Can there be such a thing as nothing?

[QED]

If we try to clear our minds and use them to conceive of nothingness it almost hurts. It's as if it's an impossible feat for the imagination. Logic and language fully support this notion. How can there be such a thing as nothing? Is this logical contradiction just a play on words or could it be the reason why everything exists?

[harvey1]

How about Lee Smolin? John Gribbon wrote an article titled Is the universe Alive in which he sets out the concept of universes evolving out of each other.

Let me clarify what I said. Inflation probably does not remove the isssue of a past singularity for the universe (I found a recent paper by Andrei Linde where he still disputes this -but seems to be in a minority, so we have to be cautious). This does not mean that there are no new physics out there which will resolve this problem (e.g., Smolin's).

However, this just gets us right back to my original question. Why did the universe have the kind of behavior that was capable of bringing forth a universe such as our's and wasn't just nothing altogether? Also, the issue of causal relations between one instant moment to the next strikes me as a metaphysical relation between two moments, and this too must be addressed. These are philosophical objections to an eternal universe.

[harvey1]

Oh, so this is the theory you agree with. A great pity then as this theory must actually break the law of conservation initially.Even 0.0000001J extra is breaking the law. I also posted my objections to this theory previously and have yet to receive a rebuttal. The question remains, how does your theory, which seems preferable to an initial "zero state" theory, gain preference over this new theory.

Show me a link to your new theory. This isn't a theory that you invented by yourself, right? As far as the "nothing state," I think it sounds very plausible. You'd have to show me a link to a cosmologist who disputes that the conservation of energy is being violated. I'd be interested in their view to this issue. All the cosmologists that I've read see no problem with it.

The singularity is not unavoidable in the version that I have proposed. Do not make such wild statements without some explanation.

Okay, post a link.

How can you argue that energy is not eternal when all observation shows clearly that it is. When a proven theory is tested against an unproven theory, then the one that disagrees with fact is false(ie.the unproven theory). Energy is eternal, if it is not then explain why it is not.

This is not a sacred law. Like I said, we already see temporary "violations" of this principle in terms of virtual particles. There is increasing evidence from cosmology that our universe is a finite age. Many cosmologists believe our universe inflated from a small quantum fluctuation, and this view is in-line with observational evidence of COBE. So, I really have no reason to believe that conservation of energy requires that the matter in our universe as not having been created.

[Curious]

Show me a link to your new theory. This isn't a theory that you invented by yourself, right? As far as the "nothing state," I think it sounds very plausible. You'd have to show me a link to a cosmologist who disputes that the conservation of energy is being violated. I'd be interested in their view to this issue. All the cosmologists that I've read see no problem with it.

I am not saying that I dispute whether conservation is violated. I state that it is being violated. Why would I give a link to an argument counter to my own?
Even the article itself states that energy would be required for initiation although it also states that the energy required would be very small.

I would like to bring your attention to the below quote

Within philosophy, no proposition is given a free ride. That is, it's not a matter of showing the con of one to prove the other. One has to justifiy their philosophical beliefs on the best reasons available. Likewise, one has to minimize the impact the cons of their belief with the best reasons available. If the cons are detrimental to that belief, then unless there's exceptional reasons to expect otherwise, one should be prepared to give up their belief system. This doesn't mean that scientific evidence must be presented. Rather, all that must be present are good enough reasons to think the other view is wrong and the proponent belief is right. If such exists, then we have good reason to believe one and not the other.

Since this is a philosophy forum and the purpose of my original question was to ascertain how your proposed theory would fare against this theory in terms of greater probability I don't see the objection. I can't believe that you are suggesting that an argument is valid only after it has been published or that original argument is in some way invalid. As for whether I invented this theory myself, is that not allowed? I would think that philosophical argument would quickly stagnate if new ideas are discouraged.

The singularity is not unavoidable in the version that I have proposed. Do not make such wild statements without some explanation.

Okay, post a link.

