Why does anything exist? Think about It!

Started by Solitary, June 27, 2015, 10:52:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Solitary

There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Baruch

The usual TED talk ... somewhat funny.  He didn't get Buddhism right at all.  The recent "inflation" discovery was debunked shortly after this video was made (they were looking for gravitational wave patterns of a certain type, in the primordial background radiation (the 3.5 K radiation) that turned out to be just galactic dust.  Though I agree with him, that we live in a mediocre universe and humans are mediocre ourselves ... though at times that seems too generous.

So here is a bigger rhetorical picture.  Scientism isn't science ... and it isn't a religion, it is an ideology.  Most atheists I think are followers of scientism, because most atheists are not scientists themselves, but follow the contemporary news from science.  And there is nothing wrong with being ideological, other than not being self aware.  And in scientism you have the unscientific belief in epi-phenomenalism ... where out of non living non conscious atoms ... you get living and conscious beings, who then discover that they are really non living non conscious aggregations of atoms.  Except that some aggregations are magical, they are living vs the non-living, and conscious vs the non-conscious.  The fact is, living things come from living things (they are called parents) and most of the time we children believe that our parents were conscious, just as we are ... at least most of the time.  The problem is ... as the speaker mentioned, we are are a post-Christian society with a fetish for Plato.  This is why things like existence, order, life and consciousness seem to be mysteries.  But as humans, we are not gods, we can't take G-d's POV ... we can only take a human perspective ... and that perspective means taking existence, order, life and consciousness as givens.  Meaning, rationally, we aren't to take non-existence or disorder as the axiomatic basis from which to deduce existence and order ... that would be contradictory.  Also, rationally, we aren't to take non-living or non-conscious matter as the basis for living and conscious being ... that would be contradictory.  These questions are poorly formed, and that is why they are mysteries ... but the real mystery is why our thinking is so defective to begin with.  As an adult human, take that as your axiom, not superstrings!  We are like an ignorant sophisticate ... who can see the moon above him, but to see it better, we use a telescope ... but we are looking thru the telescope backward.  Until we let go of Plato ... and by extension Pythagoras.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on June 28, 2015, 06:28:27 AM
The usual TED talk ... somewhat funny.  He didn't get Buddhism right at all.  The recent "inflation" discovery was debunked shortly after this video was made (they were looking for gravitational wave patterns of a certain type, in the primordial background radiation (the 3.5 K radiation) that turned out to be just galactic dust.  Though I agree with him, that we live in a mediocre universe and humans are mediocre ourselves ... though at times that seems too generous.

So here is a bigger rhetorical picture.  Scientism isn't science ... and it isn't a religion, it is an ideology.  Most atheists I think are followers of scientism, because most atheists are not scientists themselves, but follow the contemporary news from science.  And there is nothing wrong with being ideological, other than not being self aware.  And in scientism you have the unscientific belief in epi-phenomenalism ... where out of non living non conscious atoms ... you get living and conscious beings, who then discover that they are really non living non conscious aggregations of atoms.  Except that some aggregations are magical, they are living vs the non-living, and conscious vs the non-conscious.  The fact is, living things come from living things (they are called parents) and most of the time we children believe that our parents were conscious, just as we are ... at least most of the time.  The problem is ... as the speaker mentioned, we are are a post-Christian society with a fetish for Plato.  This is why things like existence, order, life and consciousness seem to be mysteries.  But as humans, we are not gods, we can't take G-d's POV ... we can only take a human perspective ... and that perspective means taking existence, order, life and consciousness as givens.  Meaning, rationally, we aren't to take non-existence or disorder as the axiomatic basis from which to deduce existence and order ... that would be contradictory.  Also, rationally, we aren't to take non-living or non-conscious matter as the basis for living and conscious being ... that would be contradictory.  These questions are poorly formed, and that is why they are mysteries ... but the real mystery is why our thinking is so defective to begin with.  As an adult human, take that as your axiom, not superstrings!  We are like an ignorant sophisticate ... who can see the moon above him, but to see it better, we use a telescope ... but we are looking thru the telescope backward.  Until we let go of Plato ... and by extension Pythagoras.
So, if I read you correctly, you are saying that life cannot come from non-living material.  Is this statement correct?  I'll continue with the assumption that it is.  So, this is where you cannot become atheist, because there must be something that gives life to non-living substances.  Does this entity even have to be an entity?  Or can it just be a force of some sort?  I've heard some argue that the universe itself is divine in that it provides that divine spark that gives us life. 

