A Being That Syntactically Self-distributes Itself
- Thread starter Fork
- Start date
The expression "God" usually conjures the traditional meaning in Anglophone / Euro culture, which is itself tethered to certain attributions presented in the past, with their consequences explored by later philosophers. Among them:
George Berkeley -- "But to conceive God to be the sentient Soul, of an animal, is altogether unworthy and absurd. There is no sense, nor sensory, nor any thing like a sense or sensory in God. Sense implies an impression from some other being, and denotes a dependence in the Soul which hath it. Sense is a passion, and passions imply imperfection. God knoweth all things, as pure mind or intellect, but nothing by sense, nor in nor through a sensory. Therefore to suppose a sensory of any kind, whether space or any other in God would be very wrong, and lead us into false conceptions of his nature. The presuming there was such a thing as real absolute uncreated space, seems to have occasioned that modern mistake. But this presumption was, without grounds". --Siris
"It must be owned that I entirely agree with what the holy Scripture saith, 'That in God we live and move and have our being.' But that we see things in His essence, after the manner above set forth, I am far from believing. Take here in brief my meaning: It is evident that the things I perceive are my own ideas, and that no idea can exist unless it be in a mind: nor is it less plain that these ideas or things by me perceived, either themselves or their archetypes, exist independently of my mind, since I know myself not to be their author, it being out of my power to determine at pleasure what particular ideas I shall be affected with upon opening my eyes or ears: they must therefore exist in some other Mind, whose Will it is they should be exhibited to me. The things, I say, immediately perceived are ideas or sensations, call them which you will. But how can any idea or sensation exist in, or be produced by, anything but a mind or spirit? This indeed is inconceivable. And to assert that which is inconceivable is to talk nonsense: is it not?
"[...] But, on the other hand, it is very conceivable that they should exist in and be produced by a spirit; since this is no more than I daily experience in myself, inasmuch as I perceive numberless ideas; and, by an act of my will, can form a great variety of them, and raise them up in my imagination: though, it must be confessed, these creatures of the fancy are not altogether so distinct, so strong, vivid, and permanent, as those perceived by my senses -- which latter are called 'red things'. From all which I conclude, 'there is a Mind which affects me every moment with all the sensible impressions I perceive'. And, from the variety, order, and manner of these, I conclude 'the Author of them to be wise, powerful, and good, beyond comprehension. Mark it well; I do not say, I see things by perceiving that which represents them in the intelligible Substance of God. This I do not understand; but I say, the things by me perceived are known by the understanding, and produced by the will of an infinite Spirit." --The Three Dialogues
"It must be owned that I entirely agree with what the holy Scripture saith, 'That in God we live and move and have our being.' But that we see things in His essence, after the manner above set forth, I am far from believing. Take here in brief my meaning: It is evident that the things I perceive are my own ideas, and that no idea can exist unless it be in a mind: nor is it less plain that these ideas or things by me perceived, either themselves or their archetypes, exist independently of my mind, since I know myself not to be their author, it being out of my power to determine at pleasure what particular ideas I shall be affected with upon opening my eyes or ears: they must therefore exist in some other Mind, whose Will it is they should be exhibited to me. The things, I say, immediately perceived are ideas or sensations, call them which you will. But how can any idea or sensation exist in, or be produced by, anything but a mind or spirit? This indeed is inconceivable. And to assert that which is inconceivable is to talk nonsense: is it not?
"[...] But, on the other hand, it is very conceivable that they should exist in and be produced by a spirit; since this is no more than I daily experience in myself, inasmuch as I perceive numberless ideas; and, by an act of my will, can form a great variety of them, and raise them up in my imagination: though, it must be confessed, these creatures of the fancy are not altogether so distinct, so strong, vivid, and permanent, as those perceived by my senses -- which latter are called 'red things'. From all which I conclude, 'there is a Mind which affects me every moment with all the sensible impressions I perceive'. And, from the variety, order, and manner of these, I conclude 'the Author of them to be wise, powerful, and good, beyond comprehension. Mark it well; I do not say, I see things by perceiving that which represents them in the intelligible Substance of God. This I do not understand; but I say, the things by me perceived are known by the understanding, and produced by the will of an infinite Spirit." --The Three Dialogues
Of course that which surrounds cannot be perceived by that which is surrounded. Are you saying God doesn't exist in that we can only imagine him? Because that would be incorrect.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Why not? Apparently religion claims to perceive that which surrounds us. Hence the hundreds of gods who have come and gone.
Are you saying that god is true because we can imagine him? Because that would be incorrect. I can imagine a metaphysical Pink Elephant creating and ruling the universe, would that be true?
Where is your imagined god any different than my imagined god?
Yes, of course anything that can be imagined can be real. It's just a question of how. I can imagine a highest being (God) and if it is logical it would be possible. But I cannot imagine a logically possible elephant.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
The same thing that prevents you from imagining a pink elephant is the very thing that prevents scientists from imagining a sentient God. Knowledge, knowledge of what can be real and what cannot reasonably be expected to be real.
The problem lies in the confusion of "transfer of information" with " thinking, experiencing, existing". In the transfer of information through the fabric of the universe, no emotional values are attached as it happens with humans.
A computer may communicate the most horrific stories, pictures of global tragedies all around the world to all the other computers around the world and there is no collective sigh from computers at the moment that information is shared. It's the people watching the TV who are reacting to the information being passed on.
The universe is like the internet, lots of information, no emotion, no motive. It seems to work just fine that way.
Great Old One
Registered Member
Hi and hello all,
Do you think this is radically different than Buddhist thought save being somewhat refined and with a modern sense of articulation?
Additionally, what is the difference in this way of thinking and simply concluding that reality exists?
The main question being, why would this be controversial in any way unless additional properties are assigned to God so conceived than are apparent to us through examining reality and introspection?
On the contrary it's an imagination to suggest all the points you bring up are real
Eg cosmogyny is anywhere in the region other than speculation (so much so that there is not even a consensus whether cosmogyny ticks enough boxes to be a scientific discipline)
Science has the capacity to act as leverage in discussion s that are exclusively theological
There is something about being a scientist that prevents one from entertaining the notion of a sentient god etc etc
Iow not even you are capable of presenting a world view obedient to the rules you are trying to hold others accountable to
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
First I am not a scientist and have no prejudices against any personal spiritual activities if they offer tranquility. That argument won't hold in my case. I am speaking of a metaphysical condition which had the potential to become reality, by purely scientific means.
While this proposition has met with resistance, newer theories such as String or M theory and CDT (causal dynamic triangulation) are becoming closer to Bohm's vision.
Somewhere there must be a connection between the metaphysical (not yet manifest) and physical reality. But the statement God did it, has no more meaning than saying A Pink Elephant did it.
I can't with authority, but David Bohm did. Read his "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". It is a clear and scientific presentation of the possibility of the existence of a "singular wholeness" which he calls the "holomovement". A dynamic causality, which he calls "insight intelligence" (not sentient but as a dynamic pseudo intelligence), which inherently has the property (latent ability) of pure potential for a near infinite number of events that may result from this Holomovement. (personally I see this as similar to the proposition of String Theory, energetic dynamism from which particles pop in and out of existence).
When reinforcing potentials combine, they form an implication of that which may become reality, which Bohm calls "The Implicate Order". When sufficient potentials are gathered these potentials become expressed in reality.
As a prominent physicist he laid out these steps scientifically from the infinitely subtle to gross expression in reality. At no time was Intent or Motive an issue in the process from potential to reality.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/David+Bohm
Last edited:
You can also add "string or M theory does it".
Of course you may not agree to, but that is only because the logic you employ is strictly tied to your values/philosophical world view (which is of course the real platform for practically all of these sorts of discussions)
that is also not a world view obedient to the rules you are trying to hold others too.
At no time do his ideas about reality find scope outside of pure speculation
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
First, I did mention string and M theory employing similar logic as Bohm's work. Are you also discounting that direction of investigation? The main difference is that instead of the term "strings", Bohm uses the term "potentials".
Where does the logic fail?
And which rules are those? At no time have I argued against accepted science here, but If I did, find me a quote.
Apparently Einstein was intrigued. They had many long discussions on these subjects. And unless you actually have read "Wholeness and the Implicate order" and have the qualifications to speak authoritatively on Bohm's scientific qualifications and depth of theoretical insights, your comments add nothing to the discussion except negativity.
But as you so definitively stated that all of the ideas of this eminent physicist "find no scope outside of pure speculation", please furnish a link that disproves Bohm's work and his knowledge of physics.
We are talking theoretical science, not applied science. The only requirement is that no proposition conflicts with accepted GR and QM. I have read quite a bit of Bohm as well as reviews and nowhere does it say he was flat wrong as you now seem to be doing.
From the wiki link.
If you can enlighten me where you believe Bohm's theories fail, I'd be most pleased. I am here to learn. But so far your comments are all negative and do not add to my knowledge.
Show me where Bohm fails logically and where his propositions are not in accordance with the rules of theoretical science on a subject which is by its very nature speculative.
I know this much; the proposition that a sentient, motivated God, without any physical properties (or proofs) MUST be the creator, is last on my list of all possible causal dynamics. I should like to examine all other options first before I delve into supernatural magical beings.
Last edited:
I am saying it doesn't take the topic out of the realm of speculation
with the notion that logic alone operates divorced from value/world view etc
"Knowledge, knowledge of what can be real and what cannot reasonably be expected to be real."
IOW the slippery slope of your statement is that we can only talk of what can reasonably expected to be real in accordance with a pre-existing world view.
Discussing such a topic of course says absolutely nothing whether such premises are "actually" real.
EG 10 false assumptions of modern science
Much of modern science remains stuck in an endless inward spiral of false paradigms.
the problem is that your ideas of cosmogny, science defaulting to a necessarily godless (ie without sentience) universe etc are not accepted as science ... particularly when there is not a consensus whether cosmogyny is even an acceptable science
.
Unless you can cite their work to act as leverage for your claims (such as science necessarily defaults to a world view bereft of a sentient god) about the validity of your (scientific?) claims, not even you are capable of remaining obedient to the parameters you insist the topic be discussed.
IOW there is a massive difference between ideas about the ultimate substance of reality and actually delineating it in a manner that necessarily defaults the exclusion of contrary/conflicting world views.
In fact you can even argue quite effectively that empiricism is philosophically incapable of addressing the topic (since, by definition, empiricism is always punctuated at one end by a limit in the macrocosm and, at the other, the microcosm)
Strawman.
I am not saying he is not a physicist, or even established in the field.
I also never said all his ideas find no scope outside of speculation
I am saying his ideas, as you call upon them to justify your world view, are speculation and as such are only "reasonably real" for as long as we are working with his ideas on reality that are far from axiomatic
I am saying that it is wrong for you to discuss what one can reasonably expect to be real on the basis of a discipline that has serious philosophical issues approaching the ontological problems you are proposing.
IOW you are using (empirical) science to establish what is and isn't theologically possible on a universal level (when technically any sort of universal is unapproachable by empiricism) .
So far your comments about god are all negative and do not add and its poor form to suggest this is a tenable position purely on the strength of theoretical science (since even theoretical science, evidenced by the controversy of even deeming cosmogyny a science, has massive difficulty acting in accordance with other models of theoretical science).
IOW to say that god is untenable on the strength of a branch of theoretical science is saying nothing since any branch of theoretical science has enough issues at hand with merely science . Going further abroad into issues of cosmogyny/theology is certainly not required
The fact that you relegate god to last on your list seems to be more evidence the topic is simply an issue of world view values as opposed to reason
Last edited:
It seems though that both you and the scientists are working out of the Correspondence Theory of Truth, which is just one of many theories of truth.
How did you decide which theory of truth to subscribe to?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I have stipulated that theoretical science in that area is speculative, however, we can draw logical inferences from what we do know.
The blind acceptance of a supernatural causality without any logical examination of what we do know, is not knowledge and purely personal. By your standards theism must fail from a complete lack of knowledge about supernatural phenomena. It is not even speculative.
And that is a slippery slope??? Oh yes, of course, this slippery slope may lead to knowledge of how things really work contrary to a pre existing world view.
And how slippery is the slope of the pre existing world view of an emotionally motivated entity, who by all accounts (even the catholic church admits) did NOT create the universe and the world as "written" in the sacred (untouchable) scriptures, but by evolutionary function.
I never said "without sentience". I have mentioned pseudo-intelligence, such as Universal Constants and Universal laws which are so predictable as to be identified with a pseudo intelligent behavior. If a brainless slime mold can exhibit intelligent behavior, we may call that pseudo intelligence, IMHO. No reason to suspect this is not just another way Nature figures out (by trial and error of evolution)
http://www.nature.com/news/how-brainless-slime-molds-redefine-intelligence-1.11811
Should we assign miraculous properties to what makes the slime mold so smart. There is also a debate function within the hive-mind of bees as to which site is most advantageous to the establishment of a new hive. As I mentioned before ants have had extremely successful societies for millions of years, complete with enormous fungus cultivation to feed up to three million individuals, husbandry, nurseries, air ducts to provide ventilation. A cuttlefish is a completely alien life form from our world beliefs of life and its infinite expressions, all natural, functioning perfectly in a natural world, but using the earths resources in a completely different way. Sulphur vent worms living and thriving in poisonous waters.
The list is a s long as there were living organisms, all naturally evolved and over time speciating. But always natural and in accordance with natural laws. There is no evidence for God, but there is evidence for a Potential field from which reality becomes manifest.
How do you know the Universe is not bereft of God now?
I have not made claims, I have stated Bohm's claims, which seem to me entirely logically possible.
Bohm was qualified in that area also.
We seem to be getting pretty good at measuring the various behaviors of the Universe, at both sides. But do we need to know both in order to understand the fabric and function of the cosmos? If we examine an atom, an extremely small object, we find it consists mostly of space between mathematical orbits of particles. A photon's (zero rest mass) potentially may have two fundamental expressions in reality. Perhaps when we get deep enough we end up with the information which is applicable to all the universe. A common denominator, such as potential. E = Mc^2 is a universal potential, no?
Naaah, I don't need them.
He was considered one of the great minds in the field (quantum )
Yes you did, my quote was a copy/paste from your comment. (post 111?)
It is becoming obvious you have not read Bohm. He proposed that GR and QM are not mutually exclusive. They just show different properties of the Universe. He proposed the merging of these excellent theories into a greater whole that does allow and accounts for both seemingly conflicting results.
Methinks you underestimate Bohm's stature in physics.
.
Jeez, how many times do I have to say it. I have no quarrel with spiritualism (it is a private experience), UNLESS it interferes with the scientific examination of what makes the universe tick.
Science has never intentionally interfered with religion, as you said it is outside the scope of science, but the opposite is very real and has been practiced for thousands of years, where religion is suppressing scientific inquiries about the "Origins of the Universe". To a theist this is sacred ground not to be violated. Well I'm sorry to offend, but I want to know what lies beyond.
And therefore God? Which one? Find me a god I can be positive about, one that is the composite (the wholeness). And Natural, please.
Can't tread on Sacred ground! Not even in a speculative way prompted by unusual phenomena (such as tachyons) bleeding into our universe, even if for a single instant.
Are you telling me that popular views trump science in the establishment of facts? That smacks of conditioning rather than free thought.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But I noticed you have not addressed the notion of a common denominator for all things in reality and those things which may become reality, namely Potential.
Title: A Being That Syntactically Self-distributes Itself .
First I object the term Being, I prefer a Condition or Function.
Syntactic self distribution does not make an Omnipotent Being, it means Unlimited Dynamic Potential. In this universal potential field certain probabilities reinforce themselves and form an Implicate. With additional reinforcing potentials the Implicate eventually become Explicate in reality.
CDT (causal dynamic triangulation), clearly shows that syntactic self distribution needs only be a copy of itself, a very simple concept. It is a non-disturbing dynamic geometric, measured down to Planck scale. Only computer power has prevented deeper probing, but soon computing power will make that obstacle a thing of the past.
In fractals we can see what extraordinary potentials can be created with a simple mathematical function.
Title: A Being That Syntactically Self-distributes Itself .
First I object the term Being, I prefer a Condition or Function.
Syntactic self distribution does not make an Omnipotent Being, it means Unlimited Dynamic Potential. In this universal potential field certain probabilities reinforce themselves and form an Implicate. With additional reinforcing potentials the Implicate eventually become Explicate in reality.
CDT (causal dynamic triangulation), clearly shows that syntactic self distribution needs only be a copy of itself, a very simple concept. It is a non-disturbing dynamic geometric, measured down to Planck scale. Only computer power has prevented deeper probing, but soon computing power will make that obstacle a thing of the past.
In fractals we can see what extraordinary potentials can be created with a simple mathematical function.
Last edited: