Is The Universe To Big For There To Be A God?

[Cory]

If the universe is infinite and never ending which it has to be, I mean even if there is an ending that ending has to be something, where does that leave room for an "infinite" all powerfull god? Nothing can be more then infinite, so where is this God? Does he/she (it?) exist within the universe? It can't exist outside the universe because it's already infinite. I think the universe is as awe inspiring and powerfull as any God can be. Any thoughts?

[Clockwood]

God could be compartmentalized with an infinite number of parts.

Actually if the universe were infinite accumulated starlight would make the sky burn as brightly as the sun. The sky is black and thus it must be finite.

[Cory]

God could be compartmentalized with an infinite number of parts.

Good point. Would that make it more of a "force" instead of a "God"?


Actually if the universe were infinite accumulated starlight would make the sky burn as brightly as the sun. The sky is black and thus it must be finite.

Why would accumulated starlight make the sky burn as brightly as the sun in a infinite universe and not in a finite universe?

[matnay]

If God exists, then he exists within the Universe(I use Universe with a capital U as a generic term for all of existense, not merely our own known universe). The Universe is God's medium of existense. The Universe is therefore more "powerful", or more expansive than God. God is only a part of it.

Also, calling God infinite is really no more respectful than calling him finite. Infinite is a word thrown around much too often when the meaning and context of the word is never clearly defined. For example, our known universe may be finite. It may loop upon itself like a pacman game. But that does not mean that our known universe is all there is to existense. There are most likely many other "pacman games". If our known universe is a closed system, then anything outside of that system is undefinable, but most likely infinite. And when in the context of God, we need to be sure of which universe we are talking about. The all-inclusive Universe, or our known universe.

Or perhapes our known universe actually is infinite. Maybe it does go on forever. But what does that really mean? Not much. Just because our universe is infinite doesn't mean that there aren't an inifinite number of other infinite universes out there. For example, a line can go on forever in each direction, but this line is not infinite in every dimension. There is infinite room for parallel lines.

If God exists, then my point is this:
Calling God infinite means nothing. You might as well call him finite. It makes no difference. But one thing is for sure. Existense itself is a more fundamental, more powerful force than God. Without existense, God would not exist. God exists within the Universe. God cannot control the Universe.

Some people like to say that God IS the Universe, thus elevating God to an impossible level. This is a handy way to end debates, but it makes no sense. God cannot be everything. Why? Because of everything else.

[kaduseus]

Some people like to say that God IS the Universe, thus elevating God to an impossible level. This is a handy way to end debates, but it makes no sense. God cannot be everything. Why? Because of everything else.

God IS the universe... God is everything, including everything else.

It only makes no sense because your definition of god.
Which definition are you using, the popes defintion or your own.
My definition of god allows for the popes definition, but the popes definition does not allow for mine.
Is my definition wrong or is the pope intollerant?

Everything, every tiny little thing, every huge and immense thing, every thought, every dream, every life, every sensorary aboration of every creature that ever existed, that exists and that will ever exist, everything that was, that is and that will be. That is God.
God is all seeing all knowing and omnipresent.
God knows you exist, i know you exist, i am a tiny part of god.
If you know you exist then is god self aware through you?

Of course you can still refuse to believe in the existance of this god of everything, but only if you accept that your refusal is part of this god of everything.
The only way to get around it is to refuse to believe in your own existance.
It's quite an insane belief system, creationist theory is part of the god of everything, what does that say?

Has anyone got a good definition of god or the universe?

[andy1033]

remember the universe is not only as weird as we suppose, it is weirder than we cannot imagine.

and on the question of the size and the place for god etc...

all i can answer to that is that size is only relative to what a person or things knows in there reality. so although the universe may be unimaginable to us at this time, that might change with more understanding.

so again the size is only relative to our limited imagination.

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Cory
If the universe is infinite and never ending which it has to be, I mean even if there is an ending that ending has to be something, where does that leave room for an "infinite" all powerfull god? Nothing can be more then infinite, so where is this God? Does he/she (it?) exist within the universe? It can't exist outside the universe because it's already infinite. I think the universe is as awe inspiring and powerfull as any God can be. Any thoughts?

Theists would probably claim God is non physical, and thus has no size. So the question of "where" God is, makes no sense. Of course, the notion of "non physical" is a pure negative that has no meaning either.

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Clockwood
God could be compartmentalized with an infinite number of parts.

Actually if the universe were infinite accumulated starlight would make the sky burn as brightly as the sun. The sky is black and thus it must be finite.

This is known as Olber's paradox. But modern cosmology has an answer, as the universe is expanding and is of finite age. Since light travels at a finite speed, there are regions of the space it will never reach. So you can have a dark sky an infinite universe, so long as it is expanding or of finite age.

[Cory]

Of course, the notion of "non physical" is a pure negative that has no meaning either.
This is true.


Thanks for the explaination Beercules.

[Revolution]

Well, and I know this might piss some religious zealots, but:

Any thought that the actual Earth is god? But then it sparks the whole is there one god or many etc. I have no idea and I speculate if there was no religion then we actually might be a really advanced peacefull planet.

We hurt our planet. If it is god, no WONDER he is soooo pissed at us. But it would make sense!

[Canute]

Originally posted by matnay
If God exists, then he exists within the Universe(I use Universe with a capital U as a generic term for all of existense, not merely our own known universe). The Universe is God's medium of existense. The Universe is therefore more "powerful", or more expansive than God. God is only a part of it.
Do you have a hotline? I think you need to back up this claim.

If God exists, then my point is this:
Calling God infinite means nothing. You might as well call him finite. It makes no difference. [/B]
Why not?

But one thing is for sure. Existense itself is a more fundamental, more powerful force than God. Without existense, God would not exist. God exists within the Universe. God cannot control the Universe.[/B]
It's not enough just to state stuff like this. You need some form of argument or evidence.

Some people like to say that God IS the Universe, thus elevating God to an impossible level. This is a handy way to end debates, but it makes no sense. God cannot be everything. Why? Because of everything else. [/B]
If I made a scientific statement of this kind I would be shunted of off to pseudo-science. We need a pseudo-metaphysics thread.

IMO Kaduseus was spot on, particularly in calling for a definition of God. There are probably as many conceptions of God as there are people.

Beercules - you say that "Of course, the notion of "non physical" is a pure negative that has no meaning either". What you mean is that it has no scientific meaning, which is true. However it has plenty of meaning otherwise, just as does 'consciousness', which also has no measurable size or objective appearance.

[Beercules]

I don't mean it has no scientific meaning. It has no meaning at all, because it's purely a negative - non physical. That is to say, it's a concept that tells us what God is not, but doesn't tell us what he/it is. All too often the notion of God is defined this way. It is lazy thinking, and an intellectual copout.

[stray dog]

Is the universe too big for there to be a God?

the old philosopher armand once said;

"all the religions of the world, and all of the scientific communities,
all agree on the same thing...the Creation. and the Creation is
what you call the big bang."

If the universe where created by God, then God would have the understanding of the universe. Our perception of the size of the
universe is limited by our perspective. The size of the universe
is certainly humbling from our perspective, but we did not create it. The more you study the universe, more questions arise.

The universe is not too big for there to be a God.

[machaon]

There are as many universes as there are living brains....

[doom]

The universe isnt infinite the universe is the universe,but not everything,dont count whats outside it,nobody can know whats outside it,what extends outside it could be parallel universes,
whats outside that?
maybe nothing,an infinite nothing
what if nothing is god,and something is this.

Maybe god exists cos we exist and we exist cos god exists,so IT didnt have a mathamatical scientific choice in the matter.

Or the universe created itself,if the hypothetical god can create itself then why cant the univers or universes have done?

whys there have to be a god?
why cant it self exist,we got no evidence either way.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Beercules
I don't mean it has no scientific meaning. It has no meaning at all, because it's purely a negative - non physical. That is to say, it's a concept that tells us what God is not, but doesn't tell us what he/it is. All too often the notion of God is defined this way. It is lazy thinking, and an intellectual copout.
I see what you mean but what can one do? Clearly if there is a God He is non-physical. There doesn't seem any harm in saying so. It doesn't seem much different to saying that the cosmos before the BB is timeless (or 'non-timeful') and many people here argue that what came 'before' this universe was non-physical. These are not meaningless claims.

