Causality

[seer]

As I said, Seer, it was a thought experiment. I don't KNOW anything. I am looking to see if there is anything about the thought experiment that is necessarily impossible. So far, I have found nothing. So I am left with the basic idea of a singularity-generating "matrix" of some sort that is infinite. The only thing you have said that could possibly raise a question is the possibility of an infinite number of different universes - but given that is one condition, and ANY bounding brings us back to the math I outline, it seems more likely that there is not an infinity of different universes, if they all arise from a common "universe spawning" matrix.

And Carp, you have not solved the problem of infinite regression, and none of your references even came close to removing that problem.

I have to admit I do not see a lot of complexity here. It's actually elegantly simple. And Occam's Razor is not about simplicity or complexity. It simply says, "do not add more to an explanation than is strictly necessary." Your proposal adds sentience to a process that does not appear to require it. When it continues into the entire Judaic/Christian theology, it begin to pile complexity onto complexity with multiple contradictions. I have to admit I do not see your proposal as "simpler."

Actually your universe generating machine would be much more complex than a single intelligent agent. And who knows what is necessary in this situation? And no you do not understand the Christian view of Divine simplicity: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ne-simplicity/

But you can win if you like...

Do you have to send me a prize? Those are the rules, right?

[carpedm9587]

And Carp, you have not solved the problem of infinite regression, and none of your references even came close to removing that problem.

I understand your perspective.

Actually your universe generating machine would be much more complex than a single intelligent agent. And who knows what is necessary in this situation? And no you do not understand the Christian view of Divine simplicity: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ne-simplicity/

You do remember that I was Christian for many years, right? So in addition to all of this simplicity we have:

• a god with three persons
• a god that apparently needs to sacrifice its own son/self to itself to redeem people, and that has to be by one of the more barbaric means of execution humanity has derived.
• a god/man with a dual nature
• a god with attributes largely human-like only "perfect."
• a god who inserts itself in human history, commits acts that are widely considered immoral (e.g., genocide) but is now "moral" because, hey, it's god.
• a god who cannot clearly articulate an apparent absolute moral code so citizens of the earth unambiguously know the working rules.
• a god who sorts humans into "good" and "bad" upon death and eternally rewards the good for a finite period of goodness, and eternally condemns the bad for a finite period of badness.
• a god shy enough to leave the question of its existence AND its nature so obscure that the planet has dozens, perhaps hundreds, of gods

I could go on, but you'll have an answer for each, of course, and then you'll insist that it's "simple." Seer - there is nothing "simple" about Christianity or Christian beliefs or the Christian god. Each time I read articles like the one you linked me to, I wonder if Christians ever reflect on the true nature of their own religion. I am also remind of an adage an old philosophy professor used to conclude almost every class with: "a philosopher is a person (he actually said man) who will lecture for 60 minutes on the insubstantiality of reality, using the walls as an example, and then leave the room by way of the door."

Do you have to send me a prize? Those are the rules, right?

Your prize is more "special time" with ME!!!

[seer]

Your prize is more "special time" with ME!!!

Wait? Isn't that a punishment?

[carpedm9587]

Wait? Isn't that a punishment?

You know...now and then you DO get it right...

[Sparko]

Because a life-supporting/life-sustaining/life-creating universe is clearly possible. If it is possible, in an infinity of time, it is more than probable - it is a virtually a certainty. As I noted, infinity is a long-long-time.

People often misunderstand how probability works. If I have a six-sided die - my probability of rolling a 1 is 1/6. If I get to roll it six times, my probability of rolling a 1 is 1-prob(not 1). That means each time I roll, I have to come up with one of the other five faces. Each roll has a probability of 5/6. All six rolls being "not 1" has a probability of (5/6)^6 - or .3349, so my probability of rolling six times and getting a 1 is 1-.3349 or 66.51%. Now make the number of rolls infinity... and you have (5/6)^infinity - which is a number that converges to 0. My probability of a 1 is essentially guarateed. The same is true with a universe, even if a universe has an infinitessimally small probability of coming out right...if there is an infinity of attempts, the probability of a universe with these properties converges to 1 (100%).

where you are erring is in thinking your imaginary metaverse would create a real universe because we do exist so it is possible. there is nothing that says that it is probable or even possible, no matter how long it has because you still have not shown how it would work. If I imagined an infinite universe of bubble gum that kept blowing bubbles for an infinite number of times there is still zero chance that one of those bubbles would be our universe because bubblegum can't create a universe.

