God the Geometry Guy?

[chris4243]

Edit: in case it wasn't clear, this is from the assumption that God did in fact create the world as stated in the Bible. I don't want to be arguing about whether or not God exists in the first place or created the world. /edit

God said, Let there be... and it was so.
God said, Let there be... and it was so.
...
So God simply says, Let there be and it happens. But where have I heard such language before? I've created geometry models; first I choose the rules and then I create objects in the model.

I said, Let there be a point A, and it was so.
I said, Let l be a line not on A, and it was so.
I said, Let m be a line on A parallel to l, and it was so.

As I ask for things, they come into existence. First I say, let such and such be the rules of this model, and they are. Then I say let there be such and such, and it is. I cannot lie in this model, for when I say something, it is so -- but should I contradict anything then such model cannot exist; such a lie cannot be part of the model, and the appropriate language is different (suppose such and such rather than let there be such and such). I exist outside the model and yet have complete access to it; yet the objects in my model are stuck in it and cannot so much as see me. I only create and never destroy; I have never heard anyone say, "Let A no longer be a point..." (though I guess that's probably just a geometry thing)

Furthermore, I can copy stuff from one model and put it in another, at least kind of. Yet stuff I copy from one model to another might have fundamentally different properties if the rules are different.

Leaving aside stuffy old geometry, as a physicist I can make models of physical objects, and if I like do experiments with them or whatever. Again the same is true; first I make the rules and then I let there be stuff to the model. If I wanted to, I could build a computer in my physics model, and then run computer programs on my "imaginary" computer. If sentience can be programmed, I could build a physics model with a sentient entity in it, and like with the geometry model I would be essentially the god of that model. Incidentally, there's no reason the model sentient being wouldn't be able to construct it's own models. (Of course I neither know how to program sentience nor would be able to run that program in my mind if I did know.)

I can, however, create a (very incomplete) model of a person. This is called "theory of mind", and is what we use to determine what someone is thinking or how they would react or feel about something, what they know and don't know. This is also necessary for empathy, and furthermore for the proper application of the Golden Rule.

As for reality itself, there may be such a thing but what you perceive isn't it. There are gaps and inconsistencies in the reality you observe, and things left out because you did not notice them. And just like you fill in for your blind spot in your vision, you also fill in for missing information in your perceived reality and try to resolve contradictions.

Yet so many people assume that reality is real, or that when God created us he created something real as opposed to just a model or a dream. Yet it seems to me a few things would be more consistent with this all being more a model than "reality", and furthermore such would naturally necessitate many of the properties we assign to God. Remember also that we are created in God's image, and the ability to create models seems to be a necessary component of what makes us what we are.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

At best, no difference.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God said, Let there be... and it was so.
God said, Let there be... and it was so.
...
So God simply says, Let there be and it happens. But where have I heard such language before? I've created geometry models; first I choose the rules and then I create objects in the model.

I said, Let there be a point A, and it was so.
I said, Let l be a line not on A, and it was so.
I said, Let m be a line on A parallel to l, and it was so.

As I ask for things, they come into existence.

No, they don't. They are mathematical concepts, and you effectively define the parameters of a hypothetical geometric scenario - there is a point, A, a line l that is not on A, and a line m on A parallel to l, etc. These things are not 'so', they are hypothesised to be so for the purposes of mathematical deduction.

First I say, let such and such be the rules of this model, and they are. Then I say let there be such and such, and it is. I cannot lie in this model, for when I say something, it is so -- but should I contradict anything then such model cannot exist; such a lie cannot be part of the model, and the appropriate language is different (suppose such and such rather than let there be such and such). I exist outside the model and yet have complete access to it; yet the objects in my model are stuck in it and cannot so much as see me. I only create and never destroy; I have never heard anyone say, "Let A no longer be a point..." (though I guess that's probably just a geometry thing)

Furthermore, I can copy stuff from one model and put it in another, at least kind of. Yet stuff I copy from one model to another might have fundamentally different properties if the rules are different.

You can copy the results of one model just as I can copy the answers in an exam. That doesn't make the hypothetical scenario in the question real. In an accounting exam, we are given a hypothetical company to deal with, but simply positing that company doesn't make it so.

