Agnostiscism and atheism

@Dexter78,

Dexter78 wrote:

Even if one grants every claim the paper makes, the consciousness it proposes is more in line with new age religion as opposed to an omnipotent God. It is an awareness of potentialities, but no will, a response, a reaction to what else exists. It is not a single governing entity, but an amalgamation of all consciousnes, which itself changes as potentialities are actualized.

I referred to that paper because you cited that a fundamental consciousness was irrational. This paper demonstrates that there is nothing irrational about consciousness existing as a cause to all that exists.

Dexter wrote:

Oh? I've seen it many times, the many Christians who interprete the Bible literally accept a God who violates physical law at will. The great flood, turning someone into a pilar of salt, stoping the sun in the sky, all violate physical laws, as would accepting that the earth is 6000 years old. Back when I went to youth group meetings I was often told that there is nothing God cannot do, not that there is nothing within physical law that God cannot do. There are even posts in this forum that allude to an unconditional omnipotence. Miralces often invoke the impossible happening, which is a violation of physical law.

I don't think we yet know the limitations of physical law as we have yet to understand the nature of dark energy and other phenomena introduced in the last 60 years, but that doesn't prevent me from viewing many biblical events as myth that later became interpreted literally. This is a large dispute occurring in Christianity, but at one time non-literal interpretation of the Bible was not as much an issue. There are many early and late theologians down through the years who categorically denied biblical literalism. The issue, though, is what does Christian theology actually say about God's omnipotence, and obviously it doesn't hold to the kind of omnipotence that you were taught since Jesus himself was required to die for our sins. If Christians taught the kind of omnipotence that you suggest, then this centerpiece doctrine alone would be a foolish contradiction to God's omnipotence. Christians just didn't believe in a strong view of omnipotence--it is not compatible with Christian theology where certain things must happen in order for God's will to be fulfilled.

Dexter wrote:

I was making no appeal to irrationality whatsoever, I was simply asking why does an omnipotent being require a creation to be omnipotent.

I would need to explain Origen's view, which I'm no expert, but the premise I think is that God has certain attributes that are an expresssion of God's nature, and without the attribute meaning something in the real world, then God cannot be said to possess that attribute. Hence, if an attribute is not actualized, then it is not an attribute. So, according to Origen's thinking, an attribute of omnipotence requires a creation because the creation actualizes God's omnipotent attribute--an attribute so intrical to God's identity that God deems it desirable or necessary to have it. I'm not sure if this explanation is the reason for the universe, however I do think that exemplarism in general is the reason for the world.

Dexter78 wrote:

Which view? They had very different views from each other, they did not share the same single view.

They all held that the physical laws have some form of independent existence from the material universe. I'll quote Paul Davies who I think summarizes this view:

Quote:

It might be objected that we haven't finished the job by baldly taking the laws of physics as given. Where did those laws come from? And why those laws rather than some other set? This is a valid objection. But it is the job of physics to explain the world based on law-like principles. Scientists adopt differing attitudes to the metaphysical problem of how to explain the principles themselves. Some simply shrug and say we must just accept the laws as a brute fact. Others suggest that the laws must be what they are from logical necessity. Yet others propose that there exist many worlds, each with differing laws, and that only a small subset of these universes possess the rather special laws needed if life and reflective beings like ourselves are to emerge. Some sceptics rubbish the entire discussion by claiming that the laws of physics have no real existence anyway - they are merely human inventions designed to help us make sense of the physical world. It is hard to see how the origin of the universe could ever be explained with a view like this. It seems that almost all physicists who work on fundamental problems accept that the laws of physics have some kind of independent reality. With that view, it is possible to argue that the laws of physics are logically prior to the universe they describe. That is, the laws of physics stand at the base of a rational explanatory chain, in the same way that the axioms of Euclid stand at the base of the logical scheme we call geometry. Of course one cannot prove that the laws of physics have to be the starting point of an explanatory scheme, but any attempt to explain the world rationally has to have some starting point, and for most scientists the laws of physics seem a very satisfactory one. In the same way, one need not accept Euclid's axioms as the starting point of geometry; a set of theorems like Pythagoras's would do equally well. But the purpose of science (and mathematics) is to explain the world in as simple and economical a fashion as possible, and Euclid's axioms and the laws of physics are attempts to do just that. (Paul Davies, New Scientist, "When Time Began," Oct. 9, 2004)

