TPF : Logic & Disbelief

[Gnomon]

Logic and Disbelief
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... sbelief/p1
I’m not sure logic is needed to justify a non-belief. Non-beliefs aren’t really based on arguments, they’re based on a lack of them.

If logic is just a tool used to justify/support arguments, then how could it apply to a non-belief that is based on a lack of convincing arguments? — Pinprick

The logic of un-belief may be based on the old adage : "seeing is believing". Anything that I can't see, or otherwise verify for myself, is subjective hearsay. But most "isms" are also also grounded by a pragmatic attitude, which defines what can be accepted without evidence, and what should be treated with skepticism. Of course, it's always easy for us to be skeptical of other people's paradigms, that we don't share. And the emotional feelings of "isms", including Atheism, are often impervious to rational logic.

For example, Catholic Christians share much of their belief system with Protestant Christians, and non-christian Muslims. Yet, Catholics tend to assume that theirs is the true church, and Protestants are apostates from the truth. At the same time, the Protestant attitude is just the opposite. And centuries of rational (theological) arguments have been insufficient to overcome the feeling-of-certainty attached to their (our) beloved personal paradigms. Therefore, if a person's faith is so dependent on their subjective frame-of-reference, it behooves all of us, not just Atheists, to insist on a more objective foundation for belief, where possible.

Unfortunately, objective evidence for many human beliefs is not available. So, some things we must accept as more-or-less true (truish), as long as they don't clash with our foundational worldview. And the line-of-demarcation between Atheist and Theist beliefs usually falls into an evidence gap between the categories of "Physics" (Measurable Reality) and "Meta-Physics" (Immensurable Ideality). Ironically, many of us are more emotionally invested in subjective Ideas & Ideals, than in practical objective things, because objective facts are known only indirectly.

For example, most of us take for granted that the "solid" physical objects we see & touch are made-up of tiny balls called "atoms", because that is the conventional wisdom of classical Science. That's still true, even a century after Quantum scientists concluded from laboratory evidence -- plus lots of reasoning and arguments -- that atoms are nothing more than imaginary "balls" of mathematical probability. Like many Catholics, some of us pretend to go along with the official line (on Abortion, for instance), even as we act based on un-sanctioned beliefs. Besides, intuitive Classical Physics just feels more real than spooky Quantum Queerness, with its ghostly virtual particles.

So, what we choose to believe or disbelieve may depend more on our established belief system than on any logical or empirical evidence. And that a priori faith is your personal worldview, which in turn provides reasons for logical arguments. If the scenario of "selective truth" is indeed the case for most humans, a modicum of modesty should moderate our judgments of other people's views. And a mirror of skepticism toward our own beliefs, may help root-out fake facts.


Hume on Logic :
Hume argued that inductive reasoning (characteristic of the scientific method) and belief in causality cannot be justified rationally; instead, they result from custom and mental habit. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

How can we know what's true? :
We know something is true if it is in accordance with measurable reality. But just five hundred years ago, this seemingly self-evident premise was not common thinking. Instead, for much of recorded history, truth was rooted in scholasticism.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2 ... _true.html

How do we know that things are really made of atoms? :
Seeing is believing . . . or because the experts told us so?
https://www.quora.com/Are-atoms-imagina ... e-see-them
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151120 ... e-of-atoms

[Gnomon]

↪Agent Smith

Addendum to ↪180 Proof
... It is with sadness that every so often I spend a few hours on the internet, reading or listening to the mountain of stupiditie dressed up with the word 'quantum'. Quantum medicine; holistic quantum theories of every kind, mental quantum spiritualism – and so on, and on, in an almost unbelievable parade of quantum nonsense. — Carlo Rovelli, Hegoland, pp. 159-60
↪Gnomon
↪Enrique
↪Wayfarer
et al.
(re: TPF's Quantum-Woo Crew ) — 180 Proof

Thanks for that sincere confession of faith in Scientism : Reductionism & Materialism. Ironically, the "woo-crew" typically quotes the informed opinions of physicists, such as Rovelli, to support their philosophical ideas. Whereas, "The Boo Hiss crew" (180Proveit) typically spouts expressions of faith in generic scientific doctrine, and of intellectual superiority to freewheeling philosophers.