Why do you require a link? Are we discussing this using our own or other's arguments? The hypothetical theory I postulated will stand on its own merits and will fall due to its deficiencies. If you could tell me why the singularity is required in this instance I would be interested to hear it. It is you who say that a singularity is required so the onus is upon you to explain why this is the case.

How can you argue that energy is not eternal when all observation shows clearly that it is. When a proven theory is tested against an unproven theory, then the one that disagrees with fact is false(ie.the unproven theory). Energy is eternal, if it is not then explain why it is not.

This is not a sacred law. Like I said, we already see temporary "violations" of this principle in terms of virtual particles. There is increasing evidence from cosmology that our universe is a finite age. Many cosmologists believe our universe inflated from a small quantum fluctuation, and this view is in-line with observational evidence of COBE. So, I really have no reason to believe that conservation of energy requires that the matter in our universe as not having been created.

Sacred? obviously not as many theories completely fail to take this into account. It is however an unbreakable law. We also do not know the total system energy when we measure these virtual particles or that the energy is created rather than simply borrowed from within the system for the lifespan of the particle. That a particle comes into existence does not mean the energy of the whole system is altered in any way. What is it that leads you to this conclusion? You say that the universe is a finite age, I agree, but that does not automatically lead to the energy being a finite age. And that matter has been created, this I am also in agreement with, but matter could be created from a pre-existing energy field.

I must admit to playing devil's advocate here and can't help but think you are avoiding the original question. How does the argument for your original version of universal instantiation, which fares well when used as opposition to the scientific "zero state" , prove itself against this theory.

[ST88]

First off, I'd like to correct a misconception. There is no such thing as a "God hypothesis." Generally speaking, the word hypothesis is used extensively in science to mean a scientific proposition lacking in experimental confirmation of its veracity. Theism and atheism are philosophical beliefs. Similarly, the "scientific method" is also a philosophical belief (or set of beliefs). There is a philosophy of science that justifies the epistemological practices of science, and this is based on the instrumental success of these methods.... This doesn't mean that scientific evidence must be presented. Rather, all that must be present are good enough reasons to think the other view is wrong and the proponent belief is right. If such exists, then we have good reason to believe one and not the other.

I don't think you are correct about this. I see the differentiation between the world view and the "hard science" that is used to discover the mechanisms present in the universe. But actually separating them and looking at them individually is kind of like looking at the roots of a tree in exclusion to the above ground part of the tree (or the other way around, maybe). You can't have a philosophy of God, for example, without examining the world to see what God might have done while making it. You can have a conception of God, a general idea, a theology of untold unseen pre- and afterlives. But to explain the actual workings of God you would have to examine the universe in light of the conception.

Similarly, you can't have an atheism without examining the workings of the universe, then rejecting the theist argument. Fundamentally, you won't have atheism without theism. Atheism, as a philosophy, if one can call it that, is based virtually exclusively on the science. It's not a choice, per se. More accurately, it's reflective of the absence of making a choice. It's an inevitable conclusion to examining the science and listening to others' experiences with it.

And there is another misconception I am picking up here. Atheism is not a definition, per se, the same way that theism is. As I understand it -- and I don't exactly understand the theist point of view here, so bear with me -- a Christian, to use that example, will not only see the world in terms of Christianity, but will also act according to Christian principles as set out by the terms of h/h personal view of Christianity. But atheism, not having doctrine or atheist scholarly texts to point the correct atheist path, does not produce such people who constantly think about how to be a good atheist. For myself -- inasmuch as my agnosticism may or may not be distinguished from some branches of atheism -- I don't think about it all that much. I am the product of my genes and my environment, and I interact with my environment as if I were me. I don't walk around using an atheist barometer and apply it to everything I see or am about to do. It only comes out when I am confronted by religion and spirituality. Being in opposition to those, I am only then a participating atheist. I wish I didn't have to define myself in terms of theists, but atheism only exists in the presence of theism.