This is my thought about the paragraph above.  I'm still not sure that living cannot come from non-living.  That depends upon what one calls non-living.  For example, hydrogen and oxygen when combined in the right mixture, forms water.  Many believe water to be a basic ingredient for life.  If we are carbon based, then we live because of the correct combination of carbon and other materials.  Hydrogen, oxygen and carbon are, by themselves, not living.  But in the right combination they can form life.  But are these substances living or non-living substances?  Doesn't it depend upon their combination?  So, where did these substances come from?  Why not the big bang?  Okay, where did that come from?  Maybe from the overflow of a black hole in another universe?  So maybe we are the product of a system in which black holes bud other universes, and each new universe come prepackaged with all the material needed to produce life.  That seems more plausible to me than a divine presence of some sort. 

The question does remain, though.  From whence came that system?  But that is the same question that is facing you and your acceptance of a divine presence of some sort--what created that divine presence?  That is the question that will not ever be answered. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Mike CL .. there is a general metaphysical problem with division ... dividing things in space, and in time.  We have talked about the ambiguity of dividing things in space ... and as a practical matter, we do divide things in space ... but this is a relative, no an absolute ... pragmatic not ideological.  If one gets very close to what you are trying to examine, you find that you yourself are a part of what is being examined (see Heisenberg).  In fact, in quantum mechanics ... the experimenter and the experiment can't be separated except approximately.  If you give the examination full rigor, if you are fully subject and object conscious ... even philosophical introspection points out problems that are hard to grasp and even harder to solve.  Like in society ... you can't reform anything if you are part of the problem.  This applies to time as well. so that in relativity theory the notion of what is separate in time, and what precedes or follows another ... is ambiguous.  As a practical matter, we can usually ignore it, just as we can usually ignore quantum mechanics.  This is a good thing, or our cave men ancestors couldn't have survived without an advanced degree in physics.

So ... basically the notions of before and after have to be dropped, as well as simultaneous.  And the notions of here and there have to be dropped ... if you examine things really closely.  So the question ... "Can non-living matter produce life?" is mysterious because it is a poorly formed question.  What you have to do, is accept that our ideas and words are blunt objects ... in fact there is no production of B from A ... and matter is not living nor non-living.  And that matter people talk about ... is it immaterial too ... mostly empty space.  Yet we cave men must get on with our lives, pragmatically, without really knowing what the hell is really going on.

Now the notion of a Creator vs Creation is another false dichotomy.  These things aren't separate to me (pan-en-theism).  Aristotle listed several causes in his analysis of cause and effect.  One of these is the notion that is something is made, it has to be made by someone.  Now Aristotle was modern .. he accepted that there were both personal and impersonal causes ... and that the ultimate cause (to avoid infinite regression) was the Unmoved Mover.  So basically an impersonal kind of god (he wasn't an atomist like Democritus) much like a Buddhist.  Aristotle probably knew Buddhists.  With Democritus we can put the Unmoved Mover on a materialist basis ... that basically all causes are material causes ... but this was quite incredible at the time, just like Pythagoras' notion that everything was numbers.  Aristotle himself had to leave Athens at the end of his life, because of his "atheism" and his pro-Macedonian connections.  What we have, with the first modern scientist (Archimedes) is the fruitful combination of materialism and rationality ... mechanics and mathematics.  Anything before Archimedes is premodern.