Speaking of "woo of the gaps", highly credentialed physicist Hossenfelder interviewed Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, about the physical cause of consciousness. His theory is that quantum scale microtubules mysteriously produce consciousness when measured. He's a Nobel Prizewinner, but Sabine found such woo-of-the-gaps "quantum spiritualism" hard to accept, because the gap between non-conscious tubes of protein and conscious minds is filled with unspecified and unwarranted assumptions. "I find that stunning, because it's telling us that your belief that the system works is stronger than the system itself. What are you doing that enables you to transcend the system?" Fortunately, he admitted that it was just a hypothesis, not a doctrine.

180's faith in the system of science also transcends any specific evidence within the system. He dresses up his quips, not with the ambiguous word "Quantum", but with vague references to intuitive, but outdated, Classical Newtonian Physics. By avoiding references to quantum weirdness, I suppose he feels that his bold accusations of woo-mongering are on safe ground. Because, with no details, they're not subject to the Holistic interpretations of the quantum pioneers. That sounds like the Trump technique, when challenged he points the finger at the other guy and calls him unflattering names. Is that legitimate TPF philosophy?

WOO-FREE AND ARGUMENT-FREE "BOO-HISS" PHILOSOPHY
Boy-Sticking-His-Tongue-Out-And-Wiggling-His-Fingers-By-His-Ears-Royalty-Free-Vector-Illustration-10241113968.jpg

[Gnomon]

While Feynman's comment suggests any theory/idea based on Quantum Mechanics is a case of obscurum per obscuris, I find it quite fascinating that anyone would lay a foundation of ignorance for their knowledge claims. — Agent Smith

Hey! Don't blame Feynman. It was the obscure First Cause that laid the foundation for Quantum obscurum. Feynman was a genius, but not smart enough to make sense of a system that functions both deterministically and randomly.

My Enformationism thesis accepts that such nonsense was necessary to produce a self-organizing world that also has an element of freedom. A straightforward computer program would be self-organizing, but it would be very limited in novelty. That's why the Evolutionary program was a stoke of genius. It allows simple repetitive cause & effect actions to go creatively crazy sometimes. That's because linear logical predictable Cause-Effect is built on an unstable foundation of non-linear absurd unpredictable Background-Hiss. And I'm not talking about 180.


How Randomness Can Arise From Determinism :
This dichotomy between unpredictable individual behavior and precise group behavior is not unique to quantum mechanics.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-rand ... -20191014/

[Gnomon]

Yes, you & the Woo-Crew quote the likes of Rovelli, Stenger, Carroll, Deutsch, Hawking, et al without the slightest comprehension of what he says. I wear your Dunning-Kruger ad hominems, sir, as badges of honor. — 180 Proof

There's no honor in pretending to be intellectually superior. Even Trump can barely pull it off. Besides, isn't it hard to make a supercilious smirk-face with your tongue sticking out? Hey, trading insults, instead of ideas, is fun. But, you don't get no badges for your political playground philosophy, sir! Just kidding . . . or am I?

PS__No offense intended. The smiley has tongue-in-cheek, and no wiggling ears.

[Gnomon]

I see that you're utilizing your BothAnd concept to full effect! Bravo! — Agent Smith

I try to practice what I preach, but it's hard to get Either/Or thinkers to view anything from a perspective other than their own ingrained point of view. Apparently 180BooBoo looks to Trump for philosophical arguing tips. Just accuse the other guy of doing exactly what you are doing. Or at least distract the attention from your own faults. A finger pointing away, reliably distracts bystanders from looking at you. That's not a complementary BothAnd perspective, but merely the old "don't look at me . . . hey, look over there" trick. That's not Philosophy, it's Sophistry. And it's childish.