[carpedm9587]

where you are erring is in thinking your imaginary metaverse would create a real universe because we do exist so it is possible. there is nothing that says that it is probable or even possible, no matter how long it has because you still have not shown how it would work.

So the existence of our universe is not shown to be possible based on the fact that our universe exists? That makes no sense to me. Either you aren't making sense, or I'm missing part of your argument.

If I imagined an infinite universe of bubble gum that kept blowing bubbles for an infinite number of times there is still zero chance that one of those bubbles would be our universe because bubblegum can't create a universe.

Actually, the thought experiment was for a "matrix" of something that would be spawning singularities. Since our universe began with such a singularity, I am speaking about something capable of spawning universes. The thought experiment is not for the purpose of "proving" that is what happened, but rather for exploring if there is anything we know today that would make such a construct impossible - logically or otherwise. It is a form of reductio ad absurdum approach. If we can show it is impossible - then it is impossible. If we cannot - then it is at least possible, giving us another (possible) option for how all that is came to be.

And the infinite recursion problem is simply not a viable argument against it. Seer's position makes two incorrect assumptions: that there is a linearity to cause/effect (which QM tell us we do not know to be true), and that the "stuff" we're talking about itself needs to be caused. But that was the entire purpose of the thought experiment: an infinite matrix of (something) who's very nature is motion and has always existed. It is not caused to be in motion - it IS always in motion. That motion could be linear, or it could be tracing random paths, but it IS motion. Because it is infinite, that motion will result in areas of various density of this "stuff." Sometimes, very little "stuff" will coexist. Sometimes, the density will grow to such proportions that it gives rise to a singularity (analogous to the way a decaying star collapsing on itself can give rise to a black hole). This matrix is a "universe maker." That is what it does. That is ALL it does - it exists in constant motion, and randomly spawns universes.

The question is, is there a contradiction that makes this a non-viable scenario?

[Sparko]

So the existence of our universe is not shown to be possible based on the fact that our universe exists? That makes no sense to me. Either you aren't making sense, or I'm missing part of your argument.



Actually, the thought experiment was for a "matrix" of something that would be spawning singularities. Since our universe began with such a singularity, I am speaking about something capable of spawning universes. The thought experiment is not for the purpose of "proving" that is what happened, but rather for exploring if there is anything we know today that would make such a construct impossible - logically or otherwise. It is a form of reductio ad absurdum approach. If we can show it is impossible - then it is impossible. If we cannot - then it is at least possible, giving us another (possible) option for how all that is came to be.

And the infinite recursion problem is simply not a viable argument against it. Seer's position makes two incorrect assumptions: that there is a linearity to cause/effect (which QM tell us we do not know to be true), and that the "stuff" we're talking about itself needs to be caused. But that was the entire purpose of the thought experiment: an infinite matrix of (something) who's very nature is motion and has always existed. It is not caused to be in motion - it IS always in motion. That motion could be linear, or it could be tracing random paths, but it IS motion. Because it is infinite, that motion will result in areas of various density of this "stuff." Sometimes, very little "stuff" will coexist. Sometimes, the density will grow to such proportions that it gives rise to a singularity (analogous to the way a decaying star collapsing on itself can give rise to a black hole). This matrix is a "universe maker." That is what it does. That is ALL it does - it exists in constant motion, and randomly spawns universes.

The question is, is there a contradiction that makes this a non-viable scenario?

Since it is imaginary and you just keep adjusting the scenario to make it generate this universe no matter what anyone says, while at the same time excusing any objections by saying 'we don't know how things work' in this imaginary magical realm you have proposed, then no, there can be no contradiction that makes it non-viable.

Congratulations.

[carpedm9587]

Since it is imaginary and you just keep adjusting the scenario to make it generate this universe no matter what anyone says, while at the same time excusing any objections by saying 'we don't know how things work' in this imaginary magical realm you have proposed, then no, there can be no contradiction that makes it non-viable.

Congratulations.

Umm.. as far as I know I have not adjusted anything from the original post. I went back to compare what I had written, and it has all of the same concepts as my subsequent posts. Same concept - same purpose: is there something about it that can be shown to be logically contradictory or self-refuting. If not - then we have another possibility besides "god did it." That's it. It is, as was originally explain, a thought experiment. Nothing more. It doesn't prove "this is how it happened." It simply shows, "perhaps this is how it COULD happen.