Dexter78 wrote:

I never stated that I think math is a useful fiction, I think it is exact, and can describe nature exactly. I'm saying that the fundamental properties of the universe, and what the universe came from are fixed, and this is why mathematics can explain all that it explains. You are assuming that these properties, or governing equation, either way, must be giberish by default, that their current state implies proposition. This is merely an interpretation, and far from verification of a God or Gods.

If the fundamental properties are exact, and subsequently our math is exact because it refers to these properties, then this presents three major problems as I see it. 1) Our math is based on basic axioms, and these axioms do not refer to these fundamental properties. So, how is it that math duplicates with great precision to the point of being able to extraordinarily predict phenomena in the real world if our math does not refer to the fundamental properties? and 2) Mathematical structure is very abstract with many of those abstractions having to corollary with physical structures (e.g., infinitesimals numbers, categories, groups, etc.). In fact, many of these abstract structures are left undefined. It would seem therefore that if math were based on these fundamental properties that math would look much different. For example, take psychology as an example. We can take certain axioms of human behavior, and then formalize this to understand human behavior. Perhaps we could construct exotic psychological states that don't exist, etc.. But, do you honestly believe we would succeed at understanding the brain and its neurochemistry? Do you think our mentalese language would help describe the neurochemical causes for behavior? 3) Math works on very simple lines of deduction and proof that are logical in nature, whereas these fundamental properties would not be logical by definition. Therefore, you have two fundamentally different kinds of systems each having separate rules of inference, any connection between them would be analogies. However, analogies break down and are a result of human creativity (i.e., as useful fictions). Why would math be a better analogy at describing the fundamental aspects of the natural world compared to any other human endeavor (such as psychology, biology, sports, chess, travelling to Europe, etc.)? Your suggestion seems to be that mathematical structures and physical structures are isomorphic, which to me indicates that they are the same structure. If the same, then the physical world is based on a set of propositions that exist (and need an interpreter).

Physicists such as Max Tegmark have taken the notion that the universe is a mathematical structure very seriously. I think the argument is very appealing.

1 Reply

@harvey1,

Quote:

The issue, though, is what does Christian theology actually say about God's omnipotence, and obviously it doesn't hold to the kind of omnipotence that you were taught since Jesus himself was required to die for our sins.

Here there is much to delve into. As for Jesus being required to die, it can also be said that this was the way God intended, but it could have been done another way if God so wished. In other words, was it required because God required it, or was it required because God was required to plan it in such a way. To suggest that God is limited by physical law means that he is subject to it's consequences, and will inevitably decay into chaos like all other organized systems. In addition, there is the old issue of which religion is correct, since there are other religions which are more clear in describing a deity who is not strongly omnipotent. Establishing criteria for distinguishing between them is difficult.

Quote:

So, according to Origen's thinking, an attribute of omnipotence requires a creation because the creation actualizes God's omnipotent attribute--an attribute so intrical to God's identity that God deems it desirable or necessary to have it.

In reference to the previous article, all potentialities exist, so why couldn't God himself be the actualization of omnipotence, without the need for a creation. If God needs to actualize creation to acquire the attribute of omnipotence, then God himself is a collection of potentialities and subsequent actualizations, an evolving being, which would mean that perfection, which God is often said to be, also changes. If perfection is also an attribute, then what was actualized for it to be an attribute of God, and was God not perfect before this actualization.

[quote]Physicists such as Max Tegmark have taken the notion that the universe is a mathematical structure very seriously. I think the argument is very appealing.[/quote]

Quite an interesting paper, and quite similar to what I actually think. I think linguistic conventions were preventing me from accurately describing what I mean. When I refer to fundamental properties, with respect to this univers, I was refering to the "initial conditions" or "boudary conditions" that resulted in the properties of our universe. These are still in the domain of mathematics, and as the paper mentions, there are no actual initial conditions, perhaps I should have said actualized reality. And as it appears this is one of many, our existence was essentially inevitable. Interesting implications for other religious concepts, such as heaven or hell, which, if other universes, could not be reached as there cannot be interaction between the different realities. If they are in this universe, then I have yet to see how they are possible. The paper also makes no mention of a need for a God or creator of any kind, and as it says, all wasn't created, it simply is.

1 Reply

@Dexter78,

[quote=dexter]In other words, was it required because God required it, or was it required because God was required to plan it in such a way.[/quote]

In other words, was it a necessary truth that Jesus had to die, or was it a contingent truth that Jesus had to die? I think that God establishes necessary truths, and therefore Jesus had to die. However, this should not be confused with preference. God interpreted the divine requirement (that only God can and must do), and based on that interpretation God determined that the divine requirement must be met through Jesus' death in order to satisfy God's conception of justice. God did not prefer it that way from the fine-grained perspective, rather God preferred it from the coarse-grained perspective. Granularity and weight are key factors when God determines the interpretative truth of a situation.

[quote=dexter]To suggest that God is limited by physical law means that he is subject to it's consequences, and will inevitably decay into chaos like all other organized systems.[/quote]

I don't see how. A mathematical interpreter (God) is limited by the kind of physical systems that God can actualize and still be true to mathematical truths. Interpretation is tricky business since certain mathematical facts restrain certain interpretations from being considered.

[quote=dexter]In reference to the previous article, all potentialities exist, so why couldn't God himself be the actualization of omnipotence, without the need for a creation.[/quote]

Omnipotence is a relation that God has with the physical world. If the physical world is merely a potential, then the relation itself only potentially exists. However, if Origen is right, and God has deemed that real omnipotence is a quality that God requires to accomplish the divine will, then real omnipotence requires a real omnipotency relation that requires a physical creation.

[quote=dexter]If God needs to actualize creation to acquire the attribute of omnipotence, then God himself is a collection of potentialities and subsequent actualizations[/quote]

This primordial cosmic consciousness (or Logos) would actualize based on potential realities, the primordial Logos itself wouldn't be a potential--at least as far as the primordial consciousness itself is concerned. This primordial consciousness exists at the beginning.

[quote=dexter]an evolving being, which would mean that perfection, which God is often said to be, also changes. If perfection is also an attribute, then what was actualized for it to be an attribute of God, and was God not perfect before this actualization.[/quote]

This confuses the Absolute with the Logos. The Trinity is composed of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Or, in philosophical terms, I think we can re-translate these as: God is an Absolute, Logos, and Field. The Absolute is the undefined nature of God that is ultimate perfection, ultimate goodness, ultimate love, ultimate omnipotence, ultimate omniscience, etc., and the Logos radiates like light from this source because it is what it is (or, biblically, "I AM"). It is ultimate reality. The Logos interprets the Absolute by finding approximations that define its reality, and as a result, the Logos is a conscious agent that brings about the world (or worlds) that are "proven" as a link that reflect the Absolute's truth, beauty, and goodness. Whatever the Logos creates, becomes part of this ultimate reality in terms of a "theorem" within the furniture of reality. Whatever is not deemed to be a reflection of that reality is not.

[quote=dexter]The paper also makes no mention of a need for a God or creator of any kind, and as it says, all wasn't created, it simply is.[/quote]

Physicsts... Well, the paper takes certain assumptions for granted. For example, what is the role that theorems play in this mathematical reality? What interprets a mathematical proposition and establishes that it is not gibberish? Afterall, there's an infinite number of false and misleading propositions that could give rise to a mathematical structure if the proposition were considered a truth.

0 Replies

@andykelly,

Harvey1
I admit the subject matter as in article and reference are way out of my league.

