Donnadogsoth Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 This condition of the Universe falls, for the ordinary person, into the category of what philosophers call "brute facts"--facts that "just are," that exist "for no reason" but exist all the more indubitably and solidly for all that. This violates the principle of sufficient reason, and any such violation destroys the validity of science and reason and, so, must be guarded against. The modern "quantum mechanics" explanation for the Universe being the way it is, leans on the so-called Many World Theory, which says that, in fact, all permutations of possible Universes exist simultaneously. And then...? And then it falls flat back into the problem posed. Why should the Uni- or, rather, Multiverse exist in a condition that it is? To this, silence. The only answer to the problem is will. Will is that quality of mind which effects change. In a monad, an individual, that individual requires both perception in order to know what to change, and desire or appetition or will in order to change it. Without these characteristics there is nothing in the Universe that can be termed "substance"--nothing substantial. So, in a Universe of change, all change is wrought by will; that which wills not, is not, in any substantial sense. And the Universe is, overall, the way it is because of a capital Will, which is our only escape from brute fact.
Will Torbald Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 There is no reason to believe in the principle of sufficient reason. The universe can just be without a "sufficient reason". It's just stuff philosophers come up with, but the universe doesn't have to please philosophers. The question itself is a good question though, and it's something that honest physicists do struggle with. The current interpretation is that the universe could be one of many in a landscape of possible universes, in which the features of this particular universe are accidental, not fundamental. In other words, there is not reason for our universe to be the way it is other than it was a possibility, and it happened by chance. It's like finding out we are not special in the universe, but finding out the universe itself isn't special either. Tough for the ego to accept - and while it still in the realm of speculative theory - it is a possibility I wouldn't reject if the evidence showed it is true.
MrCapitalism Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 What will will take his place? An infinite of possibilities, all existing "within the multiverse" while also "outside of the multiverse" (therefore satisfying sufficient reason). These possibilities are all true... and they are all false... in all directions and dimensions of possible time. Now what?
Anuojat Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 What will will take his place? Due to lack of evidence there was nothing to be taking anything place. All we have for evidence is atm is quantum mechanics. (to be combined with gravity and clasiccal physics as our knowledge increases). In short we got loads of clues but not a definitive answer. No need to insert the ghost of selfknowledge there.
_LiveFree_ Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 The universe is the way it is to us because it is the kind of universe that can create philosophers, astronomers and theologians. When chance is observed by its creation, it's typically viewed as providence. Is it divine providence that someone wins the lottery? Nope, just probability. Is it divine providence that quantum particles or strings or waves or whateverthefuck snap into a quark? Nope, just probability. Is it divine providence that you are alive? Nope, just probability. The Universe just so happens to create life, which can develop free will - but free will only for a cosmic instance. This instance only happens after the Universe drastically cools after exploding; at which point everything dies. Consciousness is a spark that doesn't live long at all. Free will is a blip not even detected in the grand scheme. In short, you're looking at the world upside down. Or more accurately, inside out. So then what's the point? Be happy. If Jesus makes you happy, wonderful. But you're fooling me.