DON'T ACCUSE ME OF RACIST POLICIES,
JUST LOOK OVER THERE AT THAT RACE PERSON
200w.gif?cid=82a1493btu8aehf63x10sv1oqprkvftovr7r7jwngqbt3spe&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

6fdebd5958557f2b1b716395c55466c0.jpg

[Gnomon]

Not trying to nit pick or fault you, but isn't your philosophy supposed to be like the USA is - welcoming to all, and I mean people from every corner of the world by that (inclusive)? Given so I find it hard to tally that with you engaging in arguments, even those involving naysayers (exclusive). — Agent Smith

No, you still miss the complementary perspective of BothAnd. It doesn't accept all opinions as equally true, but within any whole system, there is overlap in the middle, part true part false. As illustrated by a Venn diagram in Logic -- where True & False overlap -- there is an imperfect mixture of both red & blue opinions. Absolute truth could be anywhere in the diagram, but a human, standing on his local spot on the globe, can't see beyond his own horizon. Yet, we know by reasoning & experience that Relative Truth is often good enough for practical purposes, and it can often be found within your own shadow, but on your neighbor's side of the fence. For Absolutists & Perfectionists though, the other side of the fence, is by definition, False.

In the YinYang symbol, the same principle is illustrated by putting a small circle of the opposite color within each complementary half of the big circle. The ancient chinese sages intuited what Einstein discovered mathematically : that what you see (and believe to be true) is relative to the observer's frame of reference. Hence, only omniscient G*D can see the Truth in any situation. But Einstein, briefly imagining himself as omniscient, realized that "truth is relative". And he was modest enough to know that his imaginary G*D was on his side, only when he was on G*D's side, mathematically.

simple-venn-diagram-with-two-overlapping-rings.86591ad.jpg

yin-yang-symbolic-meaning.jpg


Unfortunately, some people are absolutists, and can't accept watered-down truth, to contaminate their idealized politicized (us vs them) worldview--- yes, I'm talking about you 180Boo. To Black vs Whiters, a fact is a fact, and there is no gray in-between. So, in order to make sense of apparently intelligent people holding contrasting opinions, they tell themselves that the one holding a "wrong" opinion is, at best mis-informed, or at worst a blithering idiot, pretending to engage in philosophical discourse. Fortunately, such extreme Contrast (100%True versus 100%False) thinkers are rare. But, online philosophical forums allow them to imagine the majority is on their side. Like bulldogs though, once they bite, they can't let go. In their two-value world there is no middle-ground between Macho-Male and Effete-Female, no LGBTQ alphabet queers.

Fortunately, the rational methods of Philosophy were developed to allow us to meet-intellectually (on the sidelines Stoa) without coming to blows (in the Agora, with the masses). We lay down our weapons by emulating Socrates -- "all I know is that I know nothing" -- and Isaiah -- "come, let us reason together". There are two dictionary definitions of "argument" : 1. an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one. 2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. When I first started posting on this forum, I had some philosophical discussions with 180, in which we exchanged opinions & reasons. And I thought we not very far apart in our views. But something about my Enformationism & BothAnd worldviews struck him as dangerously heretical (i.e anti-science*1). Since then he has not pretended to offer rational arguments (def #2), and presents only emotional outbursts (def#1) "your'e wrong, wrong wrong". No more middle ground, and no more Mr. Nice Guy.

So, for the most part, I have simply ignored his booing & hissing. When, I recently responded to an apparently innocent comment, it simply gave him an opening for invective & evisceration. (note the bold philosophical terms in the following post). Although, I remain open to philosophical dialog, I will refuse to engage in political debates. However, If you feel lucky, you are free to get down in the mud, and start slinging. 180 has made it clear that he is not an open-minded BothAnder, but a my-way-or-wrong-way take-no-prisoners Heresy Inquisitor. In time-honored tradition, you can volunteer to be my champion to defend my sullied honor, by "engaging with the nay-sayers". Know the risk though, before you admit to any eccentric opinions. Good luck, you'll need it.

COME, LET US REASON TOGETHER.
NO, SCREW THAT, JUST BURN THE BASTARD
00bayfield.jpg

*1. Anti-science : I prefer Sabine Hossenfelders open-minded term "ascientific" for non-empirical philosophical questions.