With modern scientism, you have to believe in universes that are either eternal (see superstring cosmology) or are self-creating out of the vacuum.  There hasn't been any resolution of this issue since it was first imagined.  Basically with Big Bang theory, you get a self-licking ice-cream cone that created itself.  That seems pretty absurd to me.  Now I am not saying that the alternative is Intelligent Design, or Creationism (young Earth or old Earth).  As I see it, G-d is pretty non-intelligent and pretty amoral.  Of course at that point, you would opt for naturalism ... and I can't blame you ... you still want to find Shangri-La where intelligence and morality reign.

So where did any system come from?  When the quantum experiment/experimenter combination calls for it ... waves result (coherence) otherwise particles result (decoherence).  This doesn't happen without the experimenter.  So with any system ... materialism or spiritualism ... you look in the partial mirror that is the world outside of you, and you see something partially that is out there, and your partly see yourself.  To me that says that while we are not G-d (as in the one and only) but we are demigods ... not unlike Heracles or Achilles.  Or Jewish prophets in touch with the divine.  Depends on how Greek you are.  Like I said before ... if you sense divinity or naturalism ... it simply is (but it wouldn't exist as a human experience without you).  There are no Platonic forms, and reality is much more than numbers.  However useful analysis is (breaking down into parts) ... one can't escape synthesis (assembling into wholes) ... science and art are inseparable, and neither would exist without people.  Religion, like most culture, is an art form.  So the world is as much a creation of ourselves, as it is of any divinity ... but it isn't perfectly plastic ... there are rules we didn't write that we can't escape.  And that is another place one can meet G-d.  These rules are simply a lot more complicated than Newton imagined, and are self-referential ... but you can't be self-referential without a self.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

AllPurposeAtheist

Now now. .Big Spooky created everything and Big Spooky came from nothing. .
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Baruch

Clearly if you can do things, yet be impossible to find, you can both come from and return to nothing.  Like in Flatland ... or like Sasquatch.  If you believe modern cosmology, our world should be crawling with transdimensional mice who are trying to extract our brains (see HHGTTG).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on June 28, 2015, 11:49:06 AM
Mike CL .. there is a general metaphysical problem with division ... dividing things in space, and in time.  We have talked about the ambiguity of dividing things in space ... and as a practical matter, we do divide things in space ... but this is a relative, no an absolute ... pragmatic not ideological.  If one gets very close to what you are trying to examine, you find that you yourself are a part of what is being examined (see Heisenberg).  In fact, in quantum mechanics ... the experimenter and the experiment can't be separated except approximately.  If you give the examination full rigor, if you are fully subject and object conscious ... even philosophical introspection points out problems that are hard to grasp and even harder to solve.  Like in society ... you can't reform anything if you are part of the problem.  This applies to time as well. so that in relativity theory the notion of what is separate in time, and what precedes or follows another ... is ambiguous.  As a practical matter, we can usually ignore it, just as we can usually ignore quantum mechanics.  This is a good thing, or our cave men ancestors couldn't have survived without an advanced degree in physics.

So ... basically the notions of before and after have to be dropped, as well as simultaneous.  And the notions of here and there have to be dropped ... if you examine things really closely.  So the question ... "Can non-living matter produce life?" is mysterious because it is a poorly formed question.  What you have to do, is accept that our ideas and words are blunt objects ... in fact there is no production of B from A ... and matter is not living nor non-living.  And that matter people talk about ... is it immaterial too ... mostly empty space.  Yet we cave men must get on with our lives, pragmatically, without really knowing what the hell is really going on.