Donnadogsoth Posted February 8, 2017 Author Posted February 8, 2017 There is no reason to believe in the principle of sufficient reason. The universe can just be without a "sufficient reason". It's just stuff philosophers come up with, but the universe doesn't have to please philosophers. The question itself is a good question though, and it's something that honest physicists do struggle with. The current interpretation is that the universe could be one of many in a landscape of possible universes, in which the features of this particular universe are accidental, not fundamental. In other words, there is not reason for our universe to be the way it is other than it was a possibility, and it happened by chance. It's like finding out we are not special in the universe, but finding out the universe itself isn't special either. Tough for the ego to accept - and while it still in the realm of speculative theory - it is a possibility I wouldn't reject if the evidence showed it is true. Without the PSR, all is chaos. You may subscribe to occasionalism, but, I see there no "reason" to join you! The universe is the way it is to us because it is the kind of universe that can create philosophers, astronomers and theologians. When chance is observed by its creation, it's typically viewed as providence. Is it divine providence that someone wins the lottery? Nope, just probability. Is it divine providence that quantum particles or strings or waves or whateverthefuck snap into a quark? Nope, just probability. Is it divine providence that you are alive? Nope, just probability. The Universe just so happens to create life, which can develop free will - but free will only for a cosmic instance. This instance only happens after the Universe drastically cools after exploding; at which point everything dies. Consciousness is a spark that doesn't live long at all. Free will is a blip not even detected in the grand scheme. In short, you're looking at the world upside down. Or more accurately, inside out. So then what's the point? Be happy. If Jesus makes you happy, wonderful. But you're fooling me. "Probability" means "we don't know the cause but can make a bet". Is that the Universe you ascribe to? A gambling house, maybe with little green men under the floorboards of reality rolling dice to decide what happens? A Gnostic Universe, in other words, where the obvious and everyday are incomprehensible "its" controlled by the Absolute Chaos on the other side.
NotDarkYet Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 Anthropic Principle. If we were in some other universe - we wouldn't be able to ask the question.
DaVinci Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 I'm not sure our brains can figure out things that we have no way of examining. It's like wondering what is smaller than dust. Until a microscope comes along there is no way to know.
Will Torbald Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 Without the PSR, all is chaos. You may subscribe to occasionalism, but, I see there no "reason" to join you! If you think my view is occasionalist, you've misunderstood me wholesale. So what if it's chaos? Does it scare you? The world would remain exactly as it is. The only thing that's changed is your perspective.
Donnadogsoth Posted February 8, 2017 Author Posted February 8, 2017 Does a Chaos-World have a Chaos God to go with it?
_LiveFree_ Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 "Probability" means "we don't know the cause but can make a bet". Is that the Universe you ascribe to? A gambling house, maybe with little green men under the floorboards of reality rolling dice to decide what happens? A Gnostic Universe, in other words, where the obvious and everyday are incomprehensible "its" controlled by the Absolute Chaos on the other side. No. "Probability" 4. Statistics. the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences. the relative frequency with which an event occurs or is likely to occur. Why did you not ask me any decent questions?
Donnadogsoth Posted February 9, 2017 Author Posted February 9, 2017 No. "Probability" 4. Statistics. the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences. the relative frequency with which an event occurs or is likely to occur. Why did you not ask me any decent questions? What's causing the effects the probabilities of which statistics concerns itself with?
Mole Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 There is no reason to believe in the principle of sufficient reason. The universe can just be without a "sufficient reason". It's just stuff philosophers come up with, but the universe doesn't have to please philosophers. The question itself is a good question though, and it's something that honest physicists do struggle with. The current interpretation is that the universe could be one of many in a landscape of possible universes, in which the features of this particular universe are accidental, not fundamental. In other words, there is not reason for our universe to be the way it is other than it was a possibility, and it happened by chance. It's like finding out we are not special in the universe, but finding out the universe itself isn't special either. Tough for the ego to accept - and while it still in the realm of speculative theory - it is a possibility I wouldn't reject if the evidence showed it is true. I think this raises a new question. Why out of these multiverses was it possible for at least one to be able to sustain life? I think the argument is circular. We explained that earth is so special because there are thousands of other planets out there and that wasn't good enough for us. Now we are saying there are thousands of other universes out there. It still raises the question, why should a universe be able to support life at all? We used to ask, why water, the sun, bacteria, etc with regards to our planet. Then we asked why gravity in the way that it is, why the elements, why the big bang with regards to our universe. And now we may ask why gravity at all, why energy, why consistency, why quantum fluctuations, why consciousness with regards to the multiverses. As I understand it, all the different universes have different behaviour (different forces, different units, etc). But they still abide by logic. They are not impossible worlds, just very different to ours. So it raises the question, why is logic itself able to sustain a multiverse which has our universe in it, which has our planet in it. (Maybe this is a silly question? Indeed, perhaps the multiverse theory is itself illogical) Not much can be further on elaborated on in my mind because to be relativistic about logic is to contradict the very form of your argument and of your being. To say there are universes where logic doesn't exist is to say they don't exist by definition.
_LiveFree_ Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 What's causing the effects the probabilities of which statistics concerns itself with? ...preferably English. And don't end a sentence with a preposition, especially if you're trying to sound smart.
Donnadogsoth Posted February 10, 2017 Author Posted February 10, 2017 ...preferably English. And don't end a sentence with a preposition, especially if you're trying to sound smart. No one's smarter than a grammar nerd. Care to answer the spirit of the question?
Will Torbald Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 I think this raises a new question. Why out of these multiverses was it possible for at least one to be able to sustain life? I think the argument is circular. We explained that earth is so special because there are thousands of other planets out there and that wasn't good enough for us. Now we are saying there are thousands of other universes out there. It still raises the question, why should a universe be able to support life at all? We used to ask, why water, the sun, bacteria, etc with regards to our planet. Then we asked why gravity in the way that it is, why the elements, why the big bang with regards to our universe. And now we may ask why gravity at all, why energy, why consistency, why quantum fluctuations, why consciousness with regards to the multiverses. As I understand it, all the different universes have different behaviour (different forces, different units, etc). But they still abide by logic. They are not impossible worlds, just very different to ours. So it raises the question, why is logic itself able to sustain a multiverse which has our universe in it, which has our planet in it. (Maybe this is a silly question? Indeed, perhaps the multiverse theory is itself illogical) Not much can be further on elaborated on in my mind because to be relativistic about logic is to contradict the very form of your argument and of your being. To say there are universes where logic doesn't exist is to say they don't exist by definition. Anthropic principle. It's no surprise we find ourselves in a universe where we can exist because we can't in those where we don't. Life? How do you know what life is? Life as it is here is the way it is because of the local conditions produce it. In a universe with different local conditions it is possible that different life unknown to us will arise. Those aliens would then ask, like you, why the world is the way it is for them. 1
_LiveFree_ Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 No one's smarter than a grammar nerd. Care to answer the spirit of the question? Ok, I'll be clearer. I don't know what you're asking. Please try again.
RichardY Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 Why is the Universe the way it is and not another way? Death. Or else why would you care or be able to care.
Donnadogsoth Posted February 11, 2017 Author Posted February 11, 2017 Ok, I'll be clearer. I don't know what you're asking. Please try again. I mean, what's behind the probability theory fashionable people talk of? Probability and statistics are presented as if that satisfies any question, when they are just bettors' tools, placing bets on what the green men are going to roll on their cosmic dice. There's no sense of substance to the Universe in such schemes, just statistics, when the substance of the Universe must be consciousness, as I have shown.
_LiveFree_ Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 I mean, what's behind the probability theory fashionable people talk of? Probability and statistics are presented as if that satisfies any question, when they are just bettors' tools, placing bets on what the green men are going to roll on their cosmic dice. There's no sense of substance to the Universe in such schemes, just statistics, when the substance of the Universe must be consciousness, as I have shown.You have not shown that at all. Probabilities are not "bettor's tools". They are a way of mathematically understanding events in the universe. And it's not "fashionable people" but genius minds who have been working on quantum theory for the past century. Just because probability makes it hard for you to sleep at night doesn't mean it's wrong. Maybe there's something wrong with you if you require a giant sky daddy to feel comfy. There isn't "sense" to the universe. It just is. Giving rise to consciousness does not require an all powerful creator consciousness. Emergence seems to be how this thing works. It's been how long since you called into the show? Two years? What have you been doing this whole time?
Donnadogsoth Posted February 11, 2017 Author Posted February 11, 2017 You have not shown that at all. Probabilities are not "bettor's tools". They are a way of mathematically understanding events in the universe. And it's not "fashionable people" but genius minds who have been working on quantum theory for the past century. Just because probability makes it hard for you to sleep at night doesn't mean it's wrong. Maybe there's something wrong with you if you require a giant sky daddy to feel comfy. There isn't "sense" to the universe. It just is. Giving rise to consciousness does not require an all powerful creator consciousness. Emergence seems to be how this thing works. It's been how long since you called into the show? Two years? What have you been doing this whole time? As I have shown, this is saying the Universe is irrational, making all science and understanding vain. Why do you worship chaos?
neeeel Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 What's causing the effects the probabilities of which statistics concerns itself with? depends what you mean by "what" and "causing" The probability of a fair coin landing on heads is 50/50( if you discount the very small possibility that it lands on its side). There isnt a "what" that is "causing" this. Its down to conditions at the time the coin was tossed ( to put it very simply). You cant predict with 100% confidence what the result of 1 coin toss will be. .But you can, with close to 100% confidence, predict that after a large number of coin tosses, the number of heads and the number of tails will be close to 50/50. Whats so hard to understand about that? There doesnt need to be some sort of actor intervening and causing things. "Probability" means "we don't know the cause but can make a bet". Is that the Universe you ascribe to? A gambling house, maybe with little green men under the floorboards of reality rolling dice to decide what happens? A Gnostic Universe, in other words, where the obvious and everyday are incomprehensible "its" controlled by the Absolute Chaos on the other side. Total straw man, and demonstrating no understanding of how things work, or what things refer to. Why are you blabbering on about little green men rolling dice, when no one believes that, no one has suggested that, and it doesnt follow from anything anyone has said? when the substance of the Universe must be consciousness, as I have shown. Yeah, you havent shown this As I have shown, this is saying the Universe is irrational, making all science and understanding vain. Why do you worship chaos? Where have you shown this? The universe isnt rational or irrational, it just is. That doesnt mean you cant make predictions based on previous observations. You are starting from some flawed base assumptions, and extrapolating your world view from that.
Donnadogsoth Posted February 11, 2017 Author Posted February 11, 2017 depends what you mean by "what" and "causing" The probability of a fair coin landing on heads is 50/50( if you discount the very small possibility that it lands on its side). There isnt a "what" that is "causing" this. Its down to conditions at the time the coin was tossed ( to put it very simply). You cant predict with 100% confidence what the result of 1 coin toss will be. .But you can, with close to 100% confidence, predict that after a large number of coin tosses, the number of heads and the number of tails will be close to 50/50. Whats so hard to understand about that? There doesnt need to be some sort of actor intervening and causing things. Total straw man, and demonstrating no understanding of how things work, or what things refer to. Why are you blabbering on about little green men rolling dice, when no one believes that, no one has suggested that, and it doesnt follow from anything anyone has said? Yeah, you havent shown this Where have you shown this? The universe isnt rational or irrational, it just is. That doesnt mean you cant make predictions based on previous observations. You are starting from some flawed base assumptions, and extrapolating your world view from that. What's causing you and your behaviour? Are you a "just is" and, if so, why would the Universe bother to have such an "epiphenomenon" as your consciousness?
neeeel Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 What's causing you and your behaviour? Are you a "just is" and, if so, why would the Universe bother to have such an "epiphenomenon" as your consciousness? what? did you not read my post? The universe doesnt "bother". Again, you are starting from a flawed premise, and reasoning from there. You are implying that the universe is choosing, acting, deciding, has preferences. You may be right, but you would need to show it. ( saying "well, you exist so....." is not showing it, btw) I dont know what you mean by "whats causing you". You would need to define some things before I can answer that. "whats causing my behaviour" is current conditions Why didnt you address any of my other points?
RichardY Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 Without the PSR, all is chaos. You may subscribe to occasionalism, but, I see there no "reason" to join you! "Probability" means "we don't know the cause but can make a bet". Is that the Universe you ascribe to? A gambling house, maybe with little green men under the floorboards of reality rolling dice to decide what happens? A Gnostic Universe, in other words, where the obvious and everyday are incomprehensible "its" controlled by the Absolute Chaos on the other side. Like the ending of the movie "Men in Black" with the marbles...
Donnadogsoth Posted February 11, 2017 Author Posted February 11, 2017 what? did you not read my post? The universe doesnt "bother". Again, you are starting from a flawed premise, and reasoning from there. You are implying that the universe is choosing, acting, deciding, has preferences. You may be right, but you would need to show it. ( saying "well, you exist so....." is not showing it, btw) I dont know what you mean by "whats causing you". You would need to define some things before I can answer that. "whats causing my behaviour" is current conditions Why didnt you address any of my other points? I'm trying to get at the essential here, which is if the Universe, consciousness, human behaviour, and everything "just is" then it is irrational, meaning it is not subject to rational explanation. Nothing is explicable, nothing at all. Which begs the question of why are we talking. Why are we philosophising? Everything just is. There's no point in trying to reason about anything, or change anyone's mind. "Probability" will take care of it all somehow or other. Introducing "just is" into the Universe, at any point, for any reason, changes the entire Universe into an irrational, unreasonable enterprise, and there's no point in talking about such a thing.
neeeel Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 I'm trying to get at the essential here, which is if the Universe, consciousness, human behaviour, and everything "just is" then it is irrational, meaning it is not subject to rational explanation. Nothing is explicable, nothing at all. Which begs the question of why are we talking. Why are we philosophising? Everything just is. There's no point in trying to reason about anything, or change anyone's mind. "Probability" will take care of it all somehow or other. Introducing "just is" into the Universe, at any point, for any reason, changes the entire Universe into an irrational, unreasonable enterprise, and there's no point in talking about such a thing. You cant deal with things if there is no god. I get that.
Donnadogsoth Posted February 11, 2017 Author Posted February 11, 2017 You cant deal with things if there is no god. I get that. What's left to deal with in a Universe of "just is"--pure chaos? How does one deal with that?
neeeel Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 What's left to deal with in a Universe of "just is"--pure chaos? How does one deal with that? Again, "just is" does not necessarily equal "pure chaos". If its true that the universe just is, then you have "dealt with it" for however many years you are alive. You have stayed alive, fed and sheltered yourself. So saying "how does one deal with it" is not an argument against anything. You cant deal mentally without the belief in god. That is a different thing.
Donnadogsoth Posted February 11, 2017 Author Posted February 11, 2017 Again, "just is" does not necessarily equal "pure chaos". If its true that the universe just is, then you have "dealt with it" for however many years you are alive. You have stayed alive, fed and sheltered yourself. So saying "how does one deal with it" is not an argument against anything. You cant deal mentally without the belief in god. That is a different thing. "Just is" means there are no principles, no efficient causes, no reasons for anything, including my behaviour and beliefs. Therefore you can't assert correctly that I "can't deal mentally without the belief in god" since my beliefs simply "are" and have no explanation, just as I likewise thereby can't assert correctly that you "can't deal with the reality of God's existence."
neeeel Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 "Just is" means there are no principles, no efficient causes, no reasons for anything, including my behaviour and beliefs. Therefore you can't assert correctly that I "can't deal mentally without the belief in god" since my beliefs simply "are" and have no explanation, just as I likewise thereby can't assert correctly that you "can't deal with the reality of God's existence." the universe can "just be" and we can still look and notice the principle of bodies of mass being attracted to other bodies of mass. These 2 premises are not (mutually exclusive.) edit: I meant, contradictory
Donnadogsoth Posted February 11, 2017 Author Posted February 11, 2017 the universe can "just be" and we can still look and notice the principle of bodies of mass being attracted to other bodies of mass. These 2 premises are not (mutually exclusive.) edit: I meant, contradictory Everything in the Universe is related to everything else, by definition, or else there wouldn't be one Universe but many. If one part of the Universe is unreasonable, all of the Universe is unreasonable. Riddens then to "principle".
neeeel Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 Everything in the Universe is related to everything else, by definition, or else there wouldn't be one Universe but many. If one part of the Universe is unreasonable, all of the Universe is unreasonable. Riddens then to "principle". sorry, I dont know what this means
Recommended Posts