Philosophy and Physics agree about God?

[_Maksutov]

Philosophy is fine, in a historical context. I see it more as a protoscience, as a transitional stage in the development of modern science. I will be happy to consider philosophical breakthroughs but I will be more impressed by results than by someone decrying my ignorance and lack of education.

I've recently been reading about the planetary theories of Immanuel Kant, for example. I give him a lot of credit for operating in the mid 18th century. But he confidently stated that all of the planets were inhabited, by races of beings who became more advanced the farther they were from the Sun.

In his time these "fruits of philosophy" were worth considering. But as instrumentation improved and data increased, the philosopher took back seat to the astronomer. For all of the disdain of science as mere technology, it has also multiplied our powers of perception and analysis to vastly broaden what is--and can be--known.

Hi Mak,
I thought you were referring to this article at first but no it is something different.

I want to change the subject. I admit I am pleased that you agree that "why is there something rather than nothing" is a question best addressed by scientists. But I claim more generally that the only meaningful "why" questions are really "how" questions. Do you agree?

Let me give an example to put things in context. Astronomer Johannes Kepler claimed in 1595 to answer an important "why" question: why are there six planets? The answer, he believed, lay in the five Platonic solids whose faces can be composed of regular polygons – triangles, squares, etc – and which could be circumscribed by spheres whose size would increase as the number of faces increased. If these spheres then separated the orbits of the planets, he conjectured, perhaps their relative distances from the sun and their number could be understood as revealing, in a deep sense, the mind of God.

"Why" was then meaningful because its answer revealed purpose to the universe. Now, we understand the question is meaningless. We not only know there are not six planets, but moreover that our solar system is not unique, nor necessarily typical. The important question then becomes: "How does our solar system have the number of planets distributed as it does?" The answer to this question might shed light on the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe, for example. Not only has "why" become "how" but "why" no longer has any useful meaning, given that it presumes purpose for which there is no evidence.https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... nce-krauss

I am more impressed by Immanuel Kant here. The further from the sun the colder so the lifeforms need to be more warm blooded which makes them them increasingly superior.

Both Copernicus and Kepler were clergymen, although Copernicus was more secure and successful. Kepler was a painstaking observer and calculator but also a religious nut. He insisted on a divine geometry that came from his own imagination and convictions but was unsupported by the evidence. Galileo and Huyghens and Newton would move astronomy along rapidly because of the additional data provided by their instruments. Kepler made his contribution and then became a dead end.

[_huckelberry]

This is a side comment to the thread. It was motivated by reading again the very straightforward, single sentence, description of the Christian concept of God as set forth in the Nicene Creed. It is assumed that these beliefs were based on the considered understanding of Old Testament and New Testament scriptures, as available to the clergy, at that time.

It seems to me that the attributes of God have become progressively more complex, fantastical, and even magical, since the time of this early documented statement of Christian belief. As others have mentioned, this is no doubt, and in large part, an attempt to justify religious belief in the face of humankind's increasing scientific knowledge. God' gaps continue to shrink.

This idea has been discussed here before. However, given Mikwut's description of idealism, his personal God, and the magical, non-field creating, mental force that characterizes this being, I thought the concept was worth bringing up again on this thread.

Dr W,
It is difficult for me to think of any way in which ideas about God have grown more complicated since Thomas Aquinas, thirteenth century. He is still considered a primary teacher by the majority of Christians in the world. If anything there ahs been a tendency to simplify. I am unsure what great scientific advances happened in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries which would cause a scramble to support old beliefs about God. What sort of thing were you thinking of?

In considering concepts about God by earlier folks like Augustine I am unsure how the ideas got more complicated between 360 and 1360. People created rather lengthy tomes back in those earlier years as well as in the middle ages. You listed a group of common descriptors as if they were alternative views of God. It is hard to think of exceptions outside of Mormonism where they are not all combined. (that is within Jewish Christian, Islamic thinking.)

I find myself wondering if we are talking about the same utube presentation on this thread? It specifically explained how god could be outside of time and space and influence things in space time. God must be the programing source simultaneously in touch with all time and space.

That is what christian theologians have been saying for close to two thousand years as well.

I should add that the materials in the second half of the presentation are things I am not familiar with from a scientific point of view. I could not help but reacting with doubts. They seemed outlandish enough that I could not help but wonder if someone promoting theism had their thumb on the scale in the experiment presentations.

[_EAllusion]

Absolute idealism of the type Mikwut is talking about predates Nicene Christianity by hundreds of years. It didn't develop out of a Christian apologetic need.