Tho debate is a good thing and legitimate argument is excellent for the sake of the reader. The Truth remains the same. In the case of trying to prove God. It is not with in the power of man to prove. Only God proves God. Mankind may not have the power to prove God at will. It is only God's will to prove, or reveal Himself.
It seems that science imploded on itself in that once an effort to know and understand how that which was made is, and interacts has turned into a responsibility for a alternative religion for those who have a legitimate justification that religion is not the way. It is true that religion is not the way, for the Life that God gives is not a religion nor a science. To borough your words "It is ultimate reality".
Man may not and can not control the Word of God, nor can man prove that He is. Nothing is revealed of God to creation without His will to do so. For it is His Glory alone and no one else.
That which is in Spirit of God knows Spirit of God. That which is not in the Spirit of God knows not, unless the will of God reveals it to those who seek in sincerity and Truth.
It is God's Kingdom and Jesus is King, it is God's power and Jesus is the Authority, it is God's Glory and Jesus receives it.

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

[QUOTE]Physicsts... Well, the paper takes certain assumptions for granted. For example, what is the role that theorems play in this mathematical reality? What interprets a mathematical proposition and establishes that it is not gibberish? Afterall, there's an infinite number of false and misleading propositions that could give rise to a mathematical structure if the proposition were considered a truth.[/QUOTE]

For me, this seems to be the core source of dispute. You state that the promordial consciouness existed at the beginning, and this consciousness was a consequence of the mathematical law that is everything, everything that could be and everything that can't. No interpretation was required for the consciousness proposed, and similarly, none is required for the nature of all which resulted in this universe, and an infinite number of others. This addresses your question about the inifinite number of mathematical proposals, they did actualize in other universes, some which collapse instantly, others which have entirely differnet properties than our own. Nothing was needed to interpret the laws to result in our own, probability ensures it. To state otherwise requires one to show that a self-contained mathematical system can only result in gibberish unless specific potentialities were actualized by a consciousness, and this I think is exceedingly difficult.

In addition, even if one accepts the existence of a primordial consciousness, it says nothing about choosing a specific one, such as the Christian trinity, the pantheon of God's in Hinduism, the higher planes of existence in Buddhism, etc. Religion has no need in such an interpretation, nor worship of anykind, meerely acknowledgement of actualized potentialities. Such a being did not create out of kindness or love, but out of necessity to actualize it's own attributes. In such a system, does God have a choice in the matter when interpreting the divine will or is he meerely a byproduct of mathematical law, a facilitator without option.

1 Reply

@Dexter78,

Dexter78 wrote:

No interpretation was required for the consciousness proposed, and similarly, none is required for the nature of all which resulted in this universe, and an infinite number of others. This addresses your question about the inifinite number of mathematical proposals, they did actualize in other universes, some which collapse instantly, others which have entirely differnet properties than our own. Nothing was needed to interpret the laws to result in our own, probability ensures it.

Let's put this in a more formal argument:

A1) All possible mathematical and non-mathematical propositions exist
A2) Worlds are instantiated as a result of each proposition
A3) Worlds that instantly collapse is due to invalid propositions
A4) Worlds that continue to exist are valid mathematical propositions

Now, with regard to (A1), you refer to true and false propositions that exist--even temporarily. This is logically prior to worlds being instantiated in (A2). So, if the propositions in (A1) exist, what do you mean that they exist? Propositions are structures of thought--meaning that their meaning is comprehended by a mind. If there is no mind, then propositions do not exist.

Dexter78 wrote:

In such a system, does God have a choice in the matter when interpreting the divine will or is he meerely a byproduct of mathematical law, a facilitator without option.