[Gnomon]

I don't see how subscribing to a yin-yang model and then delegitimizing opposition to that model is being faithful to one's philosophy. Even this position I adopt, against you, is/should be part of the whole you talk about. It's actually in your favor to engage with your detractors - it reinforces your position, specifically its BothAnd aspect. — Agent Smith

What are you calling "de-legitimizing" the opposition? I do make it a policy to avoid debating those who are dug-in. Dialoguing (win-win) is two-way sharing of views, and is the purpose of this forum. But Debating (win-lose) is a power struggle to defeat the other "position". Even in monistic Buddhism "It is not uncommon to find a variety of seemingly conflicting religious practices incorporated into the lives of Buddhists". That's one way to make peace, set-aside areas of conflict as unimportant. But 180 is not a Buddhist, and he is not compromising of his orthodox beliefs.

Again, you have misunderstood the "BothAnd" philosophy, so, we continue to dialogue in order to construct a mutual meaning that we can both accept. For 180, it may mean "selling-out to the enemy." To you, it seems to mean : "it's all good". To the contrary, "BothAnd" does not mean that Evil is just misunderstood Good, or that a whole is the arithmetic sum of its parts. I engage in vigorous back & forth dialogs on this forum all the time -- with posters who seem flexible in their opinions. So, 180 is the only "opponent" I typically ignore, to avoid wasting time on pointless power struggles. I have no wish to convert him to my own philosophical worldview. But he seems to find it offensive, and is motivated to show me the error of my beliefs. Or, at least to prove who is smarter.

180's arguments are typically articulated in the form of "you're wrong! and here's an orthodox science book that proves it!". Frustratingly, he seldom cites "book, chapter & verse". Like most religious true believers though, he places high value on authoritative Orthodoxy. Yet, to him, I suppose non-classical Quantum physics was like the Protestant Reformation : a slap in the face*1. Anyway, as I said above, I used to engage with 180 before I learned the wisdom of the old saying "don't wrestle with a pig, you'll both just get dirty . . . and the pig likes it". By now, he knows I'm just poking the pig to hear him squeal. Do you think less of me for that sardonic philosophical humor?

You seem to have misunderstood the BothAnd philosophy as a naive idealistic attitude, like that of the founding fathers of the USA : "all men are created free & equal". That high-minded phrase was interpreted by Emma Lazarus : "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore". Yet in the news today, the governor of Florida has imported wretched Mexicans from Texas, and exported them to Massachusetts. The Founders were well-intentioned, and their ideal was good, but in practice not all of those "yearning to breathe free" are welcome in Florida or Texas. Even those idealistic political Patriots, immediately ceased dialoging with their Fatherland, and declared war on jolly old England. That's how most Political arguments are resolved. But BothAnd is not a Political philosophy; it's a Philosophical philosophy. Unfortunately, 180 treats it like a Political assault on Scientific Orthodoxy, or a Religious heretical movement.

Perhaps BothAnd reminded you of Rousseau's rousing phrase, "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains," The BothAnd holistic worldview is not intended to address such real-world political or physical problems. It's not an attack on anything. So, I have never understood what set 180boo in antithetical opposition to such an inoffensive personal attitude : "be open-minded, look at alternatives before you choose a path". His dismissive responses to my posts seems to have something to do with my unconventional usage of the old Theological term "Metaphysics".

Yet, I have repeatedly explained that I'm not referring to Catholic Theology, but to the kind of topics that Aristotle discussed in the Metaphysics volume of his treatise on Physics : e.g. existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility*2. None of which is a physical object or substance, and none subject to empirical falisifiability. All of which are still topics of Philosophical discussion to this very day. Ironically, the first six volumes, which the Catholics labeled The Physics (Nature) introduced the notion of a god-like First Cause *3. So, 180 would do just as well to debate with Aristotle on Physics. Unless you are personally motivated to dialogue with a demagogue. Is that "delegitimizing", or simply calling a spade a shovel? He's called me worse, and it doesn't hurt my feelings.

PS___The smilie has ironic tongue-in-cheek, not tongue sticking out. But, 180 may interpret it as a juvenile counter-attack. I try to use humor to defuse, but some don't get the joke..
"If you say something tongue in cheek, you intend it to be understood as a joke, although you might appear to be serious".


*1. Seven Decades of Heresy in Quantum Physics :
Although quantum mechanics has predicted an extraordinary range of phenomena with unprecedented accuracy, it remains controversial. Bohr and Heisenberg pronounced it `a complete theory' in 1927, but Einstein never accepted it, and as late as 1989 John Bell charged it with dividing the world of physics. David Wick traces the history of this controversy and shows how it affects our very conception of what a scientific theory is all about.
https://www.nhbs.com/the-infamous-boundary-book

*2. What topics did Aristotle write about? :
His writings cover many subjects including physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theatre, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics, meteorology, geology, and government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

*3. Aristotle Physics :
The Physics takes its title from the Greek word phusis, which translates more accurately as “the order of nature.” The first two books of the Physics are Aristotle’s general introduction to the study of nature. The remaining six books treat physics itself at a very theoretical, generalized level, culminating in a discussion of God, the First Cause.

[Gnomon]

The opposition from the science guys and the lukewarm reception from religious folks you're met with is in my humble opinion because ... — Agent Smith

I think I see what you are suggesting. But Enformationism is neither Mathematical (intellectual) nor Musical (emotional), it is instead a general philosophical & metaphorical Worldview, which reveals no new scientific or mathematical facts to the stock of human knowledge. Its primary contribution is to support ancient Holistic (e.g. Taoism ; Idealism ; Stoicism , etc) philosophies with cutting-edge (reductive) scientific knowledge (e.g quantum & information), and Einsteinian Relativity (POV framing).

So the "lukewarm" reception is due primarily to its negative implications for some dearly-held beliefs, such as the modern ideology of Scientism. It also has little aesthetic appeal to most religious people, because it offers no plan of salvation in the hereafter, and no consoling symbolism & ceremonies in the here & now. So, what limited appeal it may have is for rational intellectuals with a mostly pragmatic way of thinking. Ironically, antipathy & opposition comes mainly from those who believe they have arrived at unassailable Truth, in the form of some Orthodox doctrine or scientific model of reality.

But, even among those rational & philosophical types, some are activists, motivated to change the world*1, not just to understand it and adapt to it. They will be disappointed with Enformationism. Also, even traditional religious types, with an intellectual bent -- such as my family -- their hopes for a better world tomorrow were raised along with their upbringing. And the only hope they see for a "fallen" world is a supernatural Messiah. Enformationism does not describe a world-fallen-from-grace though, but a world that is evolving exactly as intended by the First Cause "Programmer".

In the gradual unfolding of the Evolutionary Program, pain & suffering and dashed hopes are due, not to demonic beings, but to inherent natural laws & forces. This Stoic*2 attitude toward the Real world has been taught by sages for ages, from Plato to Lao Tse to Buddha to the post-enlightenment Deists. However, in view of our post-enlightenment power over Nature, we find our remaining powerlessness hard to accept. Our aspirational moon rockets still blow-up, not due to divine opposition, but to 14 billion-year-old natural laws, and human errors.

Unfortunately, human reasoning is always based on limited information, and is influenced by history & tradition. So its prescriptions & solutions for the "human condition" can be expected to to conflict with one another. For example, general Deism*3 has fragmented into a variety of -isms over the years : PanTheism, PanDeism, PanEnDeism, etc. Enformationism is none of those, and all of those. It proposes no official orthodox position on any topic. Due to our limited access to factual information on our lonely little blue planet, and also to the ambiguity of "facts" on the Quantum foundation of Physics right under our feet, all truths are temporary & contingent. Does that sound like a religion to you? Admittedly, it has some similarity to New Age worldviews, but only in so far as they accept various ancient holistic & naturalistic, but non-fatalistic philosophies.


*1. “The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.” ___Karl Marx
Note -- philosophers "change" the world with their ideas (living memes), not with guns (death). And such change-of-mind takes generations, requiring stoic patience.

*2. Stoicism :
an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

*3. Deism :
Derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god") is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe. Or more simply stated, Deism is the belief in the existence of God solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious authority. Deism emphasizes the concept of natural theology (that is, God's existence is revealed through nature).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

[Gnomon]

To me Enformationism, what I could grasp of it, manages to capture all 3 aspects of God: [omni]benevolence (stoic virtue, living in accord with the laws of nature), [omni]science (science), and [omni]potence (EnFormy, the creative force).