[_DrW]

This is a side comment to the thread. It was motivated by reading again the very straightforward, single sentence, description of the Christian concept of God as set forth in the Nicene Creed. It is assumed that these beliefs were based on the considered understanding of Old Testament and New Testament scriptures, as available to the clergy, at that time.

It seems to me that the attributes of God have become progressively more complex, fantastical, and even magical, since the time of this early documented statement of Christian belief. As others have mentioned, this is no doubt, and in large part, an attempt to justify religious belief in the face of humankind's increasing scientific knowledge. God' gaps continue to shrink.

This idea has been discussed here before. However, given Mikwut's description of idealism, his personal God, and the magical, non-field creating, mental force that characterizes this being, I thought the concept was worth bringing up again on this thread.

Dr W,
It is difficult for me to think of any way in which ideas about God have grown more complicated since Thomas Aquinas, thirteenth century. He is still considered a primary teacher by the majority of Christians in the world. If anything there ahs been a tendency to simplify. I am unsure what great scientific advances happened in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries which would cause a scramble to support old beliefs about God. What sort of thing were you thinking of?

In considering concepts about God by earlier folks like Augustine I am unsure how the ideas got more complicated between 360 and 1360. People created rather lengthy tomes back in those earlier years as well as in the middle ages. You listed a group of common descriptors as if they were alternative views of God. It is hard to think of exceptions outside of Mormonism where they are not all combined. (that is within Jewish Christian, Islamic thinking.)

I find myself wondering if we are talking about the same utube presentation on this thread? It specifically explained how god could be outside of time and space and influence things in space time. God must be the programing source simultaneously in touch with all time and space.

That is what christian theologians have been saying for close to two thousand years as well.

I should add that the materials in the second half of the presentation are things I am not familiar with from a scientific point of view. I could not help but reacting with doubts. They seemed outlandish enough that I could not help but wonder if someone promoting theism had their thumb on the scale in the experiment presentations.

huckleberry,

If you are referring to the you tube video linked in the OP, I would refer you to Doc Cam's post on the subject upthread.

There is so much wrong with the universe as simulation model that I hardly know where to begin.

For one thing, it amounts to nothing more than an imaginative (and cleverly disguised) version of creationism. Problem is that it still ends up in an infinite regression loop.

Think about it.

[_huckelberry]

Agree that the documentary you linked to is a good one. In fact, I thought it was very good, indeed, since it framed the concepts presented in terms of philosophy and physics, and not in terms of religion or God.

As described in the documentary, the idea that consciousness gives rise to our 'reality', and is necessary for matter to exist, is certainly not new. Aside from the scientific papers cited in the documentary, there have been any number of books written by scientists for the lay individual interested in this idea.

Examples include: The Matter Myth (1992) and The Holographic Universe (2011).

A similarly titled book (that veers off into the pseudoscientific),The Conscious Universe (1997), exploits the idea of a universal consciousness in an attempt to explain and validate psychic phenomena such as ESP, etc.

Although unaware of any specific examples at this point, there probably are, or no doubt will be, popular books that link the idea presented in the documentary to religion and a yet-again re-invented magical deity or deities.

Dr w,
I am at a loss as to what video presentation is under discussion. (this is your first post on the thread)

[Guest]

Dr W,
I should add that the materials in the second half of the presentation are things I am not familiar with from a scientific point of view. I could not help but reacting with doubts. They seemed outlandish enough that I could not help but wonder if someone promoting theism had their thumb on the scale in the experiment presentations.

huckleberry,

If you are referring to the you tube video linked in the OP, I would refer you to Doc Cam's post on the subject upthread.

There is so much wrong with the universe as simulation model that I hardly know where to begin.

For one thing, it amounts to nothing more than an imaginative (and cleverly disguised) version of creationism. Problem is that it still ends up in an infinite regression loop.

Think about it.

That the video was imaginative version of creationism is what I was pointing out. Perhaps we are in agreement.

[_mikwut]

Hello Spotlight,

Hi Mikwut,
I don't want to assume what you believe according to your paradigm so I'll ask you. What handles the job of memory in your paradigm? Thanks

First, I have spoken on the board at length (I don't assume you've read it) that I don't think "belief" is the proper word in these discussions. I have hope in certain theistic frameworks. The whole point of my position is that when get down to a far as we can go to ultimates atheism, theism, and nihilism are all possibilities - yet all unproved and all unfalsified. When we remove all the interesting debunking of this and demonstrating science shows this and that - we ultimately always find ourselves at an ultimate metaphysical crossroads - is the universe mental or is just matter? Am I truly a self? Do I have free will? etc... None of these questions can be answered by brain scans or descriptive science (which there is nothing wrong with). They are ultimately attitudinal dispositions of how each of us finds meaning in our lives.

Respecting memories, empirically the jury is still out on how memories are retrieved and stored. We know our memories aren't like memory from a computer where an exact copy of the memory is retrieved like a word document or a movie replayed. Filtering consciousness resonates with these problems with memory, our minds are constantly filtering through unbounded consciousness.

mikwut

[_DrW]

Agree that the documentary you linked to is a good one. In fact, I thought it was very good, indeed, since it framed the concepts presented in terms of philosophy and physics, and not in terms of religion or God.

As described in the documentary, the idea that consciousness gives rise to our 'reality', and is necessary for matter to exist, is certainly not new. Aside from the scientific papers cited in the documentary, there have been any number of books written by scientists for the lay individual interested in this idea.

Examples include: The Matter Myth (1992) and The Holographic Universe (2011).

A similarly titled book (that veers off into the pseudoscientific),The Conscious Universe (1997), exploits the idea of a universal consciousness in an attempt to explain and validate psychic phenomena such as ESP, etc.

Although unaware of any specific examples at this point, there probably are, or no doubt will be, popular books that link the idea presented in the documentary to religion and a yet-again re-invented magical deity or deities.

Dr w,
I am at a loss as to what video presentation is under discussion. (this is your first post on the thread)

huckelberry,

Apologies. I thought you were talking about the You Tube Video that was linked to in the OP, which introduces the universe as a simulation model.

If not, I can re-boot.

[_spotlight]

Hello Spotlight,

Hi Mikwut,
I don't want to assume what you believe according to your paradigm so I'll ask you. What handles the job of memory in your paradigm? Thanks

First, I have spoken on the board at length (I don't assume you've read it) that I don't think "belief" is the proper word in these discussions. I have hope in certain theistic frameworks. The whole point of my position is that when get down to a far as we can go to ultimates atheism, theism, and nihilism are all possibilities - yet all unproved and all unfalsified. When we remove all the interesting debunking of this and demonstrating science shows this and that - we ultimately always find ourselves at an ultimate metaphysical crossroads - is the universe mental or is just matter? Am I truly a self? Do I have free will? etc... None of these questions can be answered by brain scans or descriptive science (which there is nothing wrong with). They are ultimately attitudinal dispositions of how each of us finds meaning in our lives.

Respecting memories, empirically the jury is still out on how memories are retrieved and stored. We know our memories aren't like memory from a computer where an exact copy of the memory is retrieved like a word document or a movie replayed. Filtering consciousness resonates with these problems with memory, our minds are constantly filtering through unbounded consciousness.

mikwut

Is your philosophical viewpoint unique to yourself or is there a description/summary online that I can read over?

[_Chap]

Both Copernicus and Kepler were clergymen, although Copernicus was more secure and successful. Kepler was a painstaking observer and calculator but also a religious nut. He insisted on a divine geometry that came from his own imagination and convictions but was unsupported by the evidence.

I think that what you wrote there could be, well, nuanced a bit. For a start, Kepler was not a clergyman. The Dictionary of Scientific Biography article (by Owen Gingerich, no less) says:

On 11 August 1591 Kepler received his master’s degree from Tübingen and thereupon entered the theological course. Halfway through his third and last year, however, an event occurred that completely altered the direction of his life. Georgius Stadius, teacher of mathematics at the Lutheran school in Graz, died; and the local authorities asked Tübingen for a replacement. Kepler was chosen; and although he protested abandoning his intention to became a clergyman, he set out on the career destined to immortalize his name.

I also think that calling him a 'religious nut' is a-historical. He lived in an age when the normal foundations of thought for most people in Europe were religious, and he was in any case far less obsessed with religion than Isaac Newton.

His notion of the reason why the planetary orbits are the sizes they are was not that unreasonable at the time - and it was part of a book that was the first major treatise to espouse the Copernican view, as well as suggesting a physical reason why the planets move. To him we owe the discovery that the planets move in ellipses (a crucial point in the later development of celestial mechanics)- plus two other laws as well, the fruits of his indefatigable labors as a calculator. He was not a 21st century guy, but he did a lot for cosmology. Let's not knock him.