[Sparko]

Umm.. as far as I know I have not adjusted anything from the original post. I went back to compare what I had written, and it has all of the same concepts as my subsequent posts. Same concept - same purpose: is there something about it that can be shown to be logically contradictory or self-refuting. If not - then we have another possibility besides "god did it." That's it. It is, as was originally explain, a thought experiment. Nothing more. It doesn't prove "this is how it happened." It simply shows, "perhaps this is how it COULD happen.

except it doesn't. it is just "something unexplainable happened somehow and made our universe"

[oxmixmudd]

[*]a god that apparently needs to sacrifice its own son/self to itself to redeem people, and that has to be by one of the more barbaric means of execution humanity has derived.

This statement does not show a very well thought out summary of the actual Christian theology surrounding the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. It is simply a derogatory caricature of it. Much like the ancient Roman accusation that the Lord's supper was cannibalism.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

This statement does not show a very well thought out summary of the actual Christian theology surrounding the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. It is simply a derogatory caricature of it. Much like the ancient Roman accusation that the Lord's supper was cannibalism.

Jim

Feel free to correct what you feel was in error, Jim. Having been Christian for many years, the statement pretty much captures the theology, IMO. Man sinned - and needed to be redeemed. God sent his only begotten son (not sure how that is possible for a god, since it refers to the creation of a child by sexual reproduction) to give his life for the world. He is called the paschal lamb, the sacrificial offering, and is essentially a form of scapegoat for the sins of man. Once the deed was done, people need only accept him to be redeemed.

What did I miss?

[oxmixmudd]

Feel free to correct what you feel was in error, Jim. Having been Christian for many years, the statement pretty much captures the theology, IMO. Man sinned - and needed to be redeemed. God sent his only begotten son (not sure how that is possible for a god, since it refers to the creation of a child by sexual reproduction) to give his life for the world. He is called the paschal lamb, the sacrificial offering, and is essentially a form of scapegoat for the sins of man. Once the deed was done, people need only accept him to be redeemed.

What did I miss?

A lot :)

Though I am not sure how in the world you could not follow the 'begotten' part. God made the baby in Mary's womb. You think the God that made the universe and everything in it can't make an egg fertile in a womb without creating a male body and having sex with her?


Jim

[JimL]

A lot :)

Though I am not sure how in the world you could not follow the 'begotten' part. God made the baby in Mary's womb. You think the God that made the universe and everything in it can't make an egg fertile in a womb without creating a male body and having sex with her?

Well lets face it, it is rather far fetched. God impregnated Mary with himself and was in her womb for 9 months? Or was just one part god in Mary and two parts god in heaven?

[oxmixmudd]

Well lets face it, it is rather far fetched. God impregnated Mary with himself and was in her womb for 9 months? Or was just one part god in Mary and two parts god in heaven?

You are using an anthropomorphism for God in place of the actual conceptualization of God. That is, you are not reasoning logically about what the incarnation means as it relates to God as He is presented in scripture. Specifically God is ominpresent in both time and space. He is now in all places and all times - fully present in all places and all times. To be THAT implies He can be 'divided' as we perceive it without being diminished. So He is fully present in the body of Christ from conception to resurrection without in any way diminishing any other aspect of Himself. So he is wholly present in Christ, and wholly present in Heaven, and wholly present everywhere 'else' that might happen to be. Such is a being that is the God of the Bible.


Jim

[Tassman]

You are using an anthropomorphism for God in place of the actual conceptualization of God. That is, you are not reasoning logically about what the incarnation means as it relates to God as He is presented in scripture. Specifically God is ominpresent in both time and space. He is now in all places and all times - fully present in all places and all times. To be THAT implies He can be 'divided' as we perceive it without being diminished. So He is fully present in the body of Christ from conception to resurrection without in any way diminishing any other aspect of Himself. So he is wholly present in Christ, and wholly present in Heaven, and wholly present everywhere 'else' that might happen to be. Such is a being that is the God of the Bible.

The virgin birth story has all the hallmarks of mythology. It only occurs in two books, namely Mathew and Luke, both written long after the supposed event in the 80s or 90s according to the vast majority of researchers. That's a lot of time for colourful embellishments to develop regarding a revered holy man.