Leaving aside stuffy old geometry, as a physicist I can make models of physical objects, and if I like do experiments with them or whatever. Again the same is true; first I make the rules and then I let there be stuff to the model. If I wanted to, I could build a computer in my physics model, and then run computer programs on my "imaginary" computer. If sentience can be programmed, I could build a physics model with a sentient entity in it, and like with the geometry model I would be essentially the god of that model. Incidentally, there's no reason the model sentient being wouldn't be able to construct it's own models. (Of course I neither know how to program sentience nor would be able to run that program in my mind if I did know.)

A sentient mind could only program its own models if its fundamental makeup allowed it to. A computer program using today's software and hardware would be hard put to be able to replicate what a human mind can do, and there are hard limits on how many nested levels of conciousness we could have on such a computer: the modelled mind imagines another sentient mind, which imagines another, which imagines another, etc... but just where is all this physical computer memory coming from?

I can, however, create a (very incomplete) model of a person. This is called "theory of mind", and is what we use to determine what someone is thinking or how they would react or feel about something, what they know and don't know. This is also necessary for empathy, and furthermore for the proper application of the Golden Rule.

'Proper application of the Golden Rule' doesn't sit well with me, but that's a topic for another time.

As for reality itself, there may be such a thing but what you perceive isn't it. There are gaps and inconsistencies in the reality you observe, and things left out because you did not notice them. And just like you fill in for your blind spot in your vision, you also fill in for missing information in your perceived reality and try to resolve contradictions.

Yet so many people assume that reality is real, or that when God created us he created something real as opposed to just a model or a dream. Yet it seems to me a few things would be more consistent with this all being more a model than "reality", and furthermore such would naturally necessitate many of the properties we assign to God.

What inconsistencies and contradictions are you referring to? I am aware of no 'seams' which imply a fabricated reality.

Remember also that we are created in God's image,

I would disagree with that premise.

and the ability to create models seems to be a necessary component of what makes us what we are.

Abstraction is not a singularly human trait. Animals do it all the time for a variety of purposes. The lion has to anticipate what its prey will do if it does X, or Y, or Z. Forethought is the precursor to abstraction, and humans simply have a very good ability to abstract.

 

[chris4243]

No, they don't. They are mathematical concepts, and you effectively define the parameters of a hypothetical geometric scenario - there is a point, A, a line l that is not on A, and a line m on A parallel to l, etc. These things are not 'so', they are hypothesised to be so for the purposes of mathematical deduction.

How are things in a model any different than "real" things? Is it just that some of the rules are different? If someone were to perfectly model a human being, would you not consider that a real person?

What inconsistencies and contradictions are you referring to? I am aware of no 'seams' which imply a fabricated reality.

"Real reality" might not be fabricated, but your perception of it certainly is. Ask a psychologist. Or, where's your blind spot? Or, see how eyewitnesses are sure they've seen things when they really haven't.

I would disagree with that premise.

One of us is certainly made in the image of the other. Anyhow, would you agree that if an entity could not model, they'd be lacking in one of the things that makes a human, a human?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How are things in a model any different than "real" things? Is it just that some of the rules are different? If someone were to perfectly model a human being, would you not consider that a real person?

A model is not the real thing because otherwise we wouldn't call it a model. I can model an Egyptian pyramid by pouring sand out my hand, and observing that it falls into a roughly pyramidal shape. The more accurately I make this model, the closer it becomes to a true pyramid. Eventually, it really is a replica of an Egyptian pyramid.

Mathematical models, on the other hand, are just things we imagine in our heads. They're not 'real'. If I imagine what your face looks like, does that face actually exist in reality? Obviously not.

"Real reality" might not be fabricated, but your perception of it certainly is. Ask a psychologist. Or, where's your blind spot? Or, see how eyewitnesses are sure they've seen things when they really haven't.

Sure, and Descartes had a demon that controlled what he perceived. The logical thing to do is assume the perceived world is basically, largely real, making allowances for those things which demonstrable aren't (blind spots, etc). The internal consistency is sufficient, I believe, that this world really is the real one.

And if it's not, what else can we do but act like it is?

One of us is certainly made in the image of the other. Anyhow, would you agree that if an entity could not model, they'd be lacking in one of the things that makes a human, a human?

No. A person in a permanent vegetative state is still human. The anti-choice crowd would argue that a zygote is fully human, yet it demonstrably can't model.

 

[chris4243]

A model is not the real thing because otherwise we wouldn't call it a model. I can model an Egyptian pyramid by pouring sand out my hand, and observing that it falls into a roughly pyramidal shape. The more accurately I make this model, the closer it becomes to a true pyramid. Eventually, it really is a replica of an Egyptian pyramid.

Mathematical models, on the other hand, are just things we imagine in our heads. They're not 'real'. If I imagine what your face looks like, does that face actually exist in reality? Obviously not.

I can prove that in a model of a finite affine plane, there exists a line and a point not on it. That makes it objectively true. Since I can mathematically prove that these exist, can they really be said not to be real?

And what sets Reality apart from any other model, other than that we are part of that very model? And because we are part of this model called Reality, we are bound by the rules of it and furthermore it is not our model so we cannot control it. These are important attributes that make Reality a special model, but in no way do they make Reality not a model. Just not our model.

But if you were to make a model with a sentient being in it and make the model such that it is self-contained (ie, they don't have access to our reality), would not such being consider that model to be Reality?

Sure, and Descartes had a demon that controlled what he perceived. The logical thing to do is assume the perceived world is basically, largely real, making allowances for those things which demonstrable aren't (blind spots, etc). The internal consistency is sufficient, I believe, that this world really is the real one.

And if it's not, what else can we do but act like it is?

All my models are internally consistent; else they wouldn't be models. If internal consistency is what makes something reality, then my models must be reality. And whatever reality is, your perception of it can be nothing other than a model, since you are by necessity going to be unaware of most of it and most of the details of it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can prove that in a model of a finite affine plane, there exists a line and a point not on it. That makes it objectively true. Since I can mathematically prove that these exist, can they really be said not to be real?

Because you haven't proven they exist. You've proven that, if there exists a finite affine plane then there is a line and a point not on it. Such abstract mathematical concepts, however, arguably don't exist. All you're doing is labelling a given line and a given point and a given plane in a given hypothetical, you're not poofing them into existence with the magical power of thought. Ultimately, your models don't become reality; if mathematical planes exist, they exist independent of how we define and label them.

And what sets Reality apart from any other model, other than that we are part of that very model? And because we are part of this model called Reality, we are bound by the rules of it and furthermore it is not our model so we cannot control it. These are important attributes that make Reality a special model, but in no way do they make Reality not a model. Just not our model.

So apart from lacking all the crucial properties of a model, reality is a model

But if you were to make a model with a sentient being in it and make the model such that it is self-contained (ie, they don't have access to our reality), would not such being consider that model to be Reality?

That depends entirely on the sentient being. What if the being was incapable of thought? What if the model contained nothing but the being? If you're thinking of a total reconstruction of Earth, complete with sentient beings, you'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate that any such reconstruction is possible without being literal. That is, it is not at all clear whether a complete computer simulation of the Earth would recreate sentience - the software that codes for a human's brain might not be concious in and of itself.

All my models are internally consistent; else they wouldn't be models. If internal consistency is what makes something reality, then my models must be reality.

It is necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. And models needn't be internally consistent, unless you change the definition of the word 'model' to exclude those which lead to paradoxes. Models which are not yet known to be paradoxical are still models, and they remain models, albeit impossible ones, once the paradox is discovered.

And whatever reality is, your perception of it can be nothing other than a model, since you are by necessity going to be unaware of most of it and most of the details of it.

Nonetheless, my perception of reality is close enough to reality that I may as well equate one with the other. I'm well aware of the unobserved part of the universe, those patterns of light that don't engender nervous impulses along my retina, those subsonic and supersonic sounds, those odourless smells and inert tastes.

But that in no way makes reality a model, and why would it?