Your fallacy of atheism only works if we take the philosophy of mechanism that atheism implies, and use it against the philosophy of theism, and see where we poke each other in the eye. But using only the philosophies of each, ignoring the root causes of each, does little to maintain either side of the argument. This is why I use the term "God hypothesis" -- the conception that there is a God, whatever form & function He may take -- is a scientific hypothesis wherever the concept is brought up, even if it is not used in a scientific way. Whenever a religious discussion erupts, the fundamental hypothesis behind it is the God Hypothesis, that unspoken agreement between all religious participants that God exists. Whether they know it or not, they are engaging in a discussion that branches off from this hypothesis.

Your argument that mechanism has shown God to be not required for modern explanation is an equivocation on the term "God." Yes, if you mean an old man with a beard in some distant land called Heaven, then I would agree that modern explanation has completely obliterated such kind of need for an old man running the show. However, if by God we mean something much closer to the pantheist conception of that term, now you have a problem. The modern explanation has completely turned in favor of a pantheist interpretation of scientific laws. Nineteenth century materialism is basically dead. The mechanist approach of people like LaPlace have been replaced by Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty, or Noether's view of symmetry, etc.. These are now proposed in science as valid principles by which to understand the laws of physics. It is still a philosophical belief, but this belief is taken for granted by many in cosmology. It is so prevalent that now we can envision those laws as existing in order to bring about a space-time. So, to answer your first objection, the pantheist/panentheist definition of God is a much better fit to modern science and has none of the nineteenth century views of mechanism that justified many atheist beliefs in that century.

Though the pantheist version of God explains things a bit better than the white beard, it still suffers from the doomed viewpoint of: "It's true until it we discover that it needn't be." Forgive me if I assume that this is the exact incarnation of the "God of the gaps" that we all grew up with.

We have seen that science is not equipped to deal with the metaphysical, but strangely, our human brains are perfectly willing to accept the metaphysical as reasonable explanations. I could go into the evolutionary explanations as to why this might be so, but you've probably heard enough of that.

The metaphysical is still beyond our reach by our very definition of it. We are not metaphysical beings because we do not perceive in a metaphysical way. One thing I will say about this is that a two-dimensional being would consider the third dimension to be a metaphysical realm, and we have yet to perceive ourselves as beings with more than three dimensions, but who knows?

If the shoe fits, then one should wear the shoe. Atheism, as far as I can tell, has been defeated. Now, it is a discussion of whether it is the pantheists or theists that are right. In my opinion, the atheists are either busy trying to redefine atheism to encompass agnosticism and/or pantheism, or they are just out of touch as to where modern cosmology and modern physics is in its use of governing principles to the universe.

When looking at your two statements, the "[l]ack of space and/or time does not imply absolute nothingness," and "the fact of multiple universes implies some kind of instantiation mechanism from one state to another," I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I am asking you to justify your belief that something ought to exist instead of nothing. You see, anyone (I mean ANYONE) can solve any problem by proposing a state space with enough random attempts to make the original problem go magically away. In order to make such a non-parsimonious solution one has to justify the state space that they say must be in place in order for their philosophical belief to be correct. Okay, let's start off with nothing and then you tell me what kind of mechanism (which you say is not depending on randomness) is needed in order to arrive at a universe such as our own.

BZZZZZZZZTT! Sorry, wrong question. You may accuse me of intellectual drift, but I don't have to state why atheism works. Further, I don't have to state why I think I'm right when I say that there need not be such a thing as nothing. All I have to do is show that there could be something. Which there could be. Assuming that there is a 50/50 chance of one of us being right, it comes down to how you think the universe works. Your Supreme Intelligence needs to exist before nothingness became somethingness, and my mechanistic wad of energy (or whatever it is) needs to exist in order for there to be somethingness. I have time on my side, as it were, because time as we understand it was created at our singularity. Before then, there's not much we can say about time, and since luck is a function of time, we can't say much about luck either. You have the unknown on your side because there is very little we can actually say about what was happening in this "era". It just so happens that you fill your unknown space with the Intelligence that you assume to be there. Myself, I pursue the scientific explanation, even if that explanation may never be known. You may call that pie-in-the-sky, just as I may call what you believe eye-in-the-sky.

