How worlds may emerge in an Atheistic Deism model

There are only two ways we can derive definitions; induction (experience), and deduction (the syllogism). Since we see "something" when we look around us we cannot experience nothingness so we the only way we can define it is by deduction.

You can strip away all the permutations of existence simply by putting a form of the words "is not" in front of "being as a whole". But you are still left with the idea of nothingness (you're thinking about it right now after all). So it is not a void "without property". It is a completely neutral concept. So how can the world emerge from that?

Imagine a straight line that extends outward in both directions (check the links they are essential) http://personal.inet.fi/private/ilkka/truerta/after_calibration.png . Such a one dimensional line is analogous to nothingness because nothingness has but one property- it is a concept. There are an infinite number of waveforms that exist in potential in such a line http://plus.maths.org/issue38/interview/sine.gif . If things happen simply because they can happen and they can happen because they don't result in contradiction then as long as the probability of an event does not equal zero (which is what happens when two identical but opposite waves try to emerge at the same time http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may00/images/synth.fig1.l.gif ) it may occur for no reason other than the fact there is nothing to prevent it from occuring. Therefore any of these waveforms may emerge spontaneously by themselves or in combination by simple addition http://blog.pandora.com/archives/tour/MPI-HarmonicDistortion.JPG . By themselves the most basic waveforms (sine waves) have no meaning but merged with others they can create radically different patterns which are analogous to universes with different physics. Compare this (orange) square wave with the previous waveform http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/22017.png .

However concepts must be observed. But that is not a problem because all it has to do is bend back on itself http://sermononthemountsociety.com/sitebuilder/images/CircleArrow2-132x126.jpg . That makes it self referential. And as there is only one kind of self referential concept, I am, it must be conscious (it also stops an infinite regression). I call this foundational state the Prime Observer because it is literally observing itself. The circle is perfectly smooth and therefore in equilibrium but contains within it an infinite number of potential worlds which may emerge spontaneously as an epiphenomenon or side effect.

Because it is a concept we can say nothingness is not nothing. That is a contradiction thus such a state cannot exist. But an unobserved concept is also paradoxical and therefore unstable. It must collapse into a state that is stable but in order to do that it must have something in common with that state. Since the only property nothingness has is that of a concept it can only be reduced to something else that is also a concept to avoid a non sequitur and all it has to do to accomplish that is bend back on itself, nothing more. Therefore if this argument is correct "God" must exist necessarily. But even though all being is contingent on it the world is not a purposeful creation. And that is why I am an Atheistic Deist and not an pure Atheist or Theist.

Here's a few more to illustrate the principle:
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/physics17/chapter10/fundsecondthird.jpg
http://universe-review.ca/I13-15-FourierSyn1.jpg
http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/02101/images/Law_of_Superposition.gif
http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_superposition.gif
Each of these is analogous to different universes with different physics.

The way I see it universes are arrayed in a spectrum. There are an infinite number of types (though the conservation laws may not allow every variation of a type to occur, notice the two examples of square waves linked above are not identical but are variations on a type so which one will emerge as its final form is uncertain http://www.korguksupport.co.uk/upload/image062.jpg which is distinct from the idealised versions of other types http://technoflash.chez-alice.fr/HTMLF/PIM/FOU1.GIF that can be approached but never reached) and just as there is a region in the spectrum of light which is visible there is an area where the universes that occupy it are conducive to the evolution of life. Which solves the problem of why our universe is so finely tuned. In a cosmos that contains an infinite number of worlds of different properties one must have the ones we see.

But as this requires the cosmos be concept in nature and concepts require an observer then there must be a Prime Observer. However as you can see there is no need to consider It as supernatural or mystical. In fact It seems to be very similar to M theory which says universes may just be ripples in higher dimensional "membranes" of energy.

For a more complete explanation check this link: https://panendeism.forumotion.com/deism-f4/the-paradox-of-nothingness-and-the-case-for-the-new-deism-t241.htm

The idea seems similar to the concept of "Involution".

Quote :

In mathematics, an involution, or an involutary function, is a function that is its own inverse, so that

f(f(x)) = x for all x in the domain of f.

Any involution is a bijection.

The identity map is a trivial example of an involution. Common examples in mathematics of more interesting involutions include multiplication by −1 in arithmetic, the taking of reciprocals, complementation in set theory and complex conjugation.