Even within mathematics we have the free choice to accept the Axiom of Choice (as an example). Where there is freedom of interpretation, there is freedom of will. However, mathematical order is an approximation of the truth, beauty, and goodness of the Absolute. At a "distance" from the Absolute the structure of reality becomes restricted by these interpretations. Hence, mathematical structures are just interpretative approximations of truth, beauty, and goodness as it interpretatively reflects the Absolute.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Quote:

Let's put this in a more formal argument:

A1) All possible mathematical and non-mathematical propositions exist
A2) Worlds are instantiated as a result of each proposition
A3) Worlds that instantly collapse is due to invalid propositions
A4) Worlds that continue to exist are valid mathematical propositions

Now, with regard to (A1), you refer to true and false propositions that exist--even temporarily. This is logically prior to worlds being instantiated in (A2). So, if the propositions in (A1) exist, what do you mean that they exist? Propositions are structures of thought--meaning that their meaning is comprehended by a mind. If there is no mind, then propositions do not exist.

A3 is still the result of valid mathematics. In such cases, the resulting system was unstable and collapsed, but it's existence did not violate any mathematic, the nature of the formation and subsequent collapse can be described. As for A1, you keep referring to the nature of mathematics as propositions, as if they were posited by something. However, again referencing the article you mentioned, this causal approach is not correct. The system is the way it is and there is no further explanation for why other than it could not be otherwise, else it would have been. No interpreter is needed for the application of this mathematical law unless you can prove that order is not a possibility for mathematical system unless there is something to govern their application. In addition, an interpreter of these first axioms would be needed for them to result in a primordial consciousness in the first place, and this argument would follow backwards forever.

Quote:

Even within mathematics we have the free choice to accept the Axiom of Choice (as an example). Where there is freedom of interpretation, there is freedom of will.

One can choose to accept or not accept a mathematical truth, but this does not affect it's validity. The available choices themselves are limited by mathematics, so we are still bounded within it's framework. Whether or not something is chosen, and what is chosen, is itself a consequence of mathematics, a collapse of the probability function. If, as you suggest, an interpreter was needed for these propositions, then that would be it's only function, to understand that math. It's will is not needed to enact anything, the nature of the mathematical system itself ensured our existence, and the existence of everything else.

[QUOTE]However, mathematical order is an approximation of the truth, beauty, and goodness of the Absolute[/QUOTE]

Is it? This appears to be a change in tone. Proving mathematics is an approximation is conceptually fairly simple but quite difficult to carry out. You would have to show a difference between observation and mathematics. However, any measurement, observation, quantification etc. is itself under the domain of mathematics. Take quantum physics. It is not an approximation, every prediction has been verified exactly, not roughly. What you are proposing is that there is something outside of mathematics that math as a system attempts to approximate.

1 Reply

@Dexter78,

Hey, Dex.

Dexter78 wrote:

A3 is still the result of valid mathematics. In such cases, the resulting system was unstable and collapsed... The system is the way it is and there is no further explanation for why other than it could not be otherwise, else it would have been.

Okay, my apologies. Let's re-formulate your argument accordingly (hopefully I have it correct) :

B1) All possible mathematical worlds exist
B2) Non-possible mathematical worlds do not exist because they are not possible
B3) Worlds that instantly collapse are due to them being physically unstable even though they are mathematically possible

My issue is with B1 and B2. It seems that you have just arbitrarily determined that only mathematical worlds exist because they are "possible," whereas non-mathematical worlds don't exist because they are not "possible." What do you mean by possible which doesn't revert back to a tautology (e.g., possible is a mathematical world)?

[quote=Dexter78]No interpreter is needed for the application of this mathematical law unless you can prove that order is not a possibility for mathematical system unless there is something to govern their application.[/quote]

A mathematical system is a system of propositions that logically follow from each other. Anytime someone says there exists a proposition, they are advocating the existence of an interpreter for the same reason that if it is said that Chinese is understood must be referring to people who understand Chinese. Propositions have meaning because they are comprehended. If a proposition has no meaning, that means it cannot be understood in principle: therefore it's gibberish.

[quote=Dexter78]In addition, an interpreter of these first axioms would be needed for them to result in a primordial consciousness in the first place, and this argument would follow backwards forever.[/quote]

I don't see how. Whatever primordial X exists (even if X is nothing at all) would still contain propositions P that X makes P true of. In other words, X requires some kind of logic to be valid for X, even if that were a "non-logic" or inconsistent logic, it would still be propositions that exist. As a result of propositions, mind would exist. You suggest that this requires an axiom for the interpreter, but I think you have it backwards. In order for an axiom (or proposition) to exist, it would need for the interpreter to exist for the axiom to have any meaning.

0 Replies

@boagie,

Quote:

What do you mean by possible which doesn't revert back to a tautology (e.g., possible is a mathematical world)?

I propose that there are mathematical principles which do not follow from anything, it's self-defining.For some time it has been theorized that mathematics is it's own defining system, it can not be explained outside of it's field. Possible is all that is allowed by mathematics, nothing above it.

Quote:

Propositions have meaning because they are comprehended. If a proposition has no meaning, that means it cannot be understood in principle: therefore it's gibberish.

By meaning do you mean significance, or coherence? If by inherent worth, who says that they have this? If by meaning you meaning capable of being comprehended, this too does not necessitate a creator. The fact that something occurs does not mean that something must understand that it occurs. I am not adverse to the possibility that the complete mathematical system of the universe and beyond cannot be understood, that it is too difficult. If the interpreter you propose suddenly ceased to exist, does this mean that all else would cease to exist because there is no one who understands that mathematics enabling creating? Why is their validity contingent on something understanding them, could not the potential for being comprehended be a property of the axioms even if it isn't actualized?

1 Reply

@Dexter78,

Dexter78 wrote:

I propose that there are mathematical principles which do not follow from anything, it's self-defining.For some time it has been theorized that mathematics is it's own defining system, it can not be explained outside of it's field. Possible is all that is allowed by mathematics, nothing above it.

Okay, going back to your argument, let me substitute the word "possible" with "mathematical":

Quote:

B1) All [mathematical] worlds exist
B2) Non-[mathematical] worlds do not exist because they are not [mathematical]
B3) Worlds that instantly collapse are due to them being physically unstable even though they are [mathematical]

This commits the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Let me reconstruct this argument so that it is a little clearer:

Quote:

p=all mathematical worlds exist

Quote:

q=no non-mathematical object exists in our world

Quote:

C1) If all [mathematical] worlds exist, then no non-mathematical object exists in our world
C2) No non-mathematical object exists in our world
C3) Therefore, all [mathematical] worlds exist

Your reasoning appears to me to be fallacious: if P then Q, Q, then P. If no non-mathematical object exists in our world, then this does not mean that only mathematical worlds exist.

Dexter78 wrote:

If by meaning you meaning capable of being comprehended, this too does not necessitate a creator. The fact that something occurs does not mean that something must understand that it occurs. I am not adverse to the possibility that the complete mathematical system of the universe and beyond cannot be understood, that it is too difficult. If the interpreter you propose suddenly ceased to exist, does this mean that all else would cease to exist because there is no one who understands that mathematics enabling creating? Why is their validity contingent on something understanding them, could not the potential for being comprehended be a property of the axioms even if it isn't actualized?

One of the hidden assumptions that comes along with any mathematical proposition being considered true is the assumption that intelligent mathematians cannot find it false. For example, the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem by Andrew Wiles now means that Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT) is considered true. In order for it to actually be true, there cannot exist any mathematician following correct protocol to find the proof to be false. If such a mathematician came along and disproved Wiles proof, then FLT would no longer be considered true. However, we can imagine yet another mathematician, smarter than this one, coming along and showing how that other mathematician was mistaken in his disproof of Wiles proof. Hence, Wiles proof is right, and FLT is true. This could continue ad infinitum unless we suppose an interpreter of mathematical propositions that was infallible with respect to such truths (i.e., omniscient), in which case this omniscient interpreter would naturally be able to know which are truths and which are not. The existence of this omniscient interpreter is the only way to ascertain that mathematical propositions are not ultimately gibberish for being wrong.

Having the potential for an omniscient interpreter alone would not be feasible since the math proposition depends on another proposition (i.e., that a potential omniscient interpreter exists in the future), but this proposition is itself meaningless if there is no omniscient interpreter to refer it to. That is, a brilliant philosopher might come along and show that a potential omniscient interpreter is not sufficient to show that current math truths exist, and therefore no math truth exists. (Btw, even if you held this position, it still commits you to pantheism where God emerges in time.)

Hence, if an omniscient interpreter did not exist, then this would be in effect saying that there are no propositions to define reality. Reality would be undefined. I still think this is an impossible state even in itself since an undefined reality would still have a certain logic true of it, and therefore propositions exist, therefore an omniscient interpreter exists. God is so fundamental to existence that God necessarily exists in every possible world.

0 Replies

@boagie,

Quote:

Quote:
B1) All [mathematical] worlds exist
B2) Non-[mathematical] worlds do not exist because they are not [mathematical]
B3) Worlds that instantly collapse are due to them being physically unstable even though they are [mathematical]

This commits the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Let me reconstruct this argument so that it is a little clearer:
Quote:
p=all mathematical worlds exist

Quote:
q=no non-mathematical object exists in our world

Quote:
C1) If all [mathematical] worlds exist, then no non-mathematical object exists in our world
C2) No non-mathematical object exists in our world
C3) Therefore, all [mathematical] worlds exist

Your reasoning appears to me to be fallacious: if P then Q, Q, then P. If no non-mathematical object exists in our world, then this does not mean that only mathematical worlds exist.

As they are written above, it is not "if p then q, q then p." P does not infer q, nor does q imply p. P and Q sprout from the same mathematical theorem. As stated above, all mathematical world could exist, but this would not preclude non-mathematical worlds from existing. P could instead be stated as " only mathematical worlds can exist" The validity of the proof, as with Fermat's Last Theorem, does not change with subsequent mathematicians, only the perception of the theorem's validity changes. That approach could also be used on any rationale justifying the need for a supreme being. A supreme intellect isn't needed to supply an ultimately valid interpretation because it does not affect the validity of the mathematical axioms responsible for existence, the are valid independent of having it bestowed upon them. These properties are not bestowed, they just are, there is no proposition. That there was no other possibility, no alternative, negates the need for a supreme being.

1 Reply

@Dexter78,

Dexter78 wrote:

P does not infer q, nor does q imply p. P and Q sprout from the same mathematical theorem... A supreme intellect isn't needed to supply an ultimately valid interpretation because it does not affect the validity of the mathematical axioms responsible for existence, the are valid independent of having it bestowed upon them. These properties are not bestowed, they just are...

Dex, I'm trying to better understand what you view as foundational. If mathematical theorems are foundational (i.e., brute facts), and supposedly there are an infinite number of theorems, then there are an infinite number of brute facts. However, there are only a finite number of axioms that could be used to prove those "brute fact" theorems as true, and this would seem to undercut a view where mathematical theorems are foundational.

Similarly, if an infinite number of mathematical worlds are foundational, then there is even a higher cardinality than the number of theorems that exist since one theorem could be used to generate many mathematical simulations by slightly varying the constants in a mathematical equation. This would seem to undercut a view where mathematical worlds are foundational.

So, what is it exactly that you are saying "just is" and why is that "just is" structure more foundational than our universe?

1 Reply

@harvey1,

Quote:

Dex, I'm trying to better understand what you view as foundational. If mathematical theorems are foundational (i.e., brute facts), and supposedly there are an infinite number of theorems, then there are an infinite number of brute facts. However, there are only a finite number of axioms that could be used to prove those "brute fact" theorems as true, and this would seem to undercut a view where mathematical theorems are foundational

I think this is another question of language. The mathematical axioms are what I consider foundational. The worlds are not foundational, the math is. Similarly, our universe is not foundational. By foundational I mean requiring no further basis explanation or interpretation for validity.There are many theorems, which are derived from other theorems, etc. etc. But there is a basis axiom, or theorem, lemma, postulate or similar wording, on which the others rest.

0 Replies

Agnostiscism and atheism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know