Is Intelligibility of the Quantum Universe an evidence of God's Existence?

[SelfSim]

Someone once said, "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all of the time." This is one of those cases. Besides, if I quoted something from Barrow's (1998) book, Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits, do you think you'd learn anything?

I doubt you would since you're already educated down a particular epistemic path.

Perhaps I jumped in a little soon in breaking off from the discussion(?).. I have other things going on in the real world that need attending to.
Doesn't alter where I was coming from though .. see science has these firm underpinnings and even when we go exploring the outer limits, (as in Cosmology), one still gets that firm feeling.

With philosophy however, there is no firm feeling .. its all just shades of gray and merely posited truths piled on top of yet more merely posited truths .. onto infinity and beyond:

'A person who thinks all the time has nothing to think about except thoughts. So he loses touch with reality and lives in a world of illusions.'
-Alan W. Watts, Art of Meditation.

And then there's Kant, who seems to have something to say about your style in most of your postings .. (meaning how you observably lean on philosophers):

"One can thus learn philosophy, without being able to philosophize. Thus whoever properly wants to become a philosopher: he must make a free use of his reason, and not merely an imitative, so to speak, mechanical use. [...] How can one learn philosophy? One either derives philosophical cognitions from the first sources of their production, i.e., from the principles of reason; or one learns them from those who have philosophized. The easiest way is the latter. But that is not properly philosophy. Suppose there were a true philosophy, [if] one learned it, then one would still have only a historical cognition. A philosopher must be able to philosophize, and for that one must not learn philosophy; otherwise one can judge nothing. [...] One can make a distinction between the two expressions, to learn philosophy and to learn to philosophize. To learn is to imitate the judgments of others, hence is quite distinct from one’s own reflection."

.. Just sayin' .. and certainly NOT do I want to encourage any more of this dustbin-worthy stuff.

 

[SelfSim]

Thank God, some people actually PERCEIVE reality for what it is ................................

So by your usage of the word 'reality' there, I get that you mean 'a runway incursion' (is what it is), then?

There's no evidence for a God allowing me to perceive a runway incursion in any of that meaning .. in spite of there being an abundance of evidence of humans having created the meaning for the mind-model of a runway incursion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps I jumped in a little soon in breaking off from the discussion(?).. I have other things going on in the real world that need attending to.
Doesn't alter where I was coming from though .. see science has these firm underpinnings and even when we go exploring the outer limits, (as in Cosmology), one still gets that firm feeling.

With philosophy however, there is no firm feeling .. its all just shades of gray and merely posited truths piled on top of yet more merely posited truths .. onto infinity and beyond:

'A person who thinks all the time has nothing to think about except thoughts. So he loses touch with reality and lives in a world of illusions.'
-Alan W. Watts, Art of Meditation.

And then there's Kant, who seems to have something to say about your style in most of your postings .. (meaning how you observably lean on philosophers):

"One can thus learn philosophy, without being able to philosophize. Thus whoever properly wants to become a philosopher: he must make a free use of his reason, and not merely an imitative, so to speak, mechanical use. [...] How can one learn philosophy? One either derives philosophical cognitions from the first sources of their production, i.e., from the principles of reason; or one learns them from those who have philosophized. The easiest way is the latter. But that is not properly philosophy. Suppose there were a true philosophy, [if] one learned it, then one would still have only a historical cognition. A philosopher must be able to philosophize, and for that one must not learn philosophy; otherwise one can judge nothing. [...] One can make a distinction between the two expressions, to learn philosophy and to learn to philosophize. To learn is to imitate the judgments of others, hence is quite distinct from one’s own reflection."

.. Just sayin' .. and certainly NOT do I want to encourage any more of this dustbin-worthy stuff.

That's wonderful for me to know that you know better than I do the difference between philosophy and philosophizing.

You're a godsend to CF. Just sayin'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So by your usage of the word 'reality' there, I get that you mean 'a runway incursion' (is what it is), then?