Other examples include circle inversion, the ROT13 transformation, and the Beaufort polyalphabetic cipher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involution_(mathematics)

Or in metaphysics...

Quote :

Involution (metaphysics)

In integral thought, involution is the process by which the Divine manifests the cosmos. The process by which the creation rises to higher states and states of consciousness is the evolution. Involution prepares the universe for the Big Bang; evolution continues from that point forward. The term involution comes from the idea that the divine involves itself in creation. After the creation, the Divine (i.e. the Absolute, Brahman, God) is both the One (the Creator) and the Many (that which was created).

The integral philosopher Ken Wilber refers to involution in his online chapter of Kosmic Karma, employing concepts from Plotinus, Advaita Vedanta, Tibetan Buddhism, and Sri Aurobindo. According to Wilber, the cosmic evolution described in his previous works is preceded by an involution of Spirit into Matter. This involution follows the reverse stages to the sequence of evolution - e.g. Spirit to soul to mind to life to matter. Once the stage of insentient, lifeless matter is attained, then "something like the Big Bang occurs", whereupon matter and manifest world come into concrete existence, from which stage evolution follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involution_(metaphysics)#Integral_thought

Plotinus called it emanation...

Quote :

Plotinus offers an alternative to the orthodox Christian notion of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), which attributes to God the deliberation of mind and action of a will, although Plotinus never mentions Christianity in any of his works. Emanation ex deo (out of God), confirms the absolute transcendence of the One, making the unfolding of the cosmos purely a consequence of its existence; the One is in no way affected or diminished by these emanations. Though the emanations are, since as they become farther away from the source they became diminished. Plotinus uses the analogy of the Sun which emanates light indiscriminately without thereby diminishing itself, or reflection in a mirror which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus#Emanation_by_the_One

stretmediq wrote:

By themselves the most basic waveforms (sine waves) have no meaning but merged with others they can create radically different patterns which are analogous to universes with different physics.

However concepts must be observed. But that is not a problem because all it has to do is bend back on itself

Since the only property nothingness has is that of a concept it can only be reduced to something else that is also a concept to avoid a non sequitur and all it has to do to accomplish that is bend back on itself, nothing more. Therefore if this argument is correct "God" must exist necessarily. But even though all being is contingent on it the world is not a purposeful creation. And that is why I am an Atheistic Deist and not an pure Atheist or Theist.

The waveform analogy is similar to my own concept of In-Form-Action, which was derived from Shannon's Theory of Information. Metaphorically, the so-called "Will or Power" of G*d is conceived as built upon the core of a generic sine wave with no particular information content. This is just the baseline of existence: alternation between being and non-being. Then as new waveforms (harmonics) are superimposed on the carrier wave, it becomes "in-formed". In other words, as the complexity increases in organization, meaning is added to pure existence. Next that complex waveform interacts with itself and evolves into energy, then into matter, then into life, then into mind. I won't get any deeper into the mathematical justification for the metaphor, because, except for the graphic imagery, it's all over my pointy little head.

The concept of Self-Reference is also a key to my understanding of G*d, the Universe, and Everything. An original unity has nothing else to interact with. So in order to produce change, it must fold back onto itself. Hence, evolution is an on-going sequence of feed-back loops that complexify over time. A physical analogy is how cellular proteins fold-up into knotty patterns that determine how proteins interact with each other.

I have also folded the idea of multiverses into my Informationism cosmology, by putting them into the category of possible or potential universes. The Real universe that we inhabit is simply the one that the Creator "chose" to actualize. I can't begin to explicate that far-out notion in a brief post, so I'll just say that it's related to the Quantum concept of Superposition.

Purpose is another indispensable function of my emerging understanding of how the world works. However, I view the purpose of evolution in terms of an initial impulse in a particular direction, rather than a specific final goal. I do see evolution as directional, but the end-point of the process is beyond my cone of vision.

Although we are coming from different directions, I see a lot of overlap in our worldviews. I suspect that both of us are building a new up-to-date worldview to replace the crumbling antique we inherited. I have on occasion described myself as an Atheist who believes in God.