Now the notion of a Creator vs Creation is another false dichotomy.  These things aren't separate to me (pan-en-theism).  Aristotle listed several causes in his analysis of cause and effect.  One of these is the notion that is something is made, it has to be made by someone.  Now Aristotle was modern .. he accepted that there were both personal and impersonal causes ... and that the ultimate cause (to avoid infinite regression) was the Unmoved Mover.  So basically an impersonal kind of god (he wasn't an atomist like Democritus) much like a Buddhist.  Aristotle probably knew Buddhists.  With Democritus we can put the Unmoved Mover on a materialist basis ... that basically all causes are material causes ... but this was quite incredible at the time, just like Pythagoras' notion that everything was numbers.  Aristotle himself had to leave Athens at the end of his life, because of his "atheism" and his pro-Macedonian connections.  What we have, with the first modern scientist (Archimedes) is the fruitful combination of materialism and rationality ... mechanics and mathematics.  Anything before Archimedes is premodern.

With modern scientism, you have to believe in universes that are either eternal (see superstring cosmology) or are self-creating out of the vacuum.  There hasn't been any resolution of this issue since it was first imagined.  Basically with Big Bang theory, you get a self-licking ice-cream cone that created itself.  That seems pretty absurd to me.  Now I am not saying that the alternative is Intelligent Design, or Creationism (young Earth or old Earth).  As I see it, G-d is pretty non-intelligent and pretty amoral.  Of course at that point, you would opt for naturalism ... and I can't blame you ... you still want to find Shangri-La where intelligence and morality reign.

So where did any system come from?  When the quantum experiment/experimenter combination calls for it ... waves result (coherence) otherwise particles result (decoherence).  This doesn't happen without the experimenter.  So with any system ... materialism or spiritualism ... you look in the partial mirror that is the world outside of you, and you see something partially that is out there, and your partly see yourself.  To me that says that while we are not G-d (as in the one and only) but we are demigods ... not unlike Heracles or Achilles.  Or Jewish prophets in touch with the divine.  Depends on how Greek you are.  Like I said before ... if you sense divinity or naturalism ... it simply is (but it wouldn't exist as a human experience without you).  There are no Platonic forms, and reality is much more than numbers.  However useful analysis is (breaking down into parts) ... one can't escape synthesis (assembling into wholes) ... science and art are inseparable, and neither would exist without people.  Religion, like most culture, is an art form.  So the world is as much a creation of ourselves, as it is of any divinity ... but it isn't perfectly plastic ... there are rules we didn't write that we can't escape.  And that is another place one can meet G-d.  These rules are simply a lot more complicated than Newton imagined, and are self-referential ... but you can't be self-referential without a self.
Okay, Baruch, I see what you are saying.  I do understand that one, in reality, cannot separate oneself from the intertwined stuff of the universe.  I've thought for quite some time that we all create our own worlds.  That in trying to be sane one has to do that, or the world would drive you crazy.  It is too complicated for me to really get into the actual physics or it all; I've tried and I can make sense of it only to a point.  At that point, I stop and construct my world.  And in it what I have described in my above post is what makes the most sense to me.  Yet we cannot escape the Yin and the Yang of it all.  I have also learned that scientists cannot come up with a satisfactory definition of what 'life' is.  Is a virus alive?  Or not?  So, maybe that entire concept of alive and not alive does not really make sense??  Maybe not.  If the scientific world cannot come up with a satisfactory answer to something so basic, then trying to come up with the ultimate answers doesn't make sense either.  So, this is where my own world/universe construct comes in......it is the best I can do with what I understand of the universe, so far.  I am open to changing my mind.  So, you are right in that I chose to label that part of the universe that created or features the laws of nature as, well, nature.  It is part of the fabric of the universe.  I don't give it any intelligence, so I don't think of it as god.  I highly suspect that we view the universe quite a bit alike.  I just dislike the label of god applied to anything, while you find it satisfying to do so.  That's not a problem for me.     
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

No need to apologize ... your view is fine with me also.  I wouldn't describe "anthropomorphism" as satisfying ... it seems metaphysically necessary to me ... and I am not happy with it.  I am just more willing to live with the discomfort.  Of course we are much alike ... that is why I said "a friend" invited me to this board ;-)