 

[chris4243]

So apart from lacking all the crucial properties of a model, reality is a model

Is there anything to suggest that reality is not a model? As for the different properties between Reality and models we create, are not those differences accounted for by the fact that we didn't create Reality?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is there anything to suggest that reality is not a model? As for the different properties between Reality and models we create, are not those differences accounted for by the fact that we didn't create Reality?

They're also accounted for by the hypothesis that reality isn't, in fact, a model. The alternative hypothesis, that reality is a model, implies someone has to be the modeller. Occam's Razor prefers the former. Reality could be a model, but there's nothing to suggest that it's in any way related to the imaginations of humans.

 

[chris4243]

They're also accounted for by the hypothesis that reality isn't, in fact, a model. The alternative hypothesis, that reality is a model, implies someone has to be the modeller. Occam's Razor prefers the former. Reality could be a model, but there's nothing to suggest that it's in any way related to the imaginations of humans.

Ah, I see. I was going from the premise that God did in fact create the world. Granted that premise, I think Occam's Razor would be more in line with Reality being a model than something separate.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ah, I see. I was going from the premise that God did in fact create the world. Granted that premise, I think Occam's Razor would be more in line with Reality being a model than something separate.

If we're assuming God exists, I think Occam would have long ago disposed of his Razor in favour of one of these bad boys:

 

[chris4243]

If we're assuming God exists, I think Occam would have long ago disposed of his Razor in favour of one of these bad boys:

Think of it as a philosophical/metaphysics question. You never know anything except what you assume and what you deduce from what you assume anyhow. This is just as true about science (which for example assumes that the laws of physics don't randomly change, that reality is objective, etc). Philosophers can assume all sorts of things and never need justify their assumptions.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Think of it as a philosophical/metaphysics question. You never know anything except what you assume and what you deduce from what you assume anyhow. This is just as true about science (which for example assumes that the laws of physics don't randomly change, that reality is objective, etc). Philosophers can assume all sorts of things and never need justify their assumptions.

Until you try to prove a point with them. That's why philosophy is all about stripping everything down to the very basics, and then working from there. The more assumptions you have, and the more complicated they are, the less stable your position is - "God exists" is a very complex and very unstable assumption to work from.

Imagine a Jenga tower - for every assumption, you remove a block. You remove too many blocks and the whole thing falls. "God exists" is many assumptions (there is a world beyond the material, the infinite can exist, the immaterial can interact with the material, and so on), and so that's a lot of blocks to pull out. Can you be sure the tower will stay standing?

I can't answer the poll, btw, because it is loaded to one side by a considerable margin. There's no "reality is probably real" option.

 

[chris4243]

If you can't accept the assumptions, you can't play the game. Would you accept me discussing science were I to reject the claim that the world is objective? If every time you made a claim I objected that your claim was based on assumptions I didn't like?

You can still make true deductions even if you don't believe the premises; the conclusions would then be of the form "If A than B" rather than of the form "B". I don't see how from a philosophical point of view any assumption is more justified than any other.

 

[SithDoughnut]

If you can't accept the assumptions, you can't play the game. Would you accept me discussing science were I to reject the claim that the world is objective? If every time you made a claim I objected that your claim was based on assumptions I didn't like?

You can still make true deductions even if you don't believe the premises; the conclusions would then be of the form "If A than B" rather than of the form "B". I don't see how from a philosophical point of view any assumption is more justified than any other.

Indeed, assumptions are just assumptions, but the point is to have as few as possible. "I think therefore I am" relies on one assumption: "I think". "God exists" relies on several. You need to demonstrate that the assumptions are worth assuming. You know you think (or at least, you think you do), which is why it is often considered a fundamental assumption - it is necessary in order to make any further assumptions. "God exists" is not necessary.

 

[Gracchus]

Indeed, assumptions are just assumptions, but the point is to have as few as possible.

No. The point is to have only those assumptions that are justified by reason and experience.

"I think therefore I am" relies on one assumption: "I think".

"I am" is not an assumption.

"God exists" relies on several.

Those assumptions are the assumptions you accept as being true of God. And who is God? According to the Bible: "I am".

You need to demonstrate that the assumptions are worth assuming. You know you think (or at least, you think you do), which is why it is often considered a fundamental assumption - it is necessary in order to make any further assumptions.

Well, you at least, cannot be accused of thinking. To say "I am" is to say "I think". There is no "I am" without "I think", and no "I think" without "I am". It is a tautology. Everything else must be tested against experience. "I am" IS! Everything else was or wasn't. Everything else that was changes, for all that we perceive is the past, what was, that past is changed by augmentation.

"God exists" is not necessary.

"I am" is not only necessary, but inescapable. Your unjustified assumptions are those you hold on the nature of "I am". From those false assumptions arise idolatry, and from idolatry arises misunderstanding, and much unnecessary human misery.

In your attempt to rid yourself of assumptions, you dismiss reason by ridding yourself of what necessarily is: "I am", "I think". That is the undeniable static and dynamic of human existence.

As for God: The idol you have raised on the basis of your false assumptions and faulty reasoning does not exist. But "I am" exists.

 

[SithDoughnut]

No. The point is to have only those assumptions that are justified by reason and experience.

If an assumption is justified by reason, it is a conclusion, not an assumption. An assumption is what you base the reasoning off of.

"I am" is not an assumption.

Perhaps. Doesn't change the fact that "God exists" is an unfounded and unnecessary assumption. Unless you're God, "I am" is not going to prove his existence. If you're going to use "according to the Bible", you're assuming that the Bible is as true and necessary as "I am".

 

[Gracchus]

If you're going to use "according to the Bible", you're assuming that the Bible is as true and necessary as "I am".

But why would any reasonable person assume the truth of the Bible? The Bible, after all, is not a statement. It is not an argument. It is a collection of myths, poetry, religious law, ritual, biased history (Is there any other kind?) and stories designed more to influence behavior (i.e. fables, parables) than to depict literal truth. (e.g. Job, Jonah) It isn't "true" or "false" as a whole. You have to take it piece by piece.

 

[chris4243]

OK then, would it make you feel better if you assume that God's existence were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that He personally verified the creation account in Genesis is His own? As for your silly idea that assumptions have to be justified, tell me, O wise one, do the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees or not? Justify your answer, or tell me again how no one should ever study Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry because they can't justify their assumptions.

Now then, for the philosophical question (not scientific one as you seem to be stuck up with), if God created the world as accounted in Genesis, would it make sense to think of the world as a model, that God created a model much like a geometry person creates a model using nothing more than language and intelligence? Or, would it be more reasonable that God created a "real" world, and how might that be possible?

 

[Gracchus]

If an assumption is justified by reason, it is a conclusion, not an assumption. An assumption is what you base the reasoning off of.

We start with assumptions, let's say the Postulates of Euclid. These assumptions we have not arrived at blindly, it is true. They are a product of observation and induction. From the Postulates of Euclid we deduce that the area of a square on the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. If the postulates are true and the rules of inference have been correctly applied then the deduction must be true.

Then we go out and measure a great many squares on the sides of right triangles. We find that in every case, what we have deduced from the postulates is justified. Thus, our assumptions have been justified by reason.

Perhaps. Doesn't change the fact that "God exists" is an unfounded and unnecessary assumption. Unless you're God, "I am" is not going to prove his existence. If you're going to use "according to the Bible", you're assuming that the Bible is as true and necessary as "I am".

People believe all sorts of things about God. They obviously cannot all be right, although they might all be wrong, and some are obviously wrong, impossible in fact.

And yet you insist that we must accept the definition and attributes of God that are proposed by these obviously confused individuals. You insist that must accept as the only possible God the god of the Judaeo-Christian scripture. There is a God in the Bible that does not outrage reason. That is the God that reasons. That is the consciousness of the universe. That is "I am". Of course, I am "I am", but so are you "I am" and so is every self-aware entity in the universe, and none of those entities is a separate thing but each is a dynamic pattern which is in fact inseparable from the whole. Each is, separately, and all are, collectively, the consciousness of the universe.

I will agree that the idea of God is unnecessary. But it does explain some very hard to explain phenomena, and need not be, if God is freed from impossible attributes, contrary to reason.