There's no evidence for a God allowing me to perceive a runway incursion in any of that meaning .. in spite of there being an abundance of evidence of humans having created the meaning for the mind-model of a runway incursion.

Actually, I think the reality of this sort of situation had a ----what was it you called it earlier----- oh yeah, "a firm feeling" for all those involved.

 

[SelfSim]

That's wonderful for me to know that you know better than I do the difference between philosophy and philosophizing.

It just sounded to me to be well .. err ... just so you (based on the evidence of your posting style).

Either way, it still doesn't matter really after all .. its only mere philosophizing ..

You're a godsend to CF. Just sayin'

Not likely, really.

 

[SelfSim]

Actually, I think the reality of this sort of situation had a ----what was it you called it earlier----- oh yeah, "a firm feeling" for all those involved.

Oh .. I'm sure it did! Runway incursions certainly do conjure up very firm feelings .. ala: impacts, carnage, death!

Y'know also something along the lines of: 'Yikes! That was a lucky break! Now who's to blame?'

Still no objective evidence there for supporting the existence of a Godly intervention though. Plenty of evidence of the mind adding the above meanings though, (I mean try adding those without using any human minds, whatsoever ..?)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh .. I'm sure it did! Runway incursions certainly do conjure up very firm feelings .. ala: impacts, carnage, death!

Y'know also something along the lines of: 'Yikes! That was a lucky break! Now who's to blame?'

Still no objective evidence there for supporting the existence of a Godly intervention though. Plenty of evidence of the mind adding the above meanings though, (I mean try adding those without using any human minds, whatsoever ..?)

Who said anything about Godly evidence? Do you always read into other people's statements with insinuative aplomb?

Do you know the difference between a declarative exclamation, on the one hand, and an 'offer' of evidence from one person to another, on the other hand?

If I say, "Thank God....." I in no way expect other people to interpret my 3rd person declaration via the internet as a statement of evidence.

I'm surprised you read it as such. Maybe it's just one of those Poe's Law things.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And who are today's "confederates" in your present view?

Not anyone near this thread. Think of the people who want bases named after that repeat loser Braxton Bragg.

e-x-e-g-e-s-i-s

It's an old academic term with an old etymological lineage. There is no "exa what's it?" here in this.

Not one related to science.

It's not a scientific argument, so need I explain it here?

Probably doesn't belong here, whatever it is.

But it is a cogent argument, one with social and psychological implications about the nature of the existential (even anthropic) situation we're all in and for which skeptics and atheistic scientists have nothing positive to offer other than, "...too bad, suck it up!!!!"

I guess that is too bad, buttercup.

 

[SelfSim]

Who said anything about Godly evidence? Do you always read into other people's statements with insinuative aplomb?

Do you know the difference between a declarative exclamation, on the one hand, and an 'offer' of evidence from one person to another, on the other hand?

If I say, "Thank God....." I in no way expect other people to interpret my 3rd person declaration via the internet as a statement of evidence.

I'm surprised you read it as such. Maybe it's just one of those Poe's Law things.

So have you now forgotten the topic of your own thread to the extent that you now expect others to not take your references to the existence of a god-like creator (ie: 'God') and 'objective evidence' literally?

What is the purpose of this thread, anyway?

 

[Hans Blaster]

FWIW, it seems to me that the concept of spatial infinity is often thought about in terms of limits, rather than in terms of a specific distance. That would mean my not talking about "infinite distance between two objects", but rather, imagining a series of pairs of objects whose distances grow without bound. If the set of objects is unbounded, then the distances between them is also unbounded. So in this sense, using the term, "infinite" just means "unbounded maximum distance". What I'm saying is, (for me), "unbounded" means more than just "does not have a bound", it means the distances do not have a bound, i.e., any distance I can name, I could imagine producing two objects that are separated by a larger distance than what anyone else named. If the entire concept of distance breaks down before I can do that, I cannot say the universe is either finite or infinite and therefore I cannot understand that kind of spatially infinite universe (and that conception therefore, also seems meaningless?).