What do you mean by "choose"? I kind of agree with the idea of an initial impulse if by that you mean the fundamental laws of physics but I don't think that's purposeful. If there are an infinite number of types of universes one of them must have the properties we see in this one. However the OP is just a bare bones explanation of my own personal opinion. Assuming it is correct (and I obviously think it is) it is entirely possible there might be extenuating circumstances which would allow for such interaction but so far I just don't see it.

stretmediq wrote:

What do you mean by "choose"?

What I had in mind was the Observer Effect in quantum physics. A state of Superposition is in effect a state of Indecision*. But when an experimental observation perturbs the stymied system, it "chooses" one actual state out of an infinite number of potential states. That sudden change of state is called the "collapse" of the wave function, but some physicists use the metaphorical term "choice" to describe the cause of the collapse.

Quantum physicists also debate whether the state of superposition is "real" or not. I prefer to think of superposition as a Potential or Unmanifest state, and the post-collapse state as the Real or Actual or Manifest state. That's how I imagine the Multiverse concept: the infinite number of possible universes from which the Creator selects or chooses one to actualize or realize. I also like the parallel meanings of "realize". When a new concept emerges in the human mind, we call it "realization". Likewise, when a world emerges from the mind of the Creator, we call it "reality".

If you prefer a less anthropomorphic term than "choice" to describe the stimulus for a change of state, perhaps you can call it a "dialectic intersection". But "choice" is simpler. In any case, my cosmology includes a conscious decision to create the world. After that initial choice, evolution followed an unconscious dialectic process, until conscious beings emerged and began to make choices of their own.



*Heisenberg preferred the term "Undecidable" instead of "Uncertainty", but history recorded the Superposition state as the Uncertainty Principle, which sounds like a case of anthropomorphizing an inanimate state. The poor little electron just can't decide which dress to wear to the party.

Quote :

In any case, my cosmology includes a conscious decision to create the world. After that initial choice, evolution followed an unconscious dialectic process, until conscious beings emerged and began to make choices of their own.

Stret,
I think one difference between your cosmology and mine is that I have been influenced more by the scientific fields of Systems Theory and Cybernetics* than by Pure Mathematics and Logic. The Principia Cybernetica** website linked below is a collective effort to develop a complete scientific worldview based on Systems Theory. Although the founders are non-religious, they have concluded that some kind of Prime Mover is necessary to get the system rolling. So they tentatively accept a view similar to Pantheism, where the Cosmic Cause is not necessarily a sentient being, but more like a general systematizing principle---whatever that is.

I go one step further, because of my Informationism Theory, to postulate a conscious and intentional Creator. It's just a guess, and I can't prove it, but it makes more sense to me that an evolving, progressing universe is intentional rather than accidental. If the universe is not progressive, but eternally cyclical, then perhaps a Creative Choice would not be necessary.

PS---You may note that the Cybernetics theory has a role for a "second order observer". My theory requires a first order Observer.


*Cybernetics : Goal-Directed Systems
http://home.mindspring.com/~johne84570/Cybernetics_Goal-directed%20Systems_Heylighen2001.pdf

**Prinicipia Cybernetica
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/

We do have differences but we also have many commonalities. The fact that such similarities should emerge from different approaches suggests to me that we are on the cusp of a more profound understanding. I personally just prefer a more conservative interpretation.

And you have surpassed my knowledge of the philosophical, psychological, sociological, and common sense. Knowing nothing of physics I will abstain but say this... Ensure you have a reasonable and applicable use for knowledge before diving head first into it.

stretmediq wrote:

We do have differences but we also have many commonalities. The fact that such similarities should emerge from different approaches suggests to me that we are on the cusp of a more profound understanding. I personally just prefer a more conservative interpretation.

For many years, as a non-religious Agnostic, I also preferred a conservative, empirical worldview. Although I couldn't imagine how a temporal, physical world could exist without some kind of ex nihilo beginning out of eternity and infinity, I had no idea how that could happen apart from the fanciful stories and pre-scientific myths of ancient cultural traditions.

So, instead of concerning myself with pointless philosophical and theological speculation, I focused on building a reliable scientific worldview to replace my inherited discredited religious beliefs. And yet, as I learned about Quantum Theory, Systems Theory, Information Theory, and Memetic Evolution, the key to a possible evolutionary creation scenario began to emerge from the scientific stew.