Many people who believe in the existence of consciousness think it is non-physical. Saying what a thing is not is in the end equivalent to saying what it is. The Sherlock Holmes method of enquiry was to focus on cannot be true before starting to conjecture what may be true. Thus it's not a get out line to say that God is non-physical - it's just somehing that must be the case if such a thing as God exists, and acknowledging it at least helps us avoid the category error of sending up space probes to look for Him.

There's no evidence that things that are non-physical cannot exist, and still considerable debate about whether physical things really do. Broad, Price, Linde, Smythies and others are currently arguing that consciousness exists outside of physical space, (and getting published). They do not think they are saying something meaningless by this.

Sorry - feeling argumentative - and believers in God (not me) get a raw deal here IMO.

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Canute
I see what you mean but what can one do? Clearly if there is a God He is non-physical. There doesn't seem any harm in saying so. It doesn't seem much different to saying that the cosmos before the BB is timeless (or 'non-timeful') and many people here argue that what came 'before' this universe was non-physical. These are not meaningless claims.

You might say they are non concepts. It's like saying before the big bang, there was fhdjkfhsdjkf. Something as poorly defined as that really isn't an explanation at all. Now if you want to define consciousness as that, it's another story. My gripe is with those who make absolutely no attempt to define God (except for the negative) and then expect the idea to be taken seriously.

Many people who believe in the existence of consciousness think it is non-physical.

What does it mean for consciousness to be non physical?

New agers might argue ghosts are non physical, even though they have size, and exhibit properties we know of through experience with physical objects. The issue is pinpointing what properties a non physical thing is lacking physical things have, and what properties they actually do have.

Saying what a thing is not is in the end equivalent to saying what it is. The Sherlock Holmes method of enquiry was to focus on cannot be true before starting to conjecture what may be true.

Normally, a negative does indeed have opposite positive meanings. For example, dark, light, cold, warmth, etc. But in the case of physical, there is no such equivalant. We only know of the physical world, and cannot even define something that could be be otherwise. That is why the concept is so undefined.

Thus it's not a get out line to say that God is non-physical - it's just somehing that must be the case if such a thing as God exists, and acknowledging it at least helps us avoid the category error of sending up space probes to look for Him.

That seems to be the problem. Saying he's non physical seems to eliminate properties that would cause logical difficulties. But it does not replace those properties with anything meaningful.

There's no evidence that things that are non-physical cannot exist,

That is the ultimate copout, but we're not discussing evidence at this point. The problem is defining "non physical" in the first place. Really, the statement that there is or isn't evidence for such a thing doesn't make sense, since the proposition is undefined. It is like asking if there is evidence of adghjksdha? Since adghjksdha is not defined, you obviously cannot try to find evidence for it.

...and still considerable debate about whether physical things really do. Broad, Price, Linde, Smythies and others are currently arguing that consciousness exists outside of physical space, (and getting published). They do not think they are saying something meaningless by this.

They don't exist in physical space, and do exist in spiritual space? Or what?

I would like to see a link to some of these published papers to see exactly what Linde and folks are talking about. If the proposition is not defined, it can't be discussed. Do you have any URL's?

Sorry - feeling argumentative - and believers in God (not me) get a raw deal here IMO.

They certainly do, but it is often justified. Using non concepts to explain the mysteries of the world is laziness, and intellectual dishonesty. There are theists who have tried to go into detail as to the nature of God, and I don't have a problem with them. As I mentioned above, my gripe if with those who attempt to pass God off as an explanation based purely on a negative concept.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Beercules
You might say they are non concepts. It's like saying before the big bang, there was fhdjkfhsdjkf. Something as poorly defined as that really isn't an explanation at all. Now if you want to define consciousness as that, it's another story. My gripe is with those who make absolutely no attempt to define God (except for the negative) and then expect the idea to be taken seriously.
I agree that God is often a poorly defined term and abused term. But even if one exists it could hardly be otherwise given our lowly mortal state of understanding. A Christian arguing with a Muslim would need to do some careful defining. However when arguing for the existence of something beyond the physical it's not so important, since it is possible to argue that such a thing is necessary to explaining existence without worrying too much about its definition. (Much like we use the term 'gravity' in science). For this reason it is sometimes as much of a cop out to ask for one as it can be not to provide one. The context make a difference. Thus Roger Penrose argues for the existence of something God-like on the basis that Goedel proves that something true must exist outside the system, not because he can define precisely what it is.
[What does it mean for consciousness to be non physical?[/B]
That consciousness (in its 'rest' state) is equivalent to physical nothingness. It is non-phenomenal and can only be detected from the inside. This is the 'emptiness' at the heart of Buddhist ontology (IMO).
[New agers might argue ghosts are non physical, even though they have size, and exhibit properties we know of through experience with physical objects. The issue is pinpointing what properties a non physical thing is lacking physical things have, and what properties they actually do have.[/B]
Non-phenomenality and non-duality. It is ontological existence and epistimelogical non-existence (or dual aspect existence in phenomenal terms - something and nothing at the same time - logically exactly the kind of substance that might explain existence without some endless regression of substances.
Normally, a negative does indeed have opposite positive meanings. For example, dark, light, cold, warmth, etc. But in the case of physical, there is no such equivalant. We only know of the physical world, and cannot even define something that could be be otherwise. That is why the concept is so undefined.[/B]
Two issues here. Firstly it is simply an opinion to say that there is no opposite of 'physical' (although in strictly scientific terms I agree that there can't be). Secondly overcoming the positives and negatives of dualism is genrally considered the very secret of understanding the deeper nature of the non-physical. You may be trapping yourself in your own epistemilogically dual paradigm by thinking everything must be defined in terms of 'this but not that'. If existence is ultimately monist, as I believe most philosophers and scientists believe, then it by definition is neither this nor that, but both and neither. This may sound mystical but it is not intentionally unscientific. The fact that it makes logical sense is the reason science still treats Buddhism with respect.
[That seems to be the problem. Saying he's non physical seems to eliminate properties that would cause logical difficulties. But it does not replace those properties with anything meaningful.[/B]
The argument is often misused, I agree. However the claim does not necessarily lead to meaninglessness. (It's too much
for me to try here but it can be done).
[That is the ultimate copout, but we're not discussing evidence at this point. The problem is defining "non physical" in the first place. Really, the statement that there is or isn't evidence for such a thing doesn't make sense, since the proposition is undefined. It is like asking if there is evidence of adghjksdha? Since adghjksdha is not defined, you obviously cannot try to find evidence for it.[/B]
By this reckoning consciousness does not exist. You may be right but you'll have a job proving it. Presumably all subjective experience, including your own, does not exist since there is no evidence for it.
[They don't exist in physical space, and do exist in spiritual space? Or what? I would like to see a link to some of these published papers to see exactly what Linde and folks are talking about. If the proposition is not defined, it can't be discussed. Do you have any URL's?[/B]
Smythies is research scientist at the centre for Brain and Cognition at UC San Diego and Senior Research Fellow in Dept. of Neuropsychiatry at the Instute of Neurology, London. So he's no new-ager. Journal of Consciousness Studies is at www.imprint.co.uk/jcs (I don't think they put articles online but you may get some links).

The particular hypothesis he puts forward (based on the work of others) is that the universe consists of three fundamental entities - space-time, matter and consciousness, 'each with their own degrees of freedom'. This is partly related to the increasing number of dimensions science proposes as fundamental to existence. You might also try http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive which may have something relevant.
[They certainly do, but it is often justified. Using non concepts to explain the mysteries of the world is laziness, and intellectual dishonesty. There are theists who have tried to go into detail as to the nature of God, and I don't have a problem with them. As I mentioned above, my gripe if with those who attempt to pass God off as an explanation based purely on a negative concept. [/B]
Same answer as above. Depends on the context. I DO have a problem with Deists who try to define God. To me it suggests they don't understand ITS inherent undefinability in epistemilogical terms. Of course I might be deluding myself on this.

Phew.

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Canute
I agree that God is often a poorly defined term and abused term. But even if one exists it could hardly be otherwise given our lowly mortal state of understanding. A Christian arguing with a Muslim would need to do some careful defining. However when arguing for the existence of something beyond the physical it's not so important, since it is possible to argue that such a thing is necessary to explaining existence without worrying too much about its definition.