I know your philosophy isn't theistic in the sense that Christianity is, but I couldn't help but notice the connection between it and the Christian God's attributes as outlined above. A happy coincidence? Hard to say, but worth investigating in my humble opinion. Maybe it reveals an underlying imtuition that is universal, differing only in the specifics while being same in spirit if you catch my drift. — Agent Smith

Your grasp of Enformationism is still incomplete : it's not about God, but about Nature*1. However, as far as we know, Nature is not eternal or self-existent, so a philosophical First Cause is still necessary to explain the Big Bang beginning of the on-going creative process of Evolution*2. And it would be an astronomically unlikely "coincidence" for a random thermodynamic process to begin with fine-tuned settings that are essential for the emergence of living & thinking organisms*3.

Darwin's evolutionary process --- of random errors (mutations) woven into self-correcting organisms by goal-directed selection criteria --- is obviously not entirely materialistic & mechanistic*4. That's because, in our experience, undirected mechanisms (e.g. perpetual motion machines) do not produce self-reproducing baby mechanisms. The only natural mechanisms that do perpetuate themselves are Holistic organisms, which are more-than the sum of their parts. The "more-than" is goal-directed design criteria (information), as in computer programs. So, the logical necessity for a goal-setting Programmer, or some kind, is a logical leap into the unknown time-before-time. Even atheistic cosmologists make that pre-bang "set-up" assumption, including pre-existing Energy (causation) and eternal "laws" to control the interactions of matter & energy. They don't deny the "fine-tuning", but merely the intention behind those "anthropic" settings.

One name for that eternal fine-tuning Programmer is "Multiverse", which merely multiplies what already exists in the physical world, in order to explain its beginning without recourse to an intentional Creator*5. But, in any computer program, it's the ultimate Intention (question) of the Programmer that sets the initial state (hence the aim) of the computation process (output or answer). I don't know the question or the answer, and I know nothing about the First Cause of the universe, but I can make some educated guesses about the FC's "attributes". The basic logical assumption is that there can be nothing in the Effect that was not Potentially in the Cause. But, clearly there's no Omniscience, or Omnipotence, or Omnibenevolence in the creation, so we can only infer such qualities in an eternal (timeless) & infinite (spaceless) Creator.

In eternity, anything that can happen will happen. Or at least, that's the assumption behind the Multiverse hypothesis. But, Nature has none of those properties, so I don't attribute them to my Spinozan Nature-G*D. Which is definitely not patterned after the Christian God. However, as you noted,
almost all philosophical & religious traditions have intuited a basic set of attributes for their First Cause postulations : Brahman, Tao, Logos, Allah. But the existence of evil in our world implies that Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence are antithetical.

*1. Specifically, about Nature, in view of non-classical & counter-intuitive Quantum Physics, and the non-physical forms of Generic Information (e.g. ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc.)

*2. Plato & Aristotle assumed their world was eternal, but other evidence led them to infer that a First Cause of Causation (motion, change, evolution) was logically necessary.

*3. Since the Greeks were avid mathematicians & rationalists, they inferred that the First Cause of the world must be orderly & reasonable (not random & irrational), hence LOGOS was their label for a non-physical non-anthropic Creator. Cynics today though, tend to downplay human intelligence. Because it is not perfect & omniscient, compared to what?

*4. Darwinian Programming : "There is a famous [mis]quote attributed to Darwin: ‘ It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. While most likely Darwin didn’t say it, the principle behind it still stands. Nowadays this property is known as ‘evolvability’." https://accu.org/journals/overload/20/1 ... enko_1911/
Note -- Adaptability requires A> intentions, B> feedback loops, C> course changes. A + B + C + ? = Holistic Intelligence (? = interaction, interdependence, sharing of information). Humanity as a species, has occupied almost all ecological niches on Earth, and are in the process of colonizing off-worlds. What were the odds of that eventuality when the Singularity went Bang?