Virus particles alive?  Hard to imagine a machine like molecular construct being alive.  But what about prions ... from Mad Cow disease.  Feral proteins?  Really?  And incidentally intact from a live cow.  However here is my wacky idea about cancer ... this is you mutating in a dysfunctional way.  You may mange to put up with it, but if you attack it (as doctors want you to do) ... then it defends itself by metastasizing.  If the whole of you is sentient, why not a part of you as well?  And there is the whole "identity problem" with organ transplants ... you have to stop the rejection, for the organ transplant to take.  When you are on chemo, do you partially lose your sole?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on June 28, 2015, 02:55:09 PM
No need to apologize ... your view is fine with me also.  I wouldn't describe "anthropomorphism" as satisfying ... it seems metaphysically necessary to me ... and I am not happy with it.  I am just more willing to live with the discomfort.  Of course we are much alike ... that is why I said "a friend" invited me to this board ;-)

Virus particles alive?  Hard to imagine a machine like molecular construct being alive.  But what about prions ... from Mad Cow disease.  Feral proteins?  Really?  And incidentally intact from a live cow.  However here is my wacky idea about cancer ... this is you mutating in a dysfunctional way.  You may mange to put up with it, but if you attack it (as doctors want you to do) ... then it defends itself by metastasizing.  If the whole of you is sentient, why not a part of you as well?  And there is the whole "identity problem" with organ transplants ... you have to stop the rejection, for the organ transplant to take.  When you are on chemo, do you partially lose your sole?
Apologizing is never a bad thing, but I did not realize I was doing that.  Anyway, I also regard you as a friend.  And I deeply appreciate your view of things and greatly enjoy reading what you write.  I amy not always agree with your conclusions, but the journey is always fun and appreciated. 

Life, what is it?  This was offered on a biology web site: (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce.  According to this definition, is not a virus alive?  Yet I've read that it is not considered to be alive.  Why is that?  This seems to suggest that it is not settled what a good definition of life is.  Could it be that there are really three catagories--alive, dead, and other?  Could be.  So, life from non life may be possible or maybe life from 'other'.  And yes, when on chemo you do partially lose your sole--but you do so when you get a transfusion, or a vaccine, or many other procedures.  But that is okay with me. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

dtq123

A dark cloud looms over.
Festive cheer does not help much.
What is this, "Justice?"

Baruch

Mike CL ... what we have is a difficulty with what an explanation is.  If the words are simply a circular definition, then we haven't explained anything.  If you define a cat as a feline with four limbs and a tail, covered in fur ... you really haven't explained what a cat is.  Similarly, referring to living tissues as alive, and the explaining that by saying that here is living tissue and here is a Kleenex ... and their different molecular arrangements serves as an explanation ... is a non-explanation.  If we wonder how molecules cross a cellular boundary ... and we learn enough to examine the chemistry and mechanics of it, so that a complex process is explained in dynamic terms ... that is an explanation that is an explanation.  Even using carbon as an excuse for living things vs non-living ... there are non-life derived carbon compounds.  This is the old question of vitalism ... and moderns have simply chosen to ignore this ... and fall back on a non-explanation of epiphenomenalism ... which simply says ... magic happens at this point ... because before we didn't have enough atoms, and now we do.

On personal identity vs materialism ... we know so much more now.  We now know that neurons get replaced same as every other cell.  There are no cells in your body that were there three years ago.  You are constantly exchanging matter with your environment, with complete turnover.  So are you the same person you were three years ago?  Materialistically, you are not, you only have the illusion of personal identity over time.  This was the Buddhas conclusion millennia ago as well.  Yet I know bullshit when I see it ... I am not an illusion, are you?  So while were are involved with the material world, material doesn't exhaust what we are.  Descartes challenge of mind over matter continues ... or my preference, spirit over matter.  But I say ... categorical mistake ... spirit and matter are different aspects of some one thing, that the human being pragmatically separates into two areas of thought.  But the truth lies beyond mere pragmatism.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.