I don't see how you can possibly debate about something if you don't know what that "something" is supposed to be. But then, maybe that's why religious folks often tend to get violent with those holding opposing viewpoints.

Much like we use the term 'gravity' in science). For this reason it is sometimes as much of a cop out to ask for one as it can be not to provide one. The context make a difference. Thus Roger Penrose argues for the existence of something God-like on the basis that Goedel proves that something true must exist outside the system, not because he can define precisely what it is.

Again, you can't really discuss something unless that subject is defined. Otherwise the discussion will amount to nothing.

That consciousness (in its 'rest' state) is equivalent to physical nothingness. It is non-phenomenal and can only be detected from the inside. This is the 'emptiness' at the heart of Buddhist ontology (IMO).

You've just replaced one negative with another. Nothingness is a negative concept, and you're really again only saying what consciousness is not.

Granted, consciousness is experienced by all and does not need any justification. But to try and define by removing all known properties physical things have, isn't very productive without replacing them with something else.

Non-phenomenality and non-duality. It is ontological existence and epistimelogical non-existence (or dual aspect existence in phenomenal terms - something and nothing at the same time - logically exactly the kind of substance that might explain existence without some endless regression of substances.

I don't see how the above is supposed to explain anything at all. What exactly about existence are you trying to explain? The issue of time and infinite regress? You'll have to be more precise.

Two issues here. Firstly it is simply an opinion to say that there is no opposite of 'physical' (although in strictly scientific terms I agree that there can't be).

I didn't say there is no opposite, only that we have no known example of something non-physical to immediately compare such concepts to. In the case of absence of light, we know of a state (darkness) the corresponds to it. This does not seem to be the case with the physical.

Secondly overcoming the positives and negatives of dualism is genrally considered the very secret of understanding the deeper nature of the non-physical. You may be trapping yourself in your own epistemilogically dual paradigm by thinking everything must be defined in terms of 'this but not that'.

Yeah, the burdens of following logic can be tiresome.


If existence is ultimately monist, as I believe most philosophers and scientists believe, then it by definition is neither this nor that, but both and neither. This may sound mystical but it is not intentionally unscientific. The fact that it makes logical sense is the reason science still treats Buddhism with respect.

I'm sorry, but the bolded statement is a blatent contradiction and by definition illogical. Mystical ideas like that only have hope if you throw away logic and reason altogether.

By this reckoning consciousness does not exist. You may be right but you'll have a job proving it. Presumably all subjective experience, including your own, does not exist since there is no evidence for it.

Please read what I wrote more carefully.

Smythies is research scientist at the centre for Brain and Cognition at UC San Diego and Senior Research Fellow in Dept. of Neuropsychiatry at the Instute of Neurology, London.....

Thanks for link. I've actually read about this idea before, and it's not as vauge as the others. It doesn't seem point to consicousness existing outside of the space, however. Take the example of space-time. Space has no existence without time, and time has no existence without space. Thus, they are not sperate entities but part of the same entity - space-time. Adding the mind, you get a space-time-consciousness that is one single inseperable existence.

So in that case the mind is not some seperate entity that is somehow superior to space-time. It's a neat idea, though it doesn't seem to make any testible predictions.

Same answer as above. Depends on the context. I DO have a problem with Deists who try to define God. To me it suggests they don't understand ITS inherent undefinability in epistemilogical terms. Of course I might be deluding myself on this.

Phew.

Why must existence be so complicated?

[Clockwood]

Originally posted by Cory
Why would accumulated starlight make the sky burn as brightly as the sun in a infinite universe and not in a finite universe?

If there were an infinite number of stars scattered randomly across the universe the following would happen. Between any two stars in the sky there would be an infinite number of stars. No matter how thinly they are spread the entire sky would be filled by a froth of stars. (even if they are so far away you only get faint light the effect is cumulative form all the other stars)

[Persol]

Originally posted by Clockwood
Between any two stars in the sky there would be an infinite number of stars.
Only if the universe if finite. If stars are somewhat evenly distributed in an infinite universe you still have infinite stars, but not an infinite number between 2 points.

No matter how thinly they are spread the entire sky would be filled by a froth of stars. (even if they are so far away you only get faint light the effect is cumulative form all the other stars)
As someone stated before, if the infinite universe had a t=0 at which it 'popped' into existance then the light would not have reached us yet.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Beercules
I don't see how you can possibly debate about something if you don't know what that "something" is supposed to be. But then, maybe that's why religious folks often tend to get violent with those holding opposing viewpoints.
Science spends it's whole time debating things that it doesn't understand. In fact it's the whole point of science.
[Again, you can't really discuss something unless that subject is defined. Otherwise the discussion will amount to nothing.[/B]
Part of the point of having the discussion is to clarify the definition, since by 'definition' we mean shared view.
[You've just replaced one negative with another. Nothingness is a negative concept, and you're really again only saying what consciousness is not.[/B]
This is an argument from temperament. Nothingness is no more a negative than somethingness. And saying what consciousness is not is a vital part of figuring out what it is.
[Granted, consciousness is experienced by all and does not need any justification. But to try and define by removing all known properties physical things have, isn't very productive without replacing them with something else.[/B]
Something else physical you mean? Consciousness is an experience of Being - is that positive enough?
I don't see how the above is supposed to explain anything at all. What exactly about existence are you trying to explain? The issue of time and infinite regress? You'll have to be more precise.[/B]
Exactly what you say (and more).
[I didn't say there is no opposite, only that we have no known example of something non-physical to immediately compare such concepts to. In the case of absence of light, we know of a state (darkness) the corresponds to it. This does not seem to be the case with the physical.[/B]
I'm with Plato on the ontological status of the physical. There's plenty of evidence for the non-physical, but it's all subjective and thus not scientific.
[Yeah, the burdens of following logic can be tiresome.[/B]
Cheap shot, and not very deep thinking. What I said is something that's been said by thousands of thinkers.
[I'm sorry, but the bolded statement is a blatent contradiction and by definition illogical. Mystical ideas like that only have hope if you throw away logic and reason altogether. [/B]
That's exactly the point, and there's nothing mystical about it. Existence requires dualism, yet the cosmos is not genrally reckoned to be untimately dual. Hence our ontology must trasnscend our dualism. This is common sense at one level but I agree with Penrose that it follows from Goedels proofs.
[Please read what I wrote more carefully.[/B]
Sorry.
[Thanks for link. I've actually read about this idea before, and it's not as vauge as the others. It doesn't seem point to consicousness existing outside of the space, however. Take the example of space-time. Space has no existence without time, and time has no existence without space. Thus, they are not sperate entities but part of the same entity - space-time. Adding the mind, you get a space-time-consciousness that is one single inseperable existence. [/B]
Agreed. However in ontological terms these three cannot be equally fundamental.
[So in that case the mind is not some seperate entity that is somehow superior to space-time. It's a neat idea, though it doesn't seem to make any testible predictions.[/B]
Testable predictions are a red herring. Imagine a closed mathematical system. It is possible to have various interpretations of the meaning of the terms without any of the interpretations contradicting each other, in other words without them making any predictions that contradict the predictions of the other interpretations.
[Why must existence be so complicated? [/B]
It isn't. If what I'm saying is right it couldn't be more simple. It's just our ignorance that makes it seem so complex.

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Canute
Science spends it's whole time debating things that it doesn't understand. In fact it's the whole point of science.

No, scientists attempt to understand those very things in more detail. Gravity is a perfect example.

Part of the point of having the discussion is to clarify the definition, since by 'definition' we mean shared view.

Ok, awaiting a definition of what constitues a non physical property.

This is an argument from temperament. Nothingness is no more a negative than somethingness. And saying what consciousness is not is a vital part of figuring out what it is.

This is incorrect. Nothing, no-one, nobody, etc. are all negative concepts. Saying something is nobody only tells you what a said thing is NOT, and doesn't tell you what it actually IS. Likewise, claiming that a non physical existence is the same physically as nothingness, doesn't tell you anything at all. Great, you've established this non physical is nothing at all like physical existence. But that still tells us nothing at all what that existence is actually like.

....Something else physical you mean? Consciousness is an experience of Being - is that positive enough?

