What if my unproven and assumed-to-be-true premise is incongruent with yours? — god must be atheist
That's why we have philosophy. Not to decide what's true, but what's reasonable.
Estimating God or No God
Re: Estimating God or No God
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/343090
What if my unproven and assumed-to-be-true premise is incongruent with yours? — god must be atheist
That's why we have philosophy. Not to decide what's true, but what's reasonable.
What if my unproven and assumed-to-be-true premise is incongruent with yours? — god must be atheist
That's why we have philosophy. Not to decide what's true, but what's reasonable.
Re: Estimating God or No God
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/343368
To make a long story from Isaac Luria's Kabbalistic Zohar short:
G_d had to create a space in which to allow matter to exist, so It inhaled. This is called the tsimtsum, G_d's contraction or limitation, or even an internal exile. — uncanni
The Kabbalah has a complex explanation for the imperfections of the creation, with lots of magical symbols and characters, which lends itself to myth-making.
My thesis of Enformationism, has a different rationale; based on modern scientific understanding, instead of imaginative (magical) interpretations of ancient scriptures. It's rather abstract and has only one "character", hence not much fodder for mythologizing. Instead of "emptying himself", G*D created space, *a bubble", within Infinity, simply by trans-forming Generic Information (the essence of G*D) into specific forms (real things). Since G*D is all-information-all-the-time, that bubble of space is full of the essence of G*D : EnFormAction or Energy (science magic). Logically, if the bubble was perfect and complete, it would be G*D, eternal & infinite. So, by necessity, it is incomplete, which leaves it free to expand (space), and imperfect, which allows it to evolve (time) within Infinity.
Like the Kabbalah, this is a made-up story, and not to be taken literally. It's only useful as a way of thinking about the otherwise unimaginable. The Kabbalah is too complex & technical to be a popular creation story. So it appeals primarily to a few intellectuals who enjoy mystical puzzles. Enformationism is also too unfamiliar & technical & non-magical to become a popular account of creation and evolution. So, it will likely appeal to only a minority of pragmatic philosophers, who might enjoy a novel approach to an ancient mystery. The Enformationism thesis is a hypothetical account for how the world came to be, and to become, and should be accepted only as food for thought. It's no more true than any other scientific postulate.
Generic Information : Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
To make a long story from Isaac Luria's Kabbalistic Zohar short:
G_d had to create a space in which to allow matter to exist, so It inhaled. This is called the tsimtsum, G_d's contraction or limitation, or even an internal exile. — uncanni
The Kabbalah has a complex explanation for the imperfections of the creation, with lots of magical symbols and characters, which lends itself to myth-making.
My thesis of Enformationism, has a different rationale; based on modern scientific understanding, instead of imaginative (magical) interpretations of ancient scriptures. It's rather abstract and has only one "character", hence not much fodder for mythologizing. Instead of "emptying himself", G*D created space, *a bubble", within Infinity, simply by trans-forming Generic Information (the essence of G*D) into specific forms (real things). Since G*D is all-information-all-the-time, that bubble of space is full of the essence of G*D : EnFormAction or Energy (science magic). Logically, if the bubble was perfect and complete, it would be G*D, eternal & infinite. So, by necessity, it is incomplete, which leaves it free to expand (space), and imperfect, which allows it to evolve (time) within Infinity.
Like the Kabbalah, this is a made-up story, and not to be taken literally. It's only useful as a way of thinking about the otherwise unimaginable. The Kabbalah is too complex & technical to be a popular creation story. So it appeals primarily to a few intellectuals who enjoy mystical puzzles. Enformationism is also too unfamiliar & technical & non-magical to become a popular account of creation and evolution. So, it will likely appeal to only a minority of pragmatic philosophers, who might enjoy a novel approach to an ancient mystery. The Enformationism thesis is a hypothetical account for how the world came to be, and to become, and should be accepted only as food for thought. It's no more true than any other scientific postulate.
Generic Information : Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Re: Estimating God or No God
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/343368
A Massive Big Bang explosion hardly seems to be a good way of intelligently designing a universe, but rather appears as if something really got out of hand. — PoeticUniverse
That's why my alternate version of the scientific theory of "creation" is called Intelligent Evolution. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, who assumed the world was eternal, labeled the proposed Expanding Universe theory as a "Big Bang", in order to ridicule the notion that all of space-time could have emerged from a pin-point in the abyss of no-where & no-when. Imagined as an explosion, it would seem to be self-destructive. Which now seems more plausible, since the fading final days of the universe are currently labeled "Heat Death".
By contrast with the down-hill dead-end of the Big Bang theory, Intelligent Evolution proposes that the world is progressing from essentially nothing toward something positive. It's imagined as a computer program beginning from a kernel code (singularity) and calculating all possible permutations of random freedom constrained by a specific set of laws, and initial conditions. This theory is just the opposite of Intelligent Design, which assumes that the world began as a perfect Garden of Eden, and was corrupted by Satan-inspired humans. After the Original Sin, it was all down-hill, until the perverted world is finally destroyed by its disappointed and thwarted creator.