You ask me to justify my stance. But I am not a dogmatic personality. How can I justify what I don't know? I can only justify the way I think, which is based on perception and reason (I hope -- most of the time, anyway). It is you who claim to know that which cannot be known based on preliminary data in the early stages of a scientific theory. I am perfectly within my rights to tell you that yours is not a position that one need take in order to explain the phenomenae that can be observed (even if it does -- there are many plausible explanations for occurences that are incorrect). However, it is not within your rights to stop me from experimenting and hypothesizing further on the mechanistic solution. I use multiverses not as an explanation in themselves (since you brought them up to explain quantum tunneling), but as an example of where such an explanation might be found. You may dismiss thinking that a mechanistic solution could be found as pure fantasy, but mechanism is what science does. Humanity should seek the mechanistic solution wherever it can, and "wherever it can" is limited only by ingenuity and our measurement devices. It does not do this to disprove any God hypothesis, but because humanity is curious.

We may each see the other as clinging to inherently irrational viewpoints. But I wonder why you seem to want to destroy my viewpoint for the reason that it provides no instant explanation.

If you tell me, "my state space only requires a multiverse," then my first reaction is "whoa!" I find it absurd to allot any kind of assumption unless it can be shown that this is a reasonable assumption. And, it does not strike me as reasonable that someone can have a Universe that is more complex than the one in which we are trying to describe at the point of the big bang. You see, it's taken a good long time to reach the solution of the big bang, and that is a very simple solution. Now that we reached it you want to tell me that I need something more complicated than what we had prior to the work of Newton?? I don't get it. I can accept a more complex world than our own if there is a justifiable reason, but you haven't given me a reason.

I don't understand why you find it objectionable that the universe it more complex than we might give it credit for. You seem to be arguing that because it isn't elegant and intuitive that it should be rejected. You're the one who said that we should look beyond the WYSWYG world. So why doesn't that apply for a behind-the-scenes mechanism? So Newton got the essentials right but he missed a few of the details? He didn't have the right measuring devices.

All you've given me is an equivocation on the definition of God, and then expected me to make the "educated expectation" that philosophical atheism is correct. That is all wrong.

I have given you no such thing. What I gave you was a reason not to believe in the white beard. I assure you that's not the only reason.

And I think you're taking the wrong position with this. You seem to want me to try and convert you, to give you a good reason to become an atheist. Personally, I think conversion -- even argumentative conversion -- is unethical. One can't change unless one wants to change. I feel comfortable pointing out the flaws in your position, but as far as I'm concerned you have to reconcile them yourself. Which it seems you have. I don't find your arguments to be particularly convincing, and maybe that's just me -- because I'm a plodding thinker who must be led by a docent from point to point until I get it into my thick head. I really don't like to say "this is the correct position and here's why," so you have me at a disadvantage here. The type of Agnosticism/Atheism that might describe what I believe does not include a provision for providing solace to persons such as yourself who want to know that what they believe is correct. Welcome to my world. Beliefs in the metaphysical are by definition unknowable, so I try not to have any. And any assertions about the metaphysical are by definition speculative and meaningless, so I try to avoid them. But nothing is certain. That's about the best I can do.

The major flaw in your particular view as I see it is that you assume a logical structure requires an intelligence, when no such intelligence is necessary. Your hermeneutic is that this intelligence is necessary, so you appear to be applying it as indiscriminately as that implies.

I think this only leaves us with one recourse. And, that is that logico-mathematical laws exist which govern the universe and bring it about. But, here's where your equivocation has misled you as to a mechanist solution. This is clearly a pantheist-panentheist solution to the world, and not an atheist one. If you wish to become a pantheist/panentheist, then I welcome you to my world.

Well, now of course that's one solution. Pantheism sounds like it would work just fine. It would help explain a lot of weird things that happen. OK, boys! Let's close up shop! The answers are all here!

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Answers are available anywhere. Anyone can give answers, anyone can give solutions. Look at Scientology. How does that explain the universe any worse than what you're talking about? In my view, atheism is the default position when all other positions become unreasonable.