.....I'm with Plato on the ontological status of the physical. There's plenty of evidence for the non-physical, but it's all subjective and thus not scientific.

Again, the problem is finding a property of consciousness that qualifies it as being non physical. You could just as well call it physical.

Cheap shot, and not very deep thinking. What I said is something that's been said by thousands of thinkers.

Then maybe you worded it differently, because your statement above is illogical. An ontology built on such illogical premises has a foundation built on sand.

But then, I'm sure you really meant to word it another way.

That's exactly the point, and there's nothing mystical about it. Existence requires dualism, yet the cosmos is not genrally reckoned to be untimately dual.

How does existence require dualism? It seems other ontologies are much simpler, and at least, logically consistant.

Hence our ontology must trasnscend our dualism. This is common sense at one level but I agree with Penrose that it follows from Goedels proofs.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Agreed. However in ontological terms these three cannot be equally fundamental.

In that model, they are fundemental. Much like how neither space
nor time have independant existence but together are fundemental, consciousness would be likewise.

Testable predictions are a red herring. Imagine a closed mathematical system. It is possible to have various interpretations of the meaning of the terms without any of the interpretations contradicting each other, in other words without them making any predictions that contradict the predictions of the other interpretations.

No, it is not a red herring. The above model was claimed to be a scientific model. Science without testible predictions (or at least with the potential to be tested) is useless as tits on a bull. Such a model not only makes no predictions, but could not be falsified by anything imaginable. That is the same problem creationism and the intelligent design movement suffer from.

It isn't. If what I'm saying is right it couldn't be more simple. It's just our ignorance that makes it seem so complex.

What is simple? An undefined concept of the non physical? A complex consciousness as a fundemental entity? Other ontologies seem to explain things in a much simpler way.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Beercules
No, scientists attempt to understand those very things in more detail. Gravity is a perfect example.
I thought that was what I said.
[Ok, awaiting a definition of what constitues a non physical property.[/B]
Being non-physical for a start, (and thus being non-scientific). Possibly being conscious. Beyond that who knows - but that hardly has any bearing on the truth or falsity of anything. It's not for nothing that earlier generations of physicists (who were more likely then to have had a philosophical training than now) tended to believe in the non-physical (Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli, Eddington, etc etc).
[This is incorrect. Nothing, no-one, nobody, etc. are all negative concepts. Saying something is nobody only tells you what a said thing is NOT, and doesn't tell you what it actually IS.[/B]
Don't agree. Negative and positive are symmetrical. Saying what something is does not tell you what it is not (unless what it is can be completely specified) just the same as saying what something is not doesn't tell you what it is (unless what it is not is completely specified).
[Likewise, claiming that a non physical existence is the same physically as nothingness, doesn't tell you anything at all. Great, you've established this non physical is nothing at all like physical existence. But that still tells us nothing at all what that existence is actually like. [/B]
I agree - Anything I said on this was to clarify the notion that being non-physical or immaterial is not necessarly the same as being nothing at all.
[Again, the problem is finding a property of consciousness that qualifies it as being non physical. You could just as well call it physical.[/B]
Well, being non-physical for a start. It's interesting to ask what physical size your consciousness has, or how much it weighs. The impossibility of answering leads to all the problems of understanding it, one (of a number) of solutions being to suppose that it is non-physical. Many things are non-physical (democracy, red, love, understanding, cricket, integers, nothing, freedom, etc). Consciousness as anything more than an experience of being may be entirely self-referentially conceptual as most introspective philosophers argue).
[Then maybe you worded it differently, because your statement above is illogical. An ontology built on such illogical premises has a foundation built on sand.[/B]
I don't think so. I can't untangle the cross-references here. What did I say that was illogical?
How does existence require dualism? It seems other ontologies are much simpler, and at least, logically consistant.[/B]
Existence requires observer and observed, perceiver and perceived. Thus in a epistimic sense existence is (for us) terminally dual. Experience itself, however, (at its simplest) is not.
It is this that gives rise to the school of dual-aspect monism and Max Velman's (and others) argument for epistemilogical dualism coupled with ontological monism as the structure of existence (Can't find a good reference but he mentions it in JCS 9, 11). Goedel is thought relevant to all this by many people because he highlighted the limits of thinking always in terms of truth and falsity when looking for truth. (Hence also the meaning of Yin and Yang etc)
[I'm not sure what you mean here.[/B]
As previous answer.
[In that model, they are fundemental. Much like how neither space nor time have independant existence but together are fundemental, consciousness would be likewise.[/B]
Could be. But we'd have to start calling it space-time-consciousness. (I think the model put forward in that article is speculative nonsense - but you never know).
[No, it is not a red herring. The above model was claimed to be a scientific model. Science without testible predictions (or at least with the potential to be tested) is useless as tits on a bull. Such a model not only makes no predictions, but could not be falsified by anything imaginable. That is the same problem creationism and the intelligent design movement suffer from. [/B]
True enough. But that doesn't mean that the model is false, nor creationism or ID (although I wouldn't support any of them). It just means that they're not scientific concepts.
What is simple? An undefined concept of the non physical? A complex consciousness as a fundemental entity? Other ontologies seem to explain things in a much simpler way. [/B]
There's not much point in researching something you can already define properly. All that's important is that we define things well enough to be sure we're all talking about the same thing. (Cf - http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/academic/ps/velmans.htm)
You can;t get anything much simpler than an experience of 'what it is like' to be nothing' as the substrate of existence, and it completely ends all regresses, and it solves the 'something-nothing' problem of why there is anything at all (on this hypothesis it is because complete nothingness is an impossibility, the cosmos has to exist. This sounds illogical but I feel that existence IS illogical by our normal standards of logic. That's precisely why we cannot explain it scientifically yet. (IMHO)

BTW - I'm not anti-science - just feel it has self-defined limits.

[ProCop]

Consciousness produces mental objects which have chracteristics that are specifiable/distinguishable from other non material objects such as random strings of letters/numbers. (eg. humanity filters the sounds coming from the space for "inteligent strings").

Mental objects/ideas can be transfered from consciousness to consciousness only through some physical medium (for as far as we know) Therefore (basically timeless) mental objects/ideas are finate.

Mental objects/ideas have no mass/energy: book containing ideas is not any havier than a book containing random strings. Still Ideas can "move" matter eg. rivers were rerouted on basis of ideas of convenience.

Do ideas have size? Up till now the universe seems big enough for my set....

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Canute
I thought that was what I said.

Being non-physical for a start, (and thus being non-scientific). Possibly being conscious. Beyond that who knows - but that hardly has any bearing on the truth or falsity of anything.

We've already defined a mind to be non physical, fair enough. But the question is what justification do we have in claiming it is? One could just as easily claim the mind to be a physical phenomena. Which one is more likely to be correct?

It's not for nothing that earlier generations of physicists (who were more likely then to have had a philosophical training than now) tended to believe in the non-physical (Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli, Eddington, etc etc).

What? Einstein never believed in non physical entities, and the others on the list are probably in a similar situation. Do you read an excerpt where a scientist mentions the word God, and automatically assume they believe in non physical objects?

Don't agree. Negative and positive are symmetrical. Saying what something is does not tell you what it is not (unless what it is can be completely specified) just the same as saying what something is not doesn't tell you what it is (unless what it is not is completely specified).

It's called the law of identity. A=A but does not equal B. Saying an animal is a horse tells us what it is, and tells us countless things it is not ( ie. not a dog). A pure negative tells us what a said entity is not, but doesn't say what it is.

Basically, in answer to question of what constitues the non physical, you are saying the non physical is not physical. I already guessed that though.

I agree - Anything I said on this was to clarify the notion that being non-physical or immaterial is not necessarly the same as being nothing at all.

Here is what you wrote: ...That consciousness (in its 'rest' state) is equivalent to physical nothingness.

The statement above tells us that consciousness is not physical. But it doesn't say what properties it does have, and why we should consider those properties as non physical as opposed to physical.

Well, being non-physical for a start. It's interesting to ask what physical size your consciousness has, or how much it weighs. The impossibility of answering leads to all the problems of understanding it, one (of a number) of solutions being to suppose that it is non-physical.

Which really doesn't mean anything at all, as this thread has shown. I don't see droves and droves of neuroscientists proclaiming this either.