*5. Fine Tuning : Skeptical physicist Hossenfelder asks : "isn't it peculiar, they ask, that the universe is the way it is, so we can be the way we are?" That's an "ascientific" philosophical question. So, later she says, "most scientists dismiss this idea out of hand, but I think it's worth thinking about" (philosophically, not scientifically).
"The issue is this. The currently known laws of nature contain twenty-six constants. . . . It's extremely unlikely that these constants would just coincidentally happen to have exactly the values that allow for our existence. Therefore, the universe as we observe it requires an explanation . . . . However, the multiverse hypothesis doesn't explain anything". Existential Physics
Note -- If a shooter at a target range hits the center twenty-six times in a row, would you look for an abnormal explanation : super-human marksmanship, or magic, or cheating?

[Gnomon]

That doesn't clarify what you meant by "all gods are possibilities" ... possibilities of what? — 180 Proof
Why? There are many definitions of God - from the OOO God to a malus Deus - and all of them jibe with or can be made to with what we know as reality. In short we can't rule out any of 'em as incompatible with our experiences. If you follow the theism-atheism feud, the back and forth between these two warring factions, you'll immediately see what I mean. — Agent Smith

The origin of our world in a sudden act of creation is now generally accepted as a scientific fact, not a religious myth. But Science is limited by tradition and methodology to post-Big Bang evidence. So, any speculation beyond that limit is inherently ascientific, but legitimately philosophical. Undaunted, some curious scientists have put on their philosophical hats (dunce caps??) and projected from what is known, with reasonable probability, to what is unknown & unknowable & improbable. Such conjectures may be in the realm of statistical possibility, but can't be quantified in terms of probabilities, due to lack of evidence.

That the initial conditions (e.g. max energy potential, min entropy ; something from nothing) are highly unlikely is undeniable. Yet, we can A> ignore it as an unimportant detail, or B> label it as an inexplicable mystery, or C> accept it as a challenge to human reasoning. For example, particle physicists may not concern themselves with why the original "particle" (Singularity) miraculously blinked into existence already charged with the potential energy & laws for a whole universe. But Astrophysicists, cannot just ignore the obvious implications (logical possibilities) of such an astronomically unlikely initial state. The best they've come-up with to-date though, is magical Inflation (The Great Inflator), or unfalsifiable Multiverse (The Great Beyond) : artificial God substitutes..

The beginning of the reality curve has been calculated down to subatomic Planck scale. So, we can logically extrapolate the curve backward using mathematical analysis*1. But, because the odds against the BB are so incredibly high, we have good reasons "to be suspicious"*2 . So, we are faced with three options : A> don't worry about it ; B> postulate a pre-existing universe to lower the odds ; or C> hypothesize a pre-existing Dealer to stack the deck*3. Hence, it comes down to a choice between ODDS or GODS. The only physical evidence for either is Reality with a big question mark (?).

Multiverses and Gods are imaginary possibilities of something-from-nothing-for-no-reason versus something-from-Potential-on-purpose. The OOO gods and the Great Flying Spaghetti monster are both satirical absurdities, and not intended to be taken seriously. But creator deities have been taken seriously by most wise men down through the ages. Ironically, a great unknowable Universe of Universes is taken seriously today by a few gambling speculators, based on minuscule mathematical possibilities.

*1. Billions of years of normal evolution compressed into an instant vertical line (by magic?)
main-qimg-9022789728d618102f0741e7bc917869-lq

*2. "When we observe low-probability events in our Universe, we have every right to be suspicious."
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/h ... 96f17d5b5f

*3. Eternal SpaceTime or Eternal Deity :
The preexisting spacetime would be quantized (preexisting meaning the matrix universe within which the fluctuation would occur) and
A fluctuation would give rise to a virtual particle or virtual energy which would be so massive that its conjugate duration of time of allowed existence, under the Heisenberg formula, would be bigger than the reigning quantum of time in the matrix universe, so that the only outcome allowed under the math would be that said particle becomes real : BANG)
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-proba ... uctuations

GOD PARODIES : GOLB and GROB GOB GLOB GROD
tumblr_inline_paf2z7mnzY1qew5ie_500.png
tumblr_inline_paf2z7w5bF1qew5ie_400.png
https://adventuretimeconspiracies.tumbl ... ompilation