The Intelligent Evolution theory infers from the same evidence that the Garden of Eden was not an end in itself, but that the process of upward evolution was the point of the exercise. The evolutionary program will eventually run its course, of course, but it will have produced the answer to The Programmer's question, "what will happen if . . ." For all I know, the answer might be "42".
Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essay ... 120106.pdf
Cosmic Progression : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
A Massive Big Bang explosion hardly seems to be a good way of intelligently designing a universe, but rather appears as if something really got out of hand. — PoeticUniverse
That's why my alternate version of the scientific theory of "creation" is called Intelligent Evolution. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, who assumed the world was eternal, labeled the proposed Expanding Universe theory as a "Big Bang", in order to ridicule the notion that all of space-time could have emerged from a pin-point in the abyss of no-where & no-when. Imagined as an explosion, it would seem to be self-destructive. Which now seems more plausible, since the fading final days of the universe are currently labeled "Heat Death".
By contrast with the down-hill dead-end of the Big Bang theory, Intelligent Evolution proposes that the world is progressing from essentially nothing toward something positive. It's imagined as a computer program beginning from a kernel code (singularity) and calculating all possible permutations of random freedom constrained by a specific set of laws, and initial conditions. This theory is just the opposite of Intelligent Design, which assumes that the world began as a perfect Garden of Eden, and was corrupted by Satan-inspired humans. After the Original Sin, it was all down-hill, until the perverted world is finally destroyed by its disappointed and thwarted creator.
The Intelligent Evolution theory infers from the same evidence that the Garden of Eden was not an end in itself, but that the process of upward evolution was the point of the exercise. The evolutionary program will eventually run its course, of course, but it will have produced the answer to The Programmer's question, "what will happen if . . ." For all I know, the answer might be "42".
Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essay ... 120106.pdf
Cosmic Progression : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
Re: Estimating God or No God
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/343668
The price of penny candy went up to a nickel; cigarettes now cost $1000 a pack. (I insured all of my packs, but they were eventually consumed by a series of small fires. My insurance company wouldn’t pay, so I took them to court, where I was convicted of arson.) — PoeticUniverse
:razz: 
The price of penny candy went up to a nickel; cigarettes now cost $1000 a pack. (I insured all of my packs, but they were eventually consumed by a series of small fires. My insurance company wouldn’t pay, so I took them to court, where I was convicted of arson.) — PoeticUniverse
:razz: 
Re: Estimating God or No God
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/343668
Bohm, too, suggested that the whole universe could be thought of as a kind of giant, flowing hologram, or holomovement, in which a total order is contained, in some implicit sense, in the same finite space. — PoeticUniverse
I too, have toyed with the notion of a holographic universe as an extension of the Enformationism thesis. If the uni did indeed begin as a minuscule Singularity, then 4 billion years of expansion has stretched the original information over the 2D surface of a thin membrane. In that case, there is no stuff inside the bubble and there is nothing left at the center. Instead, our 3D reality is an interpretation of the 2D information of our FlatLand. Hence, Real Reality is 2D, and Virtual Reality is 3D.
Not being a mathematician or physicist, I don't find that notion very useful in everyday life. So I still assume that the world is really as it appears to me, in my brain's interpretation of what's out there.
FlatLand : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
hollow-sphere-250x250.jpg
Bohm, too, suggested that the whole universe could be thought of as a kind of giant, flowing hologram, or holomovement, in which a total order is contained, in some implicit sense, in the same finite space. — PoeticUniverse
I too, have toyed with the notion of a holographic universe as an extension of the Enformationism thesis. If the uni did indeed begin as a minuscule Singularity, then 4 billion years of expansion has stretched the original information over the 2D surface of a thin membrane. In that case, there is no stuff inside the bubble and there is nothing left at the center. Instead, our 3D reality is an interpretation of the 2D information of our FlatLand. Hence, Real Reality is 2D, and Virtual Reality is 3D.
Not being a mathematician or physicist, I don't find that notion very useful in everyday life. So I still assume that the world is really as it appears to me, in my brain's interpretation of what's out there.
FlatLand : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
hollow-sphere-250x250.jpg
Re: Estimating God or No God
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... -no-god/p6
Everything connects to everything else
Through overlapping interference patterns,
And so nothing is so separate at all, as it seems,
But is one large all-encompassing whole.
. . . . . .
We are part and parcel of everything—
We are the cosmos; we are life; we are love;
We are all that is; we are the creator
Of the dance as well as the dancer. — PoeticUniverse
This then is the secret of the universe,
Knowing of that which underlies all reality:
Fundamental, absolute, indestructible,
Omnipresent, indeterminate, but all pervasive.
Why absolute and fundamental?
Because it is made of one piece—itself,
And therefore indestructible, and eternal, too,
And makes up all that there is, everywhere. — PoeticUniverse
My G*D model is defined as ALL, the Whole of which humans are curious particles.