[harvey1]

Hello ST,

Again, let's try and keep this manageable in terms of time. I like to give quicker responses otherwise I get too far behind and end up missing some responses. If I could re-state the two main issues of your argument:

1. Atheism is Exclusively Based on Science: Atheism is an "-ism" because there is a belief called theism which requires discussion of a God hypothesis. Atheism is the rejection of this path to easy non-scientific explanation for material things, hence atheism rejects this hypothesis. Atheism is looking for answers of these issues, they are out of reach right now, but mechanism is the top priority given the tremendous success with a mechanist approach in science. A mechanist view is consistent with an atheist interpretation of the cause of the universe, therefore atheism is the default position.
2. Metaphysical explanations are Speculative & Unknowable: Scientific explanations don't require intelligence to explain the unknowable, hence it is better to reject metaphysical knowledge. Pantheism is a metaphysical belief system which cannot be known, hence it is nothing but a "God of gaps" explanation. Atheism rejects such "God of gaps" explanations, so atheism does not have to produce an explanation. Atheism is satisfied at this point with knowing that something could be caused other than some Supreme Intelligence. Luck is not possible to assign since luck is a function of time, and if time had a beginning it is metaphysical snake oil to assign luck to the beginning state of the universe. It is unreasonable to assign a level of complexity to the universe since we don't know anything about it, and we don't know what could restrict it.

Both of your points, however, are starting to become more and more of an agnostic position and not that of an atheist position. Let's review the atheist position. It is the position that the evidence for God is such that we can confidently say that human reason can rule out God's existence (weak atheism), or that human reason is capable of showing that God in principle cannot exist given the evidence available (strong atheism). Which of these positions do you hold? Are you seriously suggesting that you are ignorant of metaphysical issues, and since you are ignorant that you can confidently say that God does not exist?

If I understand you correctly, this is not your position. You seem to be saying that if you were pressed on the issue, you would say that the God hypothesis is not proven, and given its metaphysical nature must remain unknown. It's not a scientific belief, hence it is not something that you can say with any certainty on whether God exists or not. If you were to speculate, you would gather that God does not exist since science always produces answers that are natural. But, you aren't the kind of person to speculate. This is a traditional agnostic position. Not an atheist one.

The issue of the "God hypothesis" would only be a valid scientific concept if in principle God could be known by science. However, by your own admission this is a metaphysical belief based on the speculative and unknowable by definition. In effect, you are saying that God is by definition a non-scientific concept, and hence cannot possibly be a scientific hypothesis.

Now, I would love to have a discussion about the agnostic position, but first I want to confirm that you are better aligned with agnosticism rather than atheism. You've said you are agnostic, but suddenly you've taken the atheist position. If you really aren't an atheist, then we can discuss this issue elsewhere.

[ST88]

Hello ST,

Again, let's try and keep this manageable in terms of time. I like to give quicker responses otherwise I get too far behind and end up missing some responses.

Good point.

...
Both of your points, however, are starting to become more and more of an agnostic position and not that of an atheist position. Let's review the atheist position. It is the position that the evidence for God is such that we can confidently say that human reason can rule out God's existence (weak atheism), or that human reason is capable of showing that God in principle cannot exist given the evidence available (strong atheism). Which of these positions do you hold? Are you seriously suggesting that you are ignorant of metaphysical issues, and since you are ignorant that you can confidently say that God does not exist?

Not at all. I have stated many times that strong atheism is just as irrational as theism. You don't need a degree in theoretical astrophysics to make that determination. For the purposes of this argument, weak atheism can be the same as agnosticism. But I would go even futher than that -- I would say that the question of whether or not the metaphysical exists does not merit consideration in the absence of evidence for it. In this way, I also have an atheist stance.

If I understand you correctly, this is not your position. You seem to be saying that if you were pressed on the issue, you would say that the God hypothesis is not proven, and given its metaphysical nature must remain unknown. It's not a scientific belief, hence it is not something that you can say with any certainty on whether God exists or not. If you were to speculate, you would gather that God does not exist since science always produces answers that are natural. But, you aren't the kind of person to speculate. This is a traditional agnostic position. Not an atheist one.

I understand and respect the need to categorize me. I often struggle with this. I agree with the atheist position that life is best lived assuming there isn't a God, and even if there is one, there is no reason to assume it is the God that anyone might think it is. So any expression of "worship" -- for lack of a better word -- could be seen as insulting to any given God.

The atheist position that I actually hold does not actively deny God because it does not actively consider the question of his existence. I am left with the mechanisms involved in the absence of a God explanation (the dreaded God Hypothesis). I readily admit to being an agnostic, however, when it comes to absolute denial of the existence of anything inherently unperceivable by current or future methods.

The atheist position on the start of this universe, which would exclude God, does not require an extra effort on my part to extend into atheist territory, because I can exclude God's hand by default. Until it is demonstrated that God's hand can be shown, this is not a reasonable explanation. Pantheist or white beard. Now, you may point out that there is no evidence that I might accept that would point to any form of God, because this evidence would be inherently unscientific. And you would have a point. The only way I would be able to accept anything metaphysical is if I could be personally persuaded that there was such a thing. Myself, I don't think that's going to happen, but my agnosticism doesn't rule it out out of hand.

The issue of the "God hypothesis" would only be a valid scientific concept if in principle God could be known by science. However, by your own admission this is a metaphysical belief based on the speculative and unknowable by definition. In effect, you are saying that God is by definition a non-scientific concept, and hence cannot possibly be a scientific hypothesis.

Truthfully speaking, this is an issue so minor that I doubt it merits a discussion. As more and more religious individuals try to use science to speak about metaphysical concepts, the language of science gets into the language of religion and vice-versa. We're talking about how to use the language correctly, which seems odd to me because I come from a poetry background, where language is more of a sandbox than a toolbox.

Now, I would love to have a discussion about the agnostic position, but first I want to confirm that you are better aligned with agnosticism rather than atheism. You've said you are agnostic, but suddenly you've taken the atheist position. If you really aren't an atheist, then we can discuss this issue elsewhere.

Good idea. I, for one, would like to know how your pantheism is distinguished from deism.

[harvey1]

For the purposes of this argument, weak atheism can be the same as agnosticism.

I can't accept that. Weak atheism is based on the premise that our knowledge of the evidence is such that we can effectively decide God does not exist. Agnostics (weak or strong) would not agree with this.

I would say that the question of whether or not the metaphysical exists does not merit consideration in the absence of evidence for it. In this way, I also have an atheist stance.

What do you mean by evidence? For example, Hartle and Hawking postulated a wave function that exists and brings forth a (meta)universe from nothingness. Is there enough evidence to say this does not merit consideration? What about strings? What about quantum loops? Are quarks really a valid scientific investigation since we really aren't directly observing those tricky little things?

The atheist position that I actually hold does not actively deny God

Then it's not an atheist position...

I readily admit to being an agnostic, however, when it comes to absolute denial of the existence of anything inherently unperceivable by current or future methods.

I don't think you have to be a strong atheist to be an atheist. You can be a weak atheist which would preclude you by definition from being an agnostic.

because I can exclude God's hand by default. Until it is demonstrated that God's hand can be shown, this is not a reasonable explanation.

I can exclude atheism by default. Until it is demonstrated that atheism can possibly be true, then it is not a reasonable explanation.

Pantheist or white beard. Now, you may point out that there is no evidence that I might accept that would point to any form of God, because this evidence would be inherently unscientific. And you would have a point. The only way I would be able to accept anything metaphysical is if I could be personally persuaded that there was such a thing. Myself, I don't think that's going to happen, but my agnosticism doesn't rule it out out of hand.

I don't know what personally persuaded means. You mean I'd have to buy you a number of beers and we'd have to get drunk and then you might believe in God's existence? I think what you should mean is that God as an explanation can be shown to be consistent with the universe and atheism fails to meet that criteria. I think I have accomplished this (sorry no beers). In order to convince me that I have not done this, you or someone else will have to show me how my arguments fail. Unfortunately nobody does that. I've asked some very specific questions and people won't answer the questions. In your case you've waivered between agnosticism when it was necessary and atheism when it was convenient. QED has waivered between pantheism when it was necessary (but wouldn't commit to it) and atheism when it was convenient. I don't know what to make of this. Still, all those who haven't continued the discussion the whole route have continued to act as though they have given answers (or have dispelled my arguments) when I don't see a response to those issues. In my view, this should mean that it's time to convert. Of course, I realize the desire to be "free" is stronger than the desire to change one's views. (I'm sorry if this paragraph offends you or QED, but it's just how I see it.)

Good idea. I, for one, would like to know how your pantheism is distinguished from deism.

Maybe later, I'm spending too much time again responding to so many posts. These things seem to go in cycles of higher activity.

[ST88]

Since the relative hypocrisy of my personal world view is well beyond the scope of this thread, I suggest we get back to the topic at hand, if anyone can remember what that was.

[QED]

QED has waivered between pantheism when it was necessary (but wouldn't commit to it) and atheism when it was convenient. I don't know what to make of this. Still, all those who haven't continued the discussion the whole route have continued to act as though they have given answers (or have dispelled my arguments) when I don't see a response to those issues. In my view, this should mean that it's time to convert. Of course, I realize the desire to be "free" is stronger than the desire to change one's views. (I'm sorry if this paragraph offends you or QED, but it's just how I see it.)

This desire for freedom you keep slapping me with is a complete red-herring. It says nothing about my reasons for rejecting everything we see as being the deliberate design of product something else.

Nowhere in your scheme of things do we see the patterns of growth (that are the hallmark of every other aspect of the universe) leading us up to this entity. It might not be so bad if all your theory was asking for is that it all started out from something intrinsically simple. But you are asking the Atheist to swallow the arrival of something equipped with the intellectual might to plan something of Industrial-Universe sized complexity that had never even previously existed -- in infinitesimal detail You think that this is why there is unity, why the laws of physics are universal etc. You think it takes a will and constant vigilance for all this to happen. But here you are Anthromorphizing the data. There are planners and designers other than humans, but they do not share all of our properties.

The human in this case can be thought of as your all-singing all-dancing PC that you can use as a calculator, watch and record TV, talk to people on the other side of the planet in a video call. But there are dumb calculators, VCRs and telephones that do these jobs in a dedicated fashion. The PC happens to be a highly resourced, re-configurable, superset of all these devices, but all this fanciness isn't essential for the provision of each specific function. That is why the dedicated devices came first.

Unity and universality as you well know have been shown to be the products of inflation and symmetry breaking. Your other arguments have placed god at phase transitions making all the important planning decisions that will lead to the arrival at the Omega state. But this all sounds to be borrowed from cosmology and given a theistic spin (although I notice that the Omega state could be one in which the entire universe cools into one gigantic Bose condensate which is kind of hard to spin into something nice). I think you ought to concede that gods role in all this could equally be replaced by a random decision maker and we would just as readily watch a particular outcome evolve. I suggest that the evil-strewn imperfect world of ours is just the sort of outcome we might expect. After all, supernovas explode, protons decay, gamma rays knock bits out of our DNA at high altitude. In short, shit happens.

So, without any precedent to go by, the universe should be expected to be the product of growth from exceptional simplicity, not exceptional complexity as you would have it. This seems like simple common sense expressed in the absence of prejudice to me. The only problem is that you think it is prejudice in itself. How is anyone going to get around that?

[harvey1]

This desire for freedom you keep slapping me with is a complete red-herring. It says nothing about my reasons for rejecting everything we see as being the deliberate design of product something else.

Keep in mind, though, you said that pantheism was okay until the word "G-O-D" was spelled out, then you backed off. That's why I don't think this issue is a red herring. If it were, then why back off with something you naturally have no problem with?

Nowhere in your scheme of things do we see the patterns of growth (that are the hallmark of every other aspect of the universe) leading us up to this entity.

That's not true. I've said all along that the beginning state is a logico-causal principle which is the primary basis for even God's existence.

It might not be so bad if all your theory was asking for is that it all started out from something intrinsically simple.

Starting with just a logico-causal principle is not intrinsically simple?

But you are asking the Atheist to swallow the arrival of something equipped with the intellectual might to plan something of Industrial-Universe sized complexity that had never even previously existed -- in infinitesimal detail You think that this is why there is unity, why the laws of physics are universal etc. You think it takes a will and constant vigilance for all this to happen. But here you are Anthromorphizing the data. There are planners and designers other than humans, but they do not share all of our properties.

Not so. I think there logic and mathematics exists even if there were nothing at all to call space or time. I think that theorems of logic and math exist. I think they have power over the organization of our world. I think there are infinitely many of those algorithms. So, why is that anthropomorphizing the data?

Unity and universality as you well know have been shown to be the products of inflation and symmetry breaking.

I think inflation is a result of mathematical order. I think symmetry breaking is a mathematical relation that exists. I think that unity and universality are properties in how this mathematical order is structured. What is wrong with that?

Your other arguments have placed god at phase transitions making all the important planning decisions that will lead to the arrival at the Omega state. But this all sounds to be borrowed from cosmology and given a theistic spin (although I notice that the Omega state could be one in which the entire universe cools into one gigantic Bose condensate which is kind of hard to spin into something nice). I think you ought to concede that gods role in all this could equally be replaced by a random decision maker and we would just as readily watch a particular outcome evolve.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying about God. I don't think God is a person floating on some cloud somewhere. God is the order in the universe, and that order mostly exemplifies itself as mathematical order. Now, if there is no mathematical order (only random order), then how in the heck could you have a phase transition or any other law of physics which is a mathematical outcome? Please see it from my side. What you are suggesting is non-sensical. I can't imagine a non-mathematical world with no order whatsoever doing anything consistent.

I suggest that the evil-strewn imperfect world of ours is just the sort of outcome we might expect. After all, supernovas explode, protons decay, gamma rays knock bits out of our DNA at high altitude. In short, shit happens.

I disagree. The world guided and structured within a mathematical order is a much more consistent depiction of the world we see. As far as evil, randomness, decay, etc., this is also what we should expect to see since cellular automata can easily be shown to exhibit this feature based on simple algorithmic behavior. So, why wouldn't we expect this mathematical derived outcome in nature? I just can't understand why you would suggest that a infinitely complex mathematical order is so unexpectant given the precise nature of physical equations that are all based on it. In fact, from very simple principles (e.g., Fisher information) we can construct the entire ediface of modern physics as if from first principles. How could that possibly occur if we lived in the non-mathematical ordered world which you describe?

So, without any precedent to go by, the universe should be expected to be the product of growth from exceptional simplicity

Exactly! But, notice, you backed away from simplicity to start things off in a beginning state. In fact you were eager to back away from simplicity by going to a multiverse that has no explanation other than we can't possibly understand how those things were possible. It is complete faith on your part and I'm just slapping my head trying to grasp why it is that you resist the most obvious solution with so much vigor.

not exceptional complexity as you would have it.

Huh? I am not the one with the axiom "and there was a multiverse so complex with a functionality toward complexity that we can't begin to understand or model with our most brilliant minds." That's your baby.

This seems like simple common sense expressed in the absence of prejudice to me. The only problem is that you think it is prejudice in itself. How is anyone going to get around that?

I don't know why you do not see your prejudice here. You simply won't admit that mathematical order is a good solution in terms of guiding and governing the universe (i.e., pantheism), along with that mathematical order being infinitely complex since the theorems just keep getting more and more intelligent in terms of their guidance over the universe. What is so hard about that? It is straightforward deductions. In fact, perhaps future science will begin to move at a much faster clip and will start uncovering many of these theorems. It will make the path integral look like counting to three.