It is bigger than we can possibly measure, so I don't know if it is 10x the horizon distance or 'infinite'. Unbounded seems reasonable. Inifinite distance in physics is mostly about shoving things places to get them out of the way. For example, if you want to know how tightly the electron is bound to the proton, you calculate the energy to move the electron away from the proton to "infinite distance", and other "applications".

 

[Hans Blaster]

And Pascal would partly agree with you. Although, he probably would have differentiated teleology from ontology in knowing the limits of science and theology,

​

"For, in fact, what is man in nature? A Nothing in comparison with the Infinite, an All in comparison with the Nothing, a mean between nothing and everything. Since he is infinitely removed from comprehending the extremes, the end of things and their beginning are hopelessly hidden from him in an impenetrable secret; he is equally incapable of seeing the Nothing from which he was made, and the Infinite in which he is swallowed up." [Pensees, Section 2, #72]​

Pascal would say that it takes imagination to realize we understand neither of them, nor both.

Pascal would agree with this as well.


I'm sure Pascal would have agreed with this as well.

If I can't get you to agree, there's always Pascal. So I've got that going for me.

It's too bad the old "apologetics" board shut down. We could have a proper discussion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So have you now forgotten the topic of your own thread to the extent that you now expect others to not take your references to the existence of a god-like creator (ie: 'God') and 'objective evidence' literally?

What is the purpose of this thread, anyway?

The purpose of this thread is simply to allow people to sound off and offer their respecitve viewpoint about the video content. That's essentially what any of us here have been doing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I can't get you to agree, there's always Pascal. So I've got that going for me.

No one said I completely and utterly disagree with your view of what physical scientists do and how they do it. Keep in mind, there are a wide variety of different kinds of philosophy and ways in which to analyze any topic. I personally don't go in for speculative philosophy. I prefer the analytic or critical forms of philosophy.

Additionally, I prefer the Realist school of thought where understanding the world is concerned, so it should go without saying that terms, definitions, processes and working models which I think are ambiguous in nature will be cited my be as being ambiguous in nature. Those that are clear and distinct I, like you, will cite as clear and distinct.

I think you and I would both agree that the Anthropic Principle [Weak or Strong] and the Fine-Tuning Argument don't provide us anything clear and distinct diagnostically, other than the obvious scientific truism both of these theoretical ideas offer: i.e. that you and I exist, so it's interesting that we do and can think the thoughts we do about our small place in the Universe.

It's too bad the old "apologetics" board shut down. We could have a proper discussion.

True, and I'm all about having proper (and free) discussions. But the political poles---both of them---don't like that sort of thing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No one said I completely and utterly disagree with your view of what physical scientists do and how they do it. Keep in mind, there are a wide variety of different kinds of philosophy and ways in which to analyze any topic. I personally don't go in for speculative philosophy. I prefer the analytic or critical forms of philosophy.

And why I steer clear of it if I can.

Additionally, I prefer the Realist school of thought where understanding the world is concerned, so it should go without saying that terms, definitions, processes and working models which I think are ambiguous in nature will be cited my be as being ambiguous in nature. Those that are clear and distinct I, like you, will cite as clear and distinct.

And yet another steering on my part here. I am not going to characterize my "philosophy" as the "schools" are not something I know at all as what I think is realism is probably not exactly Realism.

I think you and I would both agree that the Anthropic Principle [Weak or Strong] and the Fine-Tuning Argument don't provide us anything clear and distinct diagnostically, other than the obvious scientific truism both of these theoretical ideas offer: i.e. that you and I exist, so it's interesting that we do and can think the thoughts we do about our small place in the Universe.

