (a violation of the uncertainty principle that cannot be allowed)?

If the same procedure (which I call the “God” box experiment) were designed along the lines of that laid out in the Schrodinger’s Cat scenario, in which the researcher is shielded from the device eliminating him as an influence, it might allow the detection of an observation of the event, by recording the outcome for analysis later, because the beam not intercepted by the particle detector should vanish to avoid creating a paradox. Making note of the time of each event will also ensure the researcher did not collapse the wave himself when he opened the box to check the results (even in Schrodinger’s version you can estimate the time by observing the state of decomposition of the cat).

The test could be even further complicated by starting out with two or even more parent beams because it would be impossible to tell which of the resulting daughter beams constitute a pair by any observer, human or otherwise, on this “plane” (especially if they could be periodically “shuffled” after they emerge) and using a radioactive trigger to randomly drop a particle detector into the path of one of the daughter beams thus taking all control out of the hands of the researcher and making the specific outcome as uncertain as possible.

A positive result could imply an awareness above this level of existence that is able to “look down” into it and see what is happening. For just as a person on a bridge tossing pebbles into the water below may see all the ripples he creates in their entirety and can thus trace each wave back to it’s point of origin, despite the fact they intermingle as they spread, a “Prime Observer”, which has to know everything that is knowable, must also be able to see the light as a whole to keep the universe orderly (that is It would have to know which beams go together) thus allowing It to maintain the light in existence even if only in potential.

After all, if the individual steps are kept isolated from each other there would be no discernible physical connection of the type that would allow communication between them after they are split and the apparatus itself can only measure the properties of what “appears” to it as isolated photons and since those particles would all be identical if seen on the same level they themselves occupy, their point of origin should, it seems to me, remain uncertain to any observer on this plane (photons are massless so their position can’t be fixed by gravity either) and nothing would happen if this is all there is. Therefore, the only possible way I can think of for one of the beams to disappear after it has already left the beam splitter when it’s twin is intercepted by the particle detector is if knowledge of it’s frequency could be obtained from it and applied to it’s counterpart by a transcendent observer.

This would not be “proof” of a Prime Observer, just evidence. It would only show that the universe behaves as though it were being observed. But since I cannot rely on either the anthropic principle or the many worlds theory to explain such an outcome and the philosophical arguments are so compelling it seems the only reasonable conclusion.

I am not aware of any such experiment ever being conducted, which is disappointing as the results could be quite interesting. So until it is done I must base my conclusions solely on argument but I am comfortable with that- for now.

If the experiment were conducted it seems to me if one of the beams vanished it would be evidence against the transactional interpretation but if they didn't vanish it would support TI. The only way to know for sure would be to get someone to do the experiment. Anybody know a physicist?