Langan Explains The Reason For God

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by nicholas1M7, Sep 14, 2004.

  1. nicholas1M7 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,417
    QUOTE (taken from http://home.rstel.net/~daya/ChristopherMichaelLangan.htm):



    Christopher Michael Langan's HIQ & A

    Chronological order from bottom to top of page



    Q: Many people conceive of the universe as a "supreme being". The interconnectedness is evident in the consistency of physical laws and repetition of motif seen on a many levels. What is interesting is understanding the sentience of that supreme being. A drive toward growth, or self-actualization seems evident, but how can we prove a "will of God" that would go beyond a drive toward optimal actualization?

    A: There are several ways that we can be logically certain that the being called "reality" or "the universe" is sentient.

    1. *We're* sentient. Because we live in the medium known as "reality", and because any attribute supported by a medium exists throughout the medium in the form of potential (to be objectively actualized), sentience implicitly exists in reality.

    2. Despite the principle of locality - the existence of separate locales and local systems within the universe - the universe is globally consistent. The aspect of a system which reflexively enforces global consistency is necessarily globally coherent, and that which is coherently reflexive (self-active, self-referential) is, in effect, "sentient".

    3. Because, by definition, there is nothing outside of reality that is sufficiently real to recognize the existence of reality, reality must distributively recognize its own existence; every time one object interacts with another within it, the objects "recognize" each other as things with which to interact. But that means that reality is distributively self-aware.

    Now, given the absolute logical certainty that the universe is sentient (self-aware) – a certainty that nobody can possibly refute, as we see from the inevitability of 1-3 above - can we characterize its "will"?

    Yes. First, what is will? That function of a sentient entity which forms intent prior to actualization. So by definition, the "will" of the universe is that function which determines how the universe will configure itself "in advance" of actualization. In cosmological terms, this function is just that which determines, among other things, the laws of mathematics and physics embodied by reality.

    Such a function must, after all, exist. For without it, there would be no reason, from one moment to the next, why the laws of physics should not spontaneously change into one of the infinite number of other nomologies that might have arisen. Concisely, this function is defined as that reflexive mapping which effects the nomological character and stability of reality. The "will of the universe", AKA the "will of God", AKA teleology, is the name of this function, which we have just concretely defined.

    Does the universe "feel" its volition as do we? Well, let’s see. What the universe feels properly includes what *we* feel, plus much more (because we are merely parts of it). The universe therefore "feels" teleology far more powerfully than a mere human being "feels" an act of human will. The mechanism of its "feeling"? Well, there are a lot of those, including every human being, every animal, every plant, and every alien microbe on every planet in every star system in every galaxy in the cosmos. As you can well imagine, the impressions that get channeled to the universe through all of these "sense receptors" add up to very powerful sensations indeed.

    In fact, these are the sensations that feed back to teleology to tell the universe how to self-actualize in the "optimal" way…i.e., so that it ends up with the "best feeling" possible. They have already told the universe how to configure the laws of math and physics; for more specific elements of configuration, the universe relies on US. Every decision we make, including our every act of will, we make on behalf of the universe. That’s why we should always make the very best decisions we can.

    Q (On 3/24/2002 8:03:00 AM, Darko Djurdjic wrote): Einstein said that he 'do not believe in a personal God' because he 'cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves'. And he also said that 'mere unbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all'. So my question for You would be: is God person or not? And what does CTMU say about that?

    A: The CTMU says that God, as embodied by the universe, Self-configures. To do this, He needs two things: (1) active sensors (agents, internal proxies) who can recognize and affect the state of the universe from local internal vantages; (2) a stratified utility function allowing Him and His agents to prefer one possible future over another. Human beings and other intelligent life forms are useful to God on both of these counts. Thus, the first criterion of His development is the possibility, and in fact the inevitability, of their existence.

    To understand this, consider an extraordinarily wise child responsible for the development and maintenance of its own body and physiology (because the universe is in the process of self-configuration, we can liken it to a child). To meet this responsibility, the child requires internal sensors that provide information on exactly what is happening deep inside its growing body, preferably at the intracellular level, and that permit feedback. The child further requires that these sensors be able to register the utility of what they detect... whether it is "good" or "bad" from their own local perspectives. That way, the child can weigh the perceptions and utilities of all of its internal sensors to form overall developmental goals.

    In order to meet the Self-configurative goals that it sets (as aggregates of the goals of its sensors), the child has the power to establish internal self-optimizative tendencies that affect the behavior of its internal agents, influencing them to perform such local operations and make such repairs as are necessary for the good of the
    whole child. To this end, they are equipped with global utility functions, "consciences", that combine with intelligence to make them responsive to the welfare of the whole organism (as opposed to their own individual welfares).

    For want of a better name, we can use the term "soul" to describe the channel through which individual and global utility functions are put in consistent mutual contact. This channel permits the sensors to make more informed, more global, and more valid judgments about what is "good" and what is "bad", and gives them the internal strength to do what is good even if it means sacrificing individual utility (because global utility is an aggregate function of individual utility, serving global utility ultimately makes individuals happier).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. beyondtimeandspace Everlasting Student Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
    This is an interesting argument, however it does not account for the existence of the universe. What I mean by this is that it does not give explanation to the beginning of the universe. One may argue that, because it is the supreme being it needs no explanation for its beginning, for it has always existed. Yet, it can be seen through infinite set theory that if the universe is to have no beginning, then (as many claim God to be) it must be an actual infinite set, a complete infinite set. However, within an infinite set there is no distinction from one aspect of it to another, every part of an infinite set would be indistinguishable from the other. Yet, in the universe, there are clearly many distinctions. It is very clearly shown, in infinite set theory, that an actual infinite set cannot exist within the universe. This would mean that the universe is a potential infinite. However, as stated, this does not give account for its origin. Furthermore, as an actual infinite, it would mean that, at some given point in the past, the universe, or God, "attained" consciousness, and every other attribute that it now has.

    Also, if we were to believe that the universe were God, in the way that is described above as "self-optimizative internal configuration," then we could completely disregard morality, since the universe has an infinite amount of time to reach that optimization. Furthermore, if you are not convinced about the universe as not being actually infinite, then again, you could disregard morality, since you can add or subtract, and internally change an actual infinite without actually changing that infinite. Therefore, no matter how you act, good or ill, it has no effect on the infinite, nor on the finite, since all things finite end.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. the preacher fur is loose 666 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    476
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nicholas1M7 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,417
    If I am not mistaken you are speaking of Russell's Paradox which poses the problem of a sequence of sets containing one within another until we reach the largest possible set where there is no external set but rather is to be the set itself - a powerset - where according to the CTMU, must topologically contain itself while being descriptively contained. From the resolution it is revealed that the Universe, the true correspondent to the set of all sets, is both topologically and descriptively contained.

    You seem to set finite boundaries to your conceptualization of an omnipotent being. The total existential entity called God possesses the property of perfection which itself can exist at the end of an infinite set of operations. Its symmetry cannot be broken because it corresponds to absolute unity. God is the absolute unity between things which means that nothing is mediated nor any dividing line such as time to mark any kind of beginning or end.

    This is a good point. A optimizative anything suggests a finite quality. But according the CTMU, the universe is conspansive. If my interpretation is correct that means that although it is infinite it recreates itself for the duration of infinity. Don't call me on it though.
     
  8. nicholas1M7 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,417
  9. beyondtimeandspace Everlasting Student Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
    I don't think Russell's Paradox describes my concept of the infinite very well. I say this because, in consideration of myself, being a set, I cannot reconcile that set with being contained within the "powerset." I say this because, while that which comprises my physical, mental, or spiritual essense would be contained in such a set, my experiences are unique to me, and due to the nature of those experiences, could not be part of the "powerset." For, in consideration that this powerset is infinite, and possibly containing the set of my experiences, I would then be forced to acceed that it contains also the set of my negative experiences. If this were true, then it would also contain the all sets of negative experiences, and all sets of positive experiences, thereby reducing the set of effects produced by such experience to zero. Hence, there would be no effectual movement within such a set. While this may be satisfied within an actual infinite, I do not believe it to be so for the universe.

    Furthermore, as I have already stated, within an actual infinite, there can be no distinction from one part to another. Each part of an actual infinite is identical with the next. Yet, clearly this is not the case with the universe. There is a distinction between my thoughts and yours, between the activity of an animal, and the activity of the solar system. When reduced to the smallest particle, all becomes identical. However, when reduced to the smallest particle, what was ceases to exist, and rather, only the countless number of reduced particles remain. If God is the smallest particle, that which unifies all things, and God is intelligent beyond the comprehension of anything finite, then what we refer to as "evolution" is rather quite the opposite, "devolution." For, if the infinite, being the absolute unity between things, is intelligent, then a movement toward intelligence would be a movement toward the infinite, which is found in the infinitely small "in-between" unifying partical that exists everywhere, and which constitutes the constructed form, at its basest level of all things. So, if such a reduced particle is intelligent beyond all else, then growth in intellegince means a reduction in complexity. Yet, it is clear that the more complex a brain is, the more intelligent the creature. Therefore, the movement of evolution toward complexity is a movement away from perfect infinity, and therefore, really devolution. The laws of growth, as we understand, deny the notion of the infinite as the basest item of everything the universe is constructed of. For, if such a particle is to be infinite, and growth is a tending toward the infinite, then growth is really the exact opposite of what we believe it to be.

    However, now I ramble. I hope what I've just typed isn't completely unreadable.
     

Share This Page