Many things are non-physical (democracy, red, love, understanding, cricket, integers, nothing, freedom, etc). Consciousness as anything more than an experience of being may be entirely self-referentially conceptual as most introspective philosophers argue).

I don't see how any of the above justify that title of non physical. What properties do a game of cricket have that are non physical? What properties does the chemistry associated with emotions likewise have that physical objects do not? We are just not defining anything here.

I don't think so. I can't untangle the cross-references here. What did I say that was illogical?

You said: You may be trapping yourself in your own epistemilogically dual paradigm by thinking everything must be defined in terms of 'this but not that'.

This would be throwing away the law of indentity. A=A but A does not equal B.

You also wrote: If existence is ultimately monist, as I believe most philosophers and scientists believe, then it by definition is neither this nor that, but both and neither.

Yeesh, blatent contradiction. You seriously don't see how the above is illogical nonsense?

Existence requires observer and observed, perceiver and perceived.

Give support to this notion. By observer I assume you're referring to something conscious. But it would seem that the universe could exist without anything conscious at all, as it did for at least 13 billion years. A mind seems to be a very very small part of existence.

Thus in a epistimic sense existence is (for us) terminally dual. Experience itself, however, (at its simplest) is not.
It is this that gives rise to the school of dual-aspect monism and Max Velman's (and others) argument for epistemilogical dualism coupled with ontological monism as the structure of existence (Can't find a good reference but he mentions it in JCS 9, 11). Goedel is thought relevant to all this by many people because he highlighted the limits of thinking always in terms of truth and falsity when looking for truth. (Hence also the meaning of Yin and Yang etc)

But if the mind is merely a minor function of physical existence, then dualism is dead.

Could be. But we'd have to start calling it space-time-consciousness. (I think the model put forward in that article is speculative nonsense - but you never know).

Yes, it's speculative. So are all mind ontologies, since they can never be supported or falsified by evidence.

True enough. But that doesn't mean that the model is false, nor creationism or ID (although I wouldn't support any of them). It just means that they're not scientific concepts.

Correct. It also means said concepts lose their appeal as ontologies, for reasons mentioned above.

You can;t get anything much simpler than an experience of 'what it is like' to be nothing' as the substrate of existence, and it completely ends all regresses, and it solves the 'something-nothing' problem of why there is anything at all (on this hypothesis it is because complete nothingness is an impossibility, the cosmos has to exist.

But it offers absolutely nothing that physical ontologies already offer. The idea that something must exist as a logical necessity is an old one, but there is no reason that something can't be the physical universe. Actually, it is a much simpler explanation, and given the choice I can't see any reason why to discard it in favor of a mind ontology.

This sounds illogical but I feel that existence IS illogical by our normal standards of logic. That's precisely why we cannot explain it scientifically yet. (IMHO)

I think you're expecting too much here. Logic can only tell us if a proposition is consistant or not. That being said, there is nothing logically inconsistant about the existence of the universe. Or at least, no philosopher has succeeded in finding a contradiction. But that has it's limits.

[Binary]

Interesting thread. The answer to the title question is of course no. Size or proportion, like time, are a product of imposed limitations relevant only to the subject form/forms being compared. God is incomparable, for god is the law whereby the universe was founded. He is the creator, and the creator isn't subject to the creature, for the creature only exist for the purpose of the creator. There are only sizes of quantums, does infinite have a size? No, why, because it is not comparable being opposite in origin from the fintude of fractions which it may be perceived to contain. Infinite has no size for it can only be comprehended, but never known. Finites does for through limitation, its ends are known, and bound by law the number of it's parts can be found out.

[Canute]

Beercules - general point - I feel that you asume my proposition is more scientifically naive than it is. I should at least point out that it's not derived from any religious belief, so this isn't a religion/science disgreement. It does seem to be consistent with Buddhist beliefs - but that's something I only recently discovered by fortuitous accident.

Originally posted by Beercules
We've already defined a mind to be non physical, fair enough. But the question is what justification do we have in claiming it is? One could just as easily claim the mind to be a physical phenomena. Which one is more likely to be correct?
I distinguish between mind and consciousness. I agree that mind is dependent on the brain. (However I do not agree that the conscious contents of minds are physical or epihenominal. They may be supervenient, but would argue that by definition supervenience works in both directions and is more like mutual dependence).
[What? Einstein never believed in non physical entities, and the others on the list are probably in a similar situation. Do you read an excerpt where a scientist mentions the word God, and automatically assume they believe in non physical objects?[/B]
Heisenberg (on being asked to explain his use of the term 'soul') -"The word soul refers to the central order, to the inner core of being whose outer manifestations may be highly divers and pass our understanding". Also -"I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point".
Schroedinger (an expert in the Upanishads)- "It would seem queer, not to say ridiculous, to think that the contemplating, conscious mind that alone reflects the becoming of the world should have made its appearance only at some time in the course of this 'becoming'...And before that happened, should it all have been a performance to empty stalls?" Also "The world extended in space and time is but our representation (Vorstellung). Experience does not give us the slightest clue of its being anything besides that." Also "We know, when God is experienced, this is an event as real as an immediate sense experience or as one's own personality."
Einstein -"The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling (cosmic oneness), which knows no dogma and no God concieved in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it... In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."
Etc. for the others.
[It's called the law of identity. A=A but does not equal B. Saying an animal is a horse tells us what it is, and tells us countless things it is not ( ie. not a dog). A pure negative tells us what a said entity is not, but doesn't say what it is.[/B]
To just the same degree as a pure positive tells us what a thing is but not what it is not. (Thus your addition of 'does not equal B'). If I phone you no doubt your ansaphone will say that you're not in, which according to you is meaningless information.

I don't think I ever tried to state what constitues the non-physical.
The statement above tells us that consciousness is not physical. But it doesn't say what properties it does have, and why we should consider those properties as non physical as opposed to physical.
Surely one has to start somewhere. You wouldn't thank me for posting my equivalent to 'God Gammetes' in undigested chunks. I didn't imagine the conversation would stop on that comment.
[Which really doesn't mean anything at all, as this thread has shown. I don't see droves and droves of neuroscientists proclaiming this either.[/B]
Hardly surprising. You won't find a lot of AI people saying it either. I said it was 'one of a number' of current solutions. In other words its as good a solution as any for all we yet know.
[I don't see how any of the above justify that title of non physical. What properties do a game of cricket have that are non physical? What properties does the chemistry associated with emotions likewise have that physical objects do not? We are just not defining anything here.[/B]
The paraphenalia of cricket are largely physical. However cricket itself is a concept, as is the LBW rule and the pain of being hit by the ball. I wasn't talking about 'the (physical) chemistry associated with emotions. I was talking about the emotions themselves.
This would be throwing away the law of indentity. A=A but A does not equal B.[/B]
Quite. And A=A but not B only in systems within which it is defined via the axioms that A=A but not B. And in any case all dualistic systems contain exactly such contradictions if extended indefinitely. Logical systems are all similarly flawed in the ultimate analysis.
[Yeesh, blatent contradiction. You seriously don't see how the above is illogical nonsense? [/B]
It's not, honestly. It just looks that way. I would have strongly agreed with you a couple of years ago. Perhaps I put it badly. I am saying that in my dual aspect monism there are two ways of looking at things (two systems of theorums if you like) - each giving mutually contradictory answers but reducing to a single view in which such contradictions no longer have meaning. This may be worng - but it isn't illogical.
[Give support to this notion. By observer I assume you're referring to something conscious. But it would seem that the universe could exist without anything conscious at all, as it did for at least 13 billion years. A mind seems to be a very very small part of existence.[/B]
See quote from Schroedinger.

If by mind you mean consciousness I agree. However I do not agree that consciousness is a minor function.
[Yes, it's speculative. So are all mind ontologies, since they can never be supported or falsified by evidence.
I'm not so sure, unless you disallow deduction as proof.
[QUOTE][Correct. It also means said concepts lose their appeal as ontologies, for reasons mentioned above.
For you this may be true. I'm more interested in the truth than in deciding what is scientific or not.

I hope I'm not being patronising but I suspect this is not your normal topic of reading. I cannot see how any strictly physical explanation can be simpler, and we're unlikely to ever find out at our current rate of progress.
[I think you're expecting too much here. Logic can only tell us if a proposition is consistant or not. That being said, there is nothing logically inconsistant about the existence of the universe. Or at least, no philosopher has succeeded in finding a contradiction. But that has it's limits.
This is true. But what I am suggesting is that there is a reason why neither science nor (western) philosophy can provide a logical explanation of existence which is widely acceptable. Every one of them has a problem, hence the battle between types and structures of explanations continues and metaphysics has all but given up.

[NaturalSelector]

Well I seem to be slightly confused so ....... There seems to be a very simple logical fallacy occuring.... "God" as a theological idea falls into the realm of metaphysics... Which after studying the root of the wording here, relates to "after-physics".... One would be hard pressed to discuss metaphysical ideology and expect it to be held to a form of empirical or scientific/mathematic proofs, that in itself is a philosophical negative.... The concept of "God" intrinsically defies most formal scientific and mathematical means of logic.. Since science and mathematics are founded in the root of observable and empirical data.. One could argue ontologically, cosmologically, teleologically, or phenomonologically... But to attempt to refute any ideological concept associated with a Diety on a format of scientific method encompasses a lecture series of fallacies.

[NaturalSelector]

Well I seem to be slightly confused so ....... There seems to be a very simple logical fallacy occuring.... "God" as a theological idea falls into the realm of metaphysics... Which after studying the root of the wording here, relates to "after-physics".... One would be hard pressed to discuss metaphysical ideology and expect it to be held to a form of empirical or scientific/mathematic proofs, that in itself is a philosophical negative.... The concept of "God" intrinsically defies most formal scientific and mathematical means of logic.. Since science and mathematics are founded in the root of observable and empirical data.. One could argue ontologically, cosmologically, teleologically, or phenomonologically... But to attempt to refute any ideological concept associated with a Diety on a format of scientific method encompasses a lecture series of fallacies.

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Canute
Beercules - general point - I feel that you asume my proposition is more scientifically naive than it is. I should at least point out that it's not derived from any religious belief, so this isn't a religion/science disgreement. It does seem to be consistent with Buddhist beliefs - but that's something I only recently discovered by fortuitous accident.

I don't have any problem with those with religious beliefs, nor those who want to postulate the existence of some eternal mind. My only gripe is with those with attempt to pass off such concepts as an explanation on the basis of pure negatives and undefined concepts. That is intellectual garbage.

I distinguish between mind and consciousness. I agree that mind is dependent on the brain. (However I do not agree that the conscious contents of minds are physical or epihenominal. They may be supervenient, but would argue that by definition supervenience works in both directions and is more like mutual dependence).

Fair enough...

Heisenberg (on being asked to explain his use of the term 'soul') -"The word soul refers to the central order, to the inner core of being whose outer manifestations may be highly divers and pass our understanding". Also -"I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point".


How is this order a reference to anything non physical? Often physicists will express a belief in this kind of order as God, but it is more a pantheistic view than anything non physical.

Schroedinger (an expert in the Upanishads)- [snipped]...


Fair enough.

Einstein -"The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling (cosmic oneness), which knows no dogma and no God concieved in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it... In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."


Again, no reference to anything non physical here. Einstein's God was certainly physical - the universe itself.

To just the same degree as a pure positive tells us what a thing is but not what it is not. (Thus your addition of 'does not equal B'). If I phone you no doubt your ansaphone will say that you're not in, which according to you is meaningless information.

No, I didn't say it was meaningless. I said the negative doesn't tell us anything but what something is not. If you were to ask where I am, and I keep telling you I'm "not at home", you still won't have the slightest idea of where I actually am. You will only know where I am not.

That is exactly what happens when you try to define non physical by a negative.

I don't think I ever tried to state what constitues the non-physical.

Thank you, that has been my point. You only defined what the non physical is NOT. I have no problem with attempts to build an ontology on the mind or what not, but to do so entirely with negatives will result in a non concept.

Surely one has to start somewhere. You wouldn't thank me for posting my equivalent to 'God Gammetes' in undigested chunks. I didn't imagine the conversation would stop on that comment.

But you must admit that is hardly a foundation for anything. In other words, you need more than a few negatives to do something meaningful.

The paraphenalia of cricket are largely physical. However cricket itself is a concept, as is the LBW rule and the pain of being hit by the ball. I wasn't talking about 'the (physical) chemistry associated with emotions. I was talking about the emotions themselves.

But then, the physicalist would argue that ideas are mere structured thoughts, memories, etc. which in turn are physical phenomena.

Quite. And A=A but not B only in systems within which it is defined via the axioms that A=A but not B. And in any case all dualistic systems contain exactly such contradictions if extended indefinitely. Logical systems are all similarly flawed in the ultimate analysis.

Any ontology that must discard the rather self evident axiom of identity (A=A) is built on sand and not worthy of any consideration. Why? Because if you discard logic, intelligent conversation is no longer possible. Circle squares could be popping in and out of existence all the time, and everything would be possible in such a world. It would thus be impossible to make sense out a world that by definition makes no sense.

But seriously, I have no desire to carry on a discussion with someone who believes in such nonsense. I doubt you would, either.

It's not, honestly. It just looks that way. I would have strongly agreed with you a couple of years ago. Perhaps I put it badly. I am saying that in my dual aspect monism there are two ways of looking at things (two systems of theorums if you like) - each giving mutually contradictory answers but reducing to a single view in which such contradictions no longer have meaning. This may be worng - but it isn't illogical.

It would benefit all involved in these discussion forums if you would be more carefull with your words. I know it can be hard to get your point across sometimes, but using blatent contradictions
is only going to cause additional confusion.

Be more precise.


For you this may be true. I'm more interested in the truth than in deciding what is scientific or not.

Yes, but keep in mind you asked why a space-time-mind concept is not considered a scientific concept.

I hope I'm not being patronising but I suspect this is not your normal topic of reading. I cannot see how any strictly physical explanation can be simpler, and we're unlikely to ever find out at our current rate of progress.

You don't see how well defined mathematical models of the universe are simpler than poorly defined, vague notions of an eternal mind? Well, to each his own.

This is true. But what I am suggesting is that there is a reason why neither science nor (western) philosophy can provide a logical explanation of existence which is widely acceptable. Every one of them has a problem, hence the battle between types and structures of explanations continues and metaphysics has all but given up.

I think the problem here is the notion of being widely acceptable. But that seems to be a difficulty in dealing with human personaility, rather than logical consistancy.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Beercules
I don't have any problem with those with religious beliefs, nor those who want to postulate the existence of some eternal mind. My only gripe is with those with attempt to pass off such concepts as an explanation on the basis of pure negatives and undefined concepts. That is intellectual garbage.
I never once (I think) said that I was talking about something that was undefinable or a pure negative. However science has its well acknowledged limits and we'd be blinkering ourselves to assume that nothing exists beyond that which we can poke with a stick. (Other than that I agree with you).
[How is this order a reference to anything non physical? Often physicists will express a belief in this kind of order as God, but it is more a pantheistic view than anything non physical.[/B]
Would you not agree that to give credence to religion is to give credence to the idea of an immaterial God? He's talking about the soul as if it's something that exists. (And pantheism suggests something existing in addition to the physical).
[Again, no reference to anything non physical here. Einstein's God was certainly physical - the universe itself.[/B]
Perhaps you're right - but 'cosmic oneness' is a term that only makes sense if consciousness is involved.
[No, I didn't say it was meaningless. I said the negative doesn't tell us anything but what something is not. If you were to ask where I am, and I keep telling you I'm "not at home", you still won't have the slightest idea of where I actually am. You will only know where I am not.[/B]
Not sure why we disagree. This is all I was saying. To say where you're not is (ultimately) to say where you are. It's simply a process of elimination. To say that something non-physical cannot be a part of science is an example of the use of negatives to define attributes.
Thank you, that has been my point. You only defined what the non physical is NOT. I have no problem with attempts to build an ontology on the mind or what not, but to do so entirely with negatives will result in a non concept.[/B]
I haven't yet attempted to define anything non-physical at all - beyond an 'a priori' quality of not being physical. We are stuck there because you seem to believe that anything non-physical must be a pure negative and therefore cannot be defined and therefore cannot be discussed. This is roughly the Buddhist argument - that the real truth must be experienced and cannot be discussed since discussion (by the nature of language and conceptualisiation) dumps you back in 'negative-positive' concepts which are inapropriate and a barrier to understanding. I agree with this but still think discussion is possible (with great care) - however, as this discussion shows - it can get very confusing.

Agreed.

This is the heart of the confusion. A=A is an absolute truth within any rational conceptual/logical/dualistic system of thought. However there is a viewpoint beyond this dualism. This is similar to saying that a kitchen table is definitely made out of wood, but by a reductionist view it is made of micro-particles. In fact it's made of both but ontologically the particles are more fundamental than the wood. This doesn't mean that the wood (or A=A) does not exist (or is not true in its context). In fact the table is made of either, both, or neither depending on how you look at it.
[It would benefit all involved in these discussion forums if you would be more carefull with your words. I know it can be hard to get your point across sometimes, but using blatant contradictions is only going to cause additional confusion.
Fair point - but I would argue that you've been a bit quick to disagree rather than ask for clarification. I don't feel that I've used any contradictions, but we are looking at things from different angles. (I don't feel that your objections are unreasonable, just that they're only reasonable by one particular way of looking at it, and there are other ways).
[Yes, but keep in mind you asked why a space-time-mind concept is not considered a scientific concept.[/B]
Did I? I know the answer to this already since to science mind is a product of evolved biological complexity and is not ontologically fundamental. This is just as it should be given science's definition of itself (although there is as yet no evidence for the truth of it and I disagree).
[You don't see how well defined mathematical models of the universe are simpler than poorly defined, vague notions of an eternal mind? Well, to each his own.[/B]
This is cheating. You have to leave out the adjectives for a fair comparison.
[I think the problem here is the notion of being widely acceptable. But that seems to be a difficulty in dealing with human personaility, rather than logical consistancy. [/B]
I don't agree. Many very clever and honest thinkers have devoted themselves to these problems and have found them intractable or undecidable. After some thousands of years of failure to resolve the problem I feel we should conclude that we're asking the wrong questions (or rather that our questions have incorrect assumptions built into them).

These posts are getting a bit long. Next time I'll try to stick to the main point.

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Canute
I never once (I think) said that I was talking about something that was undefinable or a pure negative. However science has its well acknowledged limits and we'd be blinkering ourselves to assume that nothing exists beyond that which we can poke with a stick. (Other than that I agree with you).


The discussion has drifted off course, and you seem to have been arguing that negatives do tell us something. My argument was just that they only tell us what the said entity is not.

Would you not agree that to give credence to religion is to give credence to the idea of an immaterial God? He's talking about the soul as if it's something that exists. (And pantheism suggests something existing in addition to the physical).

AND

Perhaps you're right - but 'cosmic oneness' is a term that only makes sense if consciousness is involved.

Some clarifications here. Not all concepts of the soul are based on the non physical, and pantheism does not claim the existence of something in addition to the physical. You are thinking about panentheism. Also, cosmic oneness does not require consciousness at all. In modern physics since the time of Einstein, the findings about the physical world suggest a holistic universe where there are no substances or individual things, but one entity - the field. So in that sense, everything is one.

Not sure why we disagree. This is all I was saying. To say where you're not is (ultimately) to say where you are. It's simply a process of elimination. To say that something non-physical cannot be a part of science is an example of the use of negatives to define attributes.

This is a problem because saying where I'm not ultimately doesn't tell you anything else. It may tell you that I could be in an infinite number of places other than home, but that is hardly useful. If you were to give a countless list of places on earth I'm not, through the process of elimination you might be able to narrow it down to a few places I must be. But we have no experience with anything non physical, and eliminating the physical does not automatically provide us with an alternative as eliminating possible locations does.

That was the point I am trying to stress.

I haven't yet attempted to define anything non-physical at all - beyond an 'a priori' quality of not being physical. We are stuck there because you seem to believe that anything non-physical must be a pure negative and therefore cannot be defined and therefore cannot be discussed. This is roughly the Buddhist argument - that the real truth must be experienced and cannot be discussed since discussion (by the nature of language and conceptualisiation) dumps you back in 'negative-positive' concepts which are inapropriate and a barrier to understanding. I agree with this but still think discussion is possible (with great care) - however, as this discussion shows - it can get very confusing.

No, my only argument is that the pure negative is not enough. And an undefined concept is not concept at all.

This is the heart of the confusion. A=A is an absolute truth within any rational conceptual/logical/dualistic system of thought. However there is a viewpoint beyond this dualism. This is similar to saying that a kitchen table is definitely made out of wood, but by a reductionist view it is made of micro-particles. In fact it's made of both but ontologically the particles are more fundamental than the wood. This doesn't mean that the wood (or A=A) does not exist (or is not true in its context). In fact the table is made of either, both, or neither depending on how you look at it.

That isn't quite true. The problem lies in the question of what the table is made of - it is vague. That is, the question can have several meanings (what substance is the table made of, what molecules make it up, what the quarks make it up, etc.) but each precise question will only have one correct answer. Thus, the law of identity is never compromised.

So making the claim of " either, both, or neither" is unnecessary and does not contribute anything to our understanding of a concept. Nor does it give us new insight into any ontological questions.

Fair point - but I would argue that you've been a bit quick to disagree rather than ask for clarification. I don't feel that I've used any contradictions, but we are looking at things from different angles. (I don't feel that your objections are unreasonable, just that they're only reasonable by one particular way of looking at it, and there are other ways).

See above.

This is cheating. You have to leave out the adjectives for a fair comparison.

Not quite. The adjectives are an important appealing aspect of ontologies based on physicalism, while they are a serious drawback for mind ontologies. At least, that is what I would argue.

I don't agree. Many very clever and honest thinkers have devoted themselves to these problems and have found them intractable or undecidable. After some thousands of years of failure to resolve the problem I feel we should conclude that we're asking the wrong questions (or rather that our questions have incorrect assumptions built into them).

But the problem is not of logical consistancy. There is nothing illogical about an eternal universe, but many will not feel satisfied with such. Again, it seems to be a problem of human tastes. This point really can't be argued, unless you can show some internal contradictions with such physicalist ontologies.

These posts are getting a bit long. Next time I'll try to stick to the main point.

Yes, though long threads are sometimes inevitable.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Beercules
The discussion has drifted off course, and you seem to have been arguing that negatives do tell us something. My argument was just that they only tell us what the said entity is not.
I said 'pure negatives'. My argument is what the hell is the difference? This started because I suggested that something could be non-physical. All this stuff about negatives is ridiculous. If 'non-physical' does not mean anything then neither does 'physical' (non-non-physical). I wish I'd just said 'immaterial' or 'metaphysical'.
[Some clarifications here. Not all concepts of the soul are based on the non physical, and pantheism does not claim the existence of something in addition to the physical. You are thinking about panentheism. Also, cosmic oneness does not require consciousness at all. In modern physics since the time of Einstein, the findings about the physical world suggest a holistic universe where there are no substances or individual things, but one entity - the field. So in that sense, everything is one.[/B]
I wasn't talking about pantheism (or any other 'ism'). Anyway pantheism can equally mean a belief that the world is identical with God or (as with Hegel) that it isn't. I'd be interested to know how a 'soul' can be physical and who has ever thought it was?

If 'cosmic oneness' does not involve consciouness the phrase is trivial. We know the cosmos is one, it's what we mean by 'cosmos' and if it wasn't one thing we couldn't have one word for it. It's the category that contains everything. Any referent of a noun without a 's' on the end is one thing in this trivial sense. (At least Einstein thought that the cosmos is ontologically monist, therefore non-dual and ultimately non-reduceable).
[This is a problem because saying where I'm not ultimately doesn't tell you anything else. It may tell you that I could be in an infinite number of places other than home, but that is hardly useful. If you were to give a countless list of places on earth I'm not, through the process of elimination you might be able to narrow it down to a few places I must be. But we have no experience with anything non physical, and eliminating the physical does not automatically provide us with an alternative as eliminating possible locations does.[/B]
So even if there is something that is non-physical we are not allowed to say so. This seems a ridiculous form of conceptual censorship. If I say that water is not dry does that mean water doesn't exist because I've defined it with negative? This is absurd. Things have to be defined by what they are and by what they're not, it's just two sides of the same coin. BTW all experience IS non-physical - although it may well be supervenient on the matter. (Eg 'red' is not a scientific property of anything).
[No, my only argument is that the pure negative is not enough. And an undefined concept is not concept at all. [/B]
Agreed. I hope that I never suggested otherwise.
[That isn't quite true. The problem lies in the question of what the table is made of - it is vague. That is, the question can have several meanings (what substance is the table made of, what molecules make it up, what the quarks make it up, etc.) but each precise question will only have one correct answer. Thus, the law of identity is never compromised.
You miss the point. There are different viewpoints and paradigms, and the 'truth' of what the table is made out of depends on which one you're inhabiting.
[QUOTE][So making the claim of " either, both, or neither" is unnecessary and does not contribute anything to our understanding of a concept. Nor does it give us new insight into any ontological questions.
Speak for yourself. You didn't grasp my metaphor.
[QUOTE][Not quite. The adjectives are an important appealing aspect of ontologies based on physicalism, while they are a serious drawback for mind ontologies. At least, that is what I would argue.[/B]
You stated that "well defined mathematical models of the universe are simpler than poorly defined, vague notions of an eternal mind?" This may be true - just as it is true that well defined notions of an eternal mind are 'simpler' than poorly defined, vague notions of mathematical models. These are vacuous and value-laden statements.

Don't agree with the first part but do agree with the last sentence. However it applies both ways around - there's nothing logically inconsistent about idealism - if there was it would have been shown to be a false idea by now, as James Jeans recognised when he said "It does not matter whether objects exist in my mind or that of any other created spirit or not; their objectivity arises from their subsisting in the mind of some Eternal Spirit". The opposite view from yours is no more inconsistent than yours.
[Yes, though long threads are sometimes inevitable.
True enough - and they're interesting. However I think we're bogged down in side issues here. If you're arguing that there can be nothing that is not physical then we might as well just agree to differ, unless you have some proof.

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Canute
I said 'pure negatives'. My argument is what the hell is the difference? This started because I suggested that something could be non-physical. All this stuff about negatives is ridiculous.

I already explained to you the difference. I said a concept defined purely by negatives is no concept at all. That is, an attempted concept that has no listed properties.

If 'non-physical' does not mean anything then neither does 'physical' (non-non-physical). I wish I'd just said 'immaterial' or 'metaphysical'.

Uhh, not again. I already explained that since we have no experience with non physical things, the word non physical does not automatically have an opposite positive meaning. This is contrast other negatives where the negative automatically describes a state opposite to the positive. An example is describing a room as having no light. A lack of light has an opposite state we've all experienced - darkness. But there is no such automatic opposite for non physical.

I wasn't talking about pantheism (or any other 'ism'). Anyway pantheism can equally mean a belief that the world is identical with God or (as with Hegel) that it isn't. I'd be interested to know how a 'soul' can be physical and who has ever thought it was?

Pantheism is the view the God and the universe are the same. Not 2 entities that are identical, but one entity. As for a material soul, that has a long history. Even the atomists believed that the soul existed as the very essence of one's self. But that soul was made of atoms, and was destroyed upon death. The idea that the soul was made of some non matter substance (ether) also has a long tradition even up to this century. See the new age movement.

If 'cosmic oneness' does not involve consciouness the phrase is trivial. We know the cosmos is one, it's what we mean by 'cosmos' and if it wasn't one thing we couldn't have one word for it. It's the category that contains everything. Any referent of a noun without a 's' on the end is one thing in this trivial sense. (At least Einstein thought that the cosmos is ontologically monist, therefore non-dual and ultimately non-reduceable).

Not quite, because a popular view in the past has been that the universe is a bunch of working parts. In this reductionist worldview, the word cosmos still doesn't mean there is actually any oneness. But this view has been soundly put to rest by modern physics. The holistic concept of a field has replaced it, and does give meaning to the notion of oneness.

So even if there is something that is non-physical we are not allowed to say so. This seems a ridiculous form of conceptual censorship.

I've explained this countless times. No. I said trying to use non physical as an explanation for anything is nonsense, because it's not even a concept itself. A non concept is a non explanation.

If I say that water is not dry does that mean water doesn't exist because I've defined it with negative? This is absurd. Things have to be defined by what they are and by what they're not, it's just two sides of the same coin. BTW all experience IS non-physical - although it may well be supervenient on the matter. (Eg 'red' is not a scientific property of anything).

Why do you keep repeating this? One more time: Negatives usually have opposite positives, and you can infer one from the other. This is due to our experience. But as I said, non physical does not gives us an opposite, because we've never seen anything as such.

And if you were to try and explain the concept of water to someone who had never seen it before, your attempts would not be successful. At least not entirely with negatives.

You stated that "well defined mathematical models of the universe are simpler than poorly defined, vague notions of an eternal mind?" This may be true - just as it is true that well defined notions of an eternal mind are 'simpler' than poorly defined, vague notions of mathematical models. These are vacuous and value-laden statements.

The difference is, I can back up with my claim by presenting those well defined mathematical models. I would very much like to see any proponent of mind ontology to present a model that even comes close to comparing. Perhaps you have one? We can compare them, and let anyone be the judge.

Don't agree with the first part but do agree with the last sentence. However it applies both ways around - there's nothing logically inconsistent about idealism - if there was it would have been shown to be a false idea by now, as James Jeans recognised when he said "It does not matter whether objects exist in my mind or that of any other created spirit or not; their objectivity arises from their subsisting in the mind of some Eternal Spirit". The opposite view from yours is no more inconsistent than yours.

Indeed. The only question is, which logically consistant models actually describe the real world? That is the difficult question, but I would argue physical models are superior on a number of grounds. But that is a topic for another day.

True enough - and they're interesting. However I think we're bogged down in side issues here. If you're arguing that there can be nothing that is not physical then we might as well just agree to differ, unless you have some proof.

No, as you should now by know, that isn't my argument. The point is that the term "non physical" doesn't have any meaning on it's own. I don't know why you would want to defend the position that it does, but in this thread you have been doing exactly that.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Beercules
No, as you should now by know, that isn't my argument. The point is that the term "non physical" doesn't have any meaning on it's own. I don't know why you would want to defend the position that it does, but in this thread you have been doing exactly that.
I have never suggested any such thing, or defended any such position, and I don't know why you would think I had. My point has been that you were (and are) being unreasonable in disallowing me from saying that something can be non-physical. I certainly never suggested that being non-physical was the ONLY attribute of anything, for it is plainly a ridiculous idea.

As you don't accept the possibility of anything being non-physical this discussion got stayed stuck at the starting gate. I don't know how you can be so certain but as long as you are then let's change the subject.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Canute
I have never suggested any such thing, or defended any such position, and I don't know why you would think I had. My point has been that you were (and are) being unreasonable in disallowing me from saying that something can be non-physical. I certainly never suggested that being non-physical was the ONLY attribute of anything, for it is plainly a ridiculous idea.

As you don't accept the possibility of anything being non-physical this discussion got stuck at the starting gate. I don't know how you can be so certain but as long as you are then let's change the subject.

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Canute
I have never suggested any such thing, or defended any such position, and I don't know why you would think I had. My point has been that you were (and are) being unreasonable in disallowing me from saying that something can be non-physical. I certainly never suggested that being non-physical was the ONLY attribute of anything, for it is plainly a ridiculous idea.

I never said non physical was disallowed, only that it would need to be defined with some properties before being considered.

As you don't accept the possibility of anything being non-physical this discussion got stayed stuck at the starting gate. I don't know how you can be so certain but as long as you are then let's change the subject.

We can discuss the possibility when the subject matter is properly defined. But indeed, this is getting off topic so it's a good idea to end it here.

[rayzinnz]

Hi, God can exist at a higher state than the physical universe, only it is impossible for us to prove, or disaprove, as we a made of this universe, and all our instrements are made of this universe, and can only interact with this universe.

This is how I percieve a state outside the infinite physical universe: I created a 3D room using maths, and made an entity (using maths). I could view the room and its contents from anywhere without disrupting anything in it. Literally a "God" point of view.
Math is infinite so an infinite universe could be made. We could view any point in the universe on our computer screen without the universe knowing about it.

P.S. I'm an athiest.