I can't keep the "levels" of the AP straight, but this goes straight to the error made in the OP video. What I like to call the "ultra-weak" AP -- a universe without regular laws of nature would never have beings asking the question because they couldn't form. (It brings out the obvious conclusion, that if our tiny pocket of life was surrounded by a vast expanse of inchoherent laws of physics, that would be the closest this type of argument could come to demonstrating a creator. But, alas, the Universe is regular an coherent.

True, and I'm all about having proper (and free) discussions. But the political poles---both of them---don't like that sort of thing.

It's not a matter of politics an on this site (the only one that is relevant) it is only one "side" aligned to the management/ownership that ties my hands to free discussion (and would have even on the old sub-forum).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And why I steer clear of it if I can.

So, you don't think about Ethics or Logic or Political positioning in your life or work? I have to ask because if you do any of these things, then you're doing philosophy.

It's not just all about speculative Metaphysics or Epistemology.

And yet another steering on my part here. I am not going to characterize my "philosophy" as the "schools" are not something I know at all as what I think is realism is probably not exactly Realism.

Who knows? Maybe it is. There are dozens of forms of Realism.

I can't keep the "levels" of the AP straight, but this goes straight to the error made in the OP video. What I like to call the "ultra-weak" AP -- a universe without regular laws of nature would never have beings asking the question because they couldn't form. (It brings out the obvious conclusion, that if our tiny pocket of life was surrounded by a vast expanse of inchoherent laws of physics, that would be the closest this type of argument could come to demonstrating a creator. But, alas, the Universe is regular an coherent.

That sounds fair. I'm more of the view that a universe created by a biblical God would look the same as it does now.

It's not a matter of politics an on this site (the only one that is relevant) it is only one "side" aligned to the management/ownership that ties my hands to free discussion (and would have even on the old sub-forum).

It's actually a form of politics, even if on a micro level. But we're not going to talk about that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So, you don't think about Ethics or Logic or Political positioning in your life or work? I have to ask because if you do any of these things, then you're doing philosophy.

to be avoided (did you miss that part)

It's not just all about speculative Metaphysics or Epistemology.

Who knows? Maybe it is. There are dozens of forms of Realism.

That's what I figured.

That sounds fair. I'm more of the view that a universe created by a biblical God would look the same as it does now.

That's why both AP and "fine tuning" are such lousy arguments. They don't actually tell us anything.

It's actually a form of politics, even if on a micro level. But we're not going to talk about that.

Good grief.

 

[SelfSim]

...
That sounds fair. I'm more of the view that a universe created by a biblical God would look the same as it does now.

So how are we now to interpret what you mean by the phrase 'a biblical God' there?
I mean, given from your previous post that you appear unwilling to necessarily have it mean what most of us thinks it means?

I note that you also mix that phrase in the same sentence as the phrase 'the universe' .. which typically has a scientifically assigned meaning .. so what do you actually mean by that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

to be avoided (did you miss that part)

That's what I figured.

That's why both AP and "fine tuning" are such lousy arguments. They don't actually tell us anything.

And I didn't say they were 'good' arguments. At the same time, keeping in mind all that I've read from various theoretical physicists, I take these arguments, and whatever we have from Quantum Physics, as interesting points to ponder.

Good grief.

I only mention it because their placing a curb on Philosophy and Apologetics strikes at the very CORE of who and what I am. And I don't like being blocked by other people, especially other Christians.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I only mention it because their placing a curb on Philosophy and Apologetics strikes at the very CORE of who and what I am. And I don't like being blocked by other people, especially other Christians.

Sounds like you need to duke it out with the mods. Good luck with that.

 

[SelfSim]

And I didn't say they were 'good' arguments. At the same time, keeping in mind all that I've read from various theoretical physicists, I take these arguments, and whatever we have from Quantum Physics, as interesting points to ponder.

'Interesting'? For what purpose?

I only mention it because their placing a curb on Philosophy and Apologetics strikes at the very CORE of who and what I am. And I don't like being blocked by other people, especially other Christians.

Try having your posts repeatedly deleted without explanation!