The common link between all of those unrelated disciplines is Information in the technical sense defined by Claude Shannon. A few years ago, I read an article by a Quantum Theorist, who metaphorically referred to an indeterminate electron, one of the basic elements of matter, as a cloud of mathematical information. At that moment there was a loud click in my mind. And the ramifications of that intuitive leap are still unfolding as I explore the many meanings of Information.

From that point onward, one thing lead to another, and the evolving concept of Informationism began to emerge. And ironically, along the way, the obsolete philosophy of Deism began to take-on a new and essential meaning for me. Although commonly confused with its material vehicle, the essence or meaning of information can only exist in a metaphysical mind.

Philosophers and religious sages for millenia have imagined G*D as a bodyless mind or pure consciousness---which does not compute in materialistic science. Yet again the concept of Information clicked into a traditional place in pre-scientific speculations. And that same piece of shape-shifting Information continues to snap into empty puzzle holes within History, Literature, Philosophy, Religion, and Science.

Consequently, I am no longer reluctant to liberally speculate on the existence and intentions of the Mind that conceived of the world in which I live. I'm no longer afraid to turn my intuition loose, to run free in the fields of possibilities. I am however quite selective about who sees me running naked in wild, philosophical abandon. Please don't tell anyone.

Since I am aware that all god-concepts in history have been more-or-less off-target, I have no reason to be embarrassed by my own misses. I'll just keep throwing darts at the Deity until I hit the bulls-eye, or die---whichever comes first.

You'd best stand clear if you don't want to get hit by one of my wild shots in the dark.

Azillion wrote:

Ensure you have a reasonable and applicable use for knowledge before diving head first into it.

Since I am neither a philosopher, nor a scientist, my only use for such esoteric knowledge is to construct a reasonable paradigm to serve as a practical map of reality to guide my path through life. My worldview may seem unreasonable or impractical to those using an outdated map. Where older maps say, "there be monsters here", and newer maps say, "there be nothing here", my hot-off-the-presses map says, "wait, there is information here". Now I must interpret that encoded information. And the only Rosetta Stone is the history of previous and current attempts to make sense of the enigmatic world.

<< I focused on building a reliable scientific worldview to replace my inherited discredited religious beliefs. >>

Actually because it sees the world as fundamentally concept in nature I think this model could be looked at as a type of information based philosophy.

Gnomon wrote:

Since I am aware that all god-concepts in history have been more-or-less off-target, I have no reason to be embarrassed by my own misses. I'll just keep throwing darts at the Deity until I hit the bulls-eye, or die---whichever comes first.

You'd best stand clear if you don't want to get hit by one of my wild shots in the dark.

You know the problem with playing darts in the dark is that even if you did hit a bulls-eye you'd never know it.

It's still fun to try anyway isn't it?

LOL , can we play shuttlecock instead?

stretmediq wrote:

We do have differences but we also have many commonalities. The fact that such similarities should emerge from different approaches suggests to me that we are on the cusp of a more profound understanding. I personally just prefer a more conservative interpretation.

I was just reminded this morning of your comment regarding the convergence of various approaches to the remote goal of universal understanding. I am in the process of reading about A.N. Whitehead's Process Theology in one chapter of a book on the history of Panentheism.

I had never read anything by ANW, but his name has been mentioned as an influence by the authors of several books I have read. As I proceeded into that chapter I was struck by parallels to many of the concepts in my own Informationism theory. Since ANW wrote in the early 20th century, he had little or no knowledge of Information Theory, or Memetics, or Cybernetics, etc. But it seems to me that those 21st century disciplines are beginning to make explicit some of the core ideas implicit in Process Theology.

Later, I may try to list some of those disparate notions that seem to be converging on the same fundamental cosmology. Perhaps, as Panendeism implies, if we are actually "in" the all-encompassing deity, all directions must point to G*D. However, my skeptical training tells me that these convenient conceptual coincidences could be the result of "confirmation bias". So I must remember to question my own answers.

Aaron wrote:

You know the problem with playing darts in the dark is that even if you did hit a bulls-eye you'd never know it.

Maybe, if we ever succeed in hitting the bulls-eye, flashing lights and whooping sirens will go off to signal that we have won the jackpot.


And the answer to the ultimate question is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42!