Interference patterns of virtual reality. — PoeticUniverse
My personal illusion of Reality is created in my own mind by interpreting those incoming signals (wave patterns) according to some inherent (significant) commonality. Like Morse Code, both sender and receiver must speak the same language. In my thesis, the common language of the universe is Information, which boils down to 1 or 0, on or off, dot or dash, From that cosmic communication, we know "part & parcel", absence & presence, "life & love".
Everything connects to everything else
Through overlapping interference patterns,
And so nothing is so separate at all, as it seems,
But is one large all-encompassing whole.
. . . . . .
We are part and parcel of everything—
We are the cosmos; we are life; we are love;
We are all that is; we are the creator
Of the dance as well as the dancer. — PoeticUniverse
This then is the secret of the universe,
Knowing of that which underlies all reality:
Fundamental, absolute, indestructible,
Omnipresent, indeterminate, but all pervasive.
Why absolute and fundamental?
Because it is made of one piece—itself,
And therefore indestructible, and eternal, too,
And makes up all that there is, everywhere. — PoeticUniverse
My G*D model is defined as ALL, the Whole of which humans are curious particles.
Interference patterns of virtual reality. — PoeticUniverse
My personal illusion of Reality is created in my own mind by interpreting those incoming signals (wave patterns) according to some inherent (significant) commonality. Like Morse Code, both sender and receiver must speak the same language. In my thesis, the common language of the universe is Information, which boils down to 1 or 0, on or off, dot or dash, From that cosmic communication, we know "part & parcel", absence & presence, "life & love".
Re: Estimating God or No God
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... -no-god/p6
In No Time and No Space
What came first, the matter or the light,
Since it seems that each needs the other to be?
There’s no first, only at the same ‘time’.
Photons, electrons, positrons are all-at-once. — PoeticUniverse
I was just reminded, by your physical/metaphysical poetry, of the book by Gevin Giorbran : Everything Forever, Learning to See Timelessness.
https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Forev ... rch&sr=8-1
He was a poet-scientist , who wrote a mind-boggling book about the universe as a whole. I say "was", because he committed suicide in 2008, shortly after publishing the book. Apparently, his website has been taken down, but here is an old interview on YouTube : https://youtu.be/-SI5MgGnP1g
It occurred to me that your poet-scientist mind might be better able to understand his far-out concepts than less imaginative prosaic thinkers. For example, the eternal "universe" (what I call G*D) is perfect symmetry, and our temporal-material universe is broken symmetry. I don't know if his hypothesis is true -- he discusses Many Worlds and Multiverse conjectures, along with the "God" concept -- but it presents some visionary ways to interpret the Reality that seems bottomless, the deeper we look into it.
EVERYTHING FOREVER
Time is one enormous moment
Where children play
not knowing of a tomorrow
where people walk along an ocean
and gaze in wet air
This sense of separation and loss
is all illusion
though old men tell of the past
as if it is gone somewhere else
to children who listen
as if it used to be
We all walk here in time
not yet knowing
as we ponder the mystery
and animals listen
that all in this same moment
the world begins
and the world ends
while these waves
crash upon the shore
regardless
And now as I touch your hand
time will stand still
and trap something there forever
for us to view from some heaven
as we are forever born
into an endless moment”
― Gevin Giorbran, Everything Forever: Learning to See Timelessness
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes ... n_Giorbran
In No Time and No Space
What came first, the matter or the light,
Since it seems that each needs the other to be?
There’s no first, only at the same ‘time’.
Photons, electrons, positrons are all-at-once. — PoeticUniverse
I was just reminded, by your physical/metaphysical poetry, of the book by Gevin Giorbran : Everything Forever, Learning to See Timelessness.
https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Forev ... rch&sr=8-1
He was a poet-scientist , who wrote a mind-boggling book about the universe as a whole. I say "was", because he committed suicide in 2008, shortly after publishing the book. Apparently, his website has been taken down, but here is an old interview on YouTube : https://youtu.be/-SI5MgGnP1g
It occurred to me that your poet-scientist mind might be better able to understand his far-out concepts than less imaginative prosaic thinkers. For example, the eternal "universe" (what I call G*D) is perfect symmetry, and our temporal-material universe is broken symmetry. I don't know if his hypothesis is true -- he discusses Many Worlds and Multiverse conjectures, along with the "God" concept -- but it presents some visionary ways to interpret the Reality that seems bottomless, the deeper we look into it.
EVERYTHING FOREVER
Time is one enormous moment
Where children play
not knowing of a tomorrow
where people walk along an ocean
and gaze in wet air
This sense of separation and loss
is all illusion
though old men tell of the past
as if it is gone somewhere else
to children who listen
as if it used to be
We all walk here in time
not yet knowing
as we ponder the mystery
and animals listen
that all in this same moment
the world begins
and the world ends
while these waves
crash upon the shore
regardless
And now as I touch your hand
time will stand still
and trap something there forever
for us to view from some heaven
as we are forever born
into an endless moment”
― Gevin Giorbran, Everything Forever: Learning to See Timelessness
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes ... n_Giorbran
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests