Is GOD In The 'Multi-verse'?

There was plenty in earlier posts that I may get back to but this one is one of my oldest pet peeves, that of Conflating the various connotations of the word “Faith” and treating them all as equivalent. They are not.

To quote Betty Boop (Hi Betty, miss me?):

The scientist's faith is that the world is intelligible. If the scientist did not believe that, then all his science would be in vain; indeed, there could be no science at all. And the engineer faithfully believes in the complete adequacy of the mechanistic principles of his calling. If he doubted them, he would not be an engineer at all.

We start off with the world being 'intelligible.' If it wasn't intelligible, on some level – no one, no creature even, could survive for a moment if it weren't. You accused 12stCenturion of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness or as it is more typically know Reification and then commit it here. Intelligence is an abstract concept and its application, intelligibility, is a function of the human mind, not a attribute of the world. And many aspects aren't particularly intelligible: that at the sub-atomic level particles are simultaneously particle and wave, the Copenhagen Interpretation that they exist only as probabilities until detected and then collapse into point of being or the contradiction between Einstein's Theories and Bell's Theorem. (As an aside the Copenhagen Interpretation is also an example of Reification, know why?) So we take that quibble for starters.

Then the assertion that this is taken on faith. There is faith and then there is 'faith'. To have the confidence that the sun will come up tomorrow morning can be called 'faith' that the sun will rise, but this is not the same as “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” The last part of that sentence being an oxymoron since the very root of the word evidence means 'to see'. These are two very different connotations. To equate them is to conflate them.

What's even more interesting is the fact that one must have faith in 'faith' before one can have faith. It is the ultimate self-recursive non sequitur.

Thus the next sentence does not follow:

If the scientist did not believe that, then all his science would be in vain; indeed, there could be no science at all. To 'believe' something due to countless examples of consistency as provided by the senses is not the same as to 'believe' in the supernatural. Since the supernatural is, by definition, beyond the realm of the senses, while the investigation of this world, of this Universe, is dependent upon the information garnered by the senses, the connotations of this word are not the same and it is a mistake to conflate them.

And the engineer faithfully believes in the complete adequacy of the mechanistic principles of his calling.

Because he has proven their consistency through countless examples of their veracity, not because he wants them to be true, without any evidence.

It seems to me that all human knowledge rests on faith at its very foundation. That is, without faith there is no spur towards knowledge, no scope for the operations of logic and reason, nothing for intelligence to work on.

All human knowledge rests upon experience, period. The 'scope of logic and reason' is to integrate that experience into a coherent whole, without which survival is not possible for man. Faith is not an element in human survival.

To move on:

And yet for countless millenia by now, belief in God has been universal to all mankind everywhere.

Apparently you aren't familiar with Taoism or Buddhism. Shinto doesn't really foot the bill either.

But back to my opening comment, that every scientist must believe the world is intelligible or there couldn't be any science at all; science per se would be a pointless exercise if the fundamental intelligibility of the world was in doubt.

Your argument is Circular and a Glittering Generality to boot. You speak for “every scientist” with an absolute that only exists in your own mind. The world exists as it is and to seek to discover how that world operates doesn't require a 'belief', just a desire to know. And that desire to know started way back when with, How do I survive? How do I keep this fire going that the lightening started?

There is a glaring hole in your reasoning that if the 'fundamental intelligibility' of the world were so obvious, people wouldn't have gotten so wrong for so long. It remains to be seen whether there is some fundamental element that is beyond human understanding but that will take of the future of humanity to determine conclusively, so, once again, it is a moot point. Just like the speculation of the existence of Multi-verses.

And yet I know of no scientist, offhand, who asks the question: Why is the world intelligible? What is it that embues it with intelligibility?

Well, first of all Wigner, which Alamo-Girl (Hi Alamo-Girl, miss me?) quoted, implies this first question in the 'unreasonable(!) effectiveness of mathematics' . Your second sentence Begs the Question that it is 'embued' rather than seeing it for what it is, the explanation of the observable phenomenon of the Universe by mankind. Intelligibility is an intellectual process by Man, not on inherent quality of the Universe. Reification again, my dear. ; }

Then:

Science does not ask these questions. Indeed, such questions seem a bit above science's paygrade, given its utter dependence on sensory perception/observation/measurement which is its fundamental, even sacrosanct method.

Well, as demonstrated, they have been asked. But, pray tell, is there other than sensory perception/observation/measurement by which we obtain knowledge about the Universe we live in? Hmmmmm?

I might add that there are plenty of "non-observables" of the greatest importance to human beings. Indeed, the ability of man to detect them is a sign of his categorical superiority to the lower animals.

You need to delineate these "non-observables" in order for this assertion to have any credibility.

But to not ask such questions doesn't mean the questions disappear. Plus by its own methods, science cannot disprove, or falsify the eternal Presence of God.

Do you remember Boop, years ago, the fallacy I identified when last we had this conversation? I remember. Do you? I AM curious. What was my reply to this Assertion?

Anyhoot, back to my claim that faith and reason are NOT mutually exclusive: If you were to scrupulously, honestly analyze your own thought processes, I think you would find I am right about this. Actually, they are completely different realms. Faith, in the way you mean it, religiously (and let me make this clear, I am not saying there is anything WRONG with that, per se) and REASON as a means of apprehending and understanding the Universe we exist in, ARE mutually exclusive .

I scrupulously, honestly (more than you can know) analyze my own thought processes - and I know you are wrong.

But hardly any person does that sort of thing nowadays.... Few people understand their own thinking. But then critical thinking is getting to be a lost art it seems.

Well see there, now we agree. Few people understand their own thinking and critical analysis does seem to increasingly become a lost art.

I am going to post this without much copy editing because I have to go. I will amend as necessary. But it is enough to get us going, I THINK.

Thank you for your comments!

“But, pray tell, is there other than sensory perception/observation/measurement by which we obtain knowledge about the Universe we live in?”

The concept of “intuition” is universal to scientific discussion and study. Not to equate intuition with spiritual knowledge, necessarily, but it is an example of intelligibility which is other than sensory.

“You need to delineate these ‘non-observables’ in order for this assertion to have any credibility.”

Life itself was already mentioned by the great mind of betty b, I think, in this thread. We can neither observe nor describe the substance of life. (I would suggest that this is one of the ultimate stumbling blocks for the atheistic position).

It seems extremely likely that most or all of those from the materialist side of the debate reach their conclusion about divine existence not as a result of objective analysis, but upon deciding which answer they prefer to be true.

This explains why so many of them prefer to ignore historical and forensic evidence (such as the empty tomb of Christ, and the peri-Resurrection behavior of his disciples.)

Finally—reason alone prevents the progression from agnosticism to atheism. To take that final step, you must necessarily employ faith.

...this one is one of my oldest pet peeves, that of Conflating the various connotations of the word “Faith” and treating them all as equivalent. They are not.... (Hi Betty, miss me?)

Hi LogicWings! Long time no see! Yes, I seem to recall you have a pet peeve WRT faith. I gather the reason you do is because you "believe" (i.e., have faith) that faith and reason are inexorably, utterly, mutually opposed to one another. So you dump faith into the "religion" bucket, and reason into the "science" bucket (so to speak), and demand that "never the twain shall meet."

In short, your unfounded presupposition demands the result you arrive at. Whatta surprise. I say your presupposition is "unfounded," because you provide no evidence for it. It is merely your belief, in which you place your faith, your trust. [The Latin root word, fides carries both senses.]

Maybe a little context would be helpful here:

Until relatively recently, people looked to religion to provide an explanation for the All that Is. Today, science offers its own rendering of the totality of existence, but perhaps it is worth inquiring how much of this highly sophisticated, mostly mathematical account is based upon concepts, assumptions, and a priori intellectual commitments that are no more sophisticated (or critically examined) than the myths of antiquity.

Although you or I certainly do not know how a cosmos may be created out of nothing, how life may be generated from non-life, or how consciousness proceeds from matter, we are assured that science has dispelled the intellectual darkness of the ages and obviated the crude mythological fallacies of our cognitive childhood. Indeed, we are told that a Theory of Everything is on the horizon, a recipe for generating a universe so concise that it may be reduced to a discrete tattoo. If, like the illiterate peasant of the Middle Ages, we don't really understand the language in which it is written, our scientific priesthood will graciously translate and interpret the texts for us.
There is knowledge and there is understanding, and it is always dangerous to conflate the two. Science knows a great many things, but does it actually understand how an exquisitely ordered yet progressive cosmos may instantaneously create itself out of nothing, how something called Life (whatever that is) can suddenly appear on a dead planet, how symphonies, paintings, cathedrals, and novels can pop out of a modified ape brain, or how a man can hit 73 home runs in a single baseball season? Religion is often accused of giving names, such as "God," to things its adherents do not understand. However, is it not equally evident that science has its own set of names for things it does not understand, names such as "big bang," "genetic program," "life," "consciousness," or even "universe" — for what scientist has ever stood athwart and observed this thing called "universe?"
The question is, does science really understand what it purports to know?
— Robert Godwin, One Cosmos under God, p. 18f

Or as A. N. Whitehead put it,

modern man's attitude towards the body of scientific knowledge is almost the same as that of archaic man's towards the body of myth: He does not question or seek to understand the implications of his orthodoxy, yet it forms a vaguely defined aggregate of ideas that govern his attitude toward life.

In other words, for some "science" is an ersatz religion; the Church of Holy Scientism; or maybe the Church of St. Darwin? ... and such people are most faithful, one could say fanatical adherents of church precepts.

On the evidence, I do not agree that faith and reason are "mutually exclusive."

Which "connotation" of faith did you have in mind?

Definition of FAITH
1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
— on faith: without question

Do any of these "connotations" of faith affect you?

I really wanted to get into the scientific doctrine of materialism. But I see I'm out of time. Maybe later.

Thank you ever so much for writing, LogicWings!

The concept of “intuition” is universal to scientific discussion and study. Not to equate intuition with spiritual knowledge, necessarily, but it is an example of intelligibility which is other than sensory.

The concept of “intuition” as a means of discovering facts (knowledge) about the Universe cannot be verified or proven, thus is invalid. No person can verify another person's “intuition” by intuition alone. Any attempt to 'verify' anything immediately puts you in the realm of sensory perception/observation/measurement and so invalidates the assertion that we 'obtain knowledge' via the agency of intuition.

I will postulate that we receive information via the senses that is integrated in the subconscious mind and is then presented to the conscious mind in a symbolic form that needs to be interpreted by the conscious mind but this is not direct apprehension of the Universe via “intuition” but a process rooted in the sensory world first.

Life itself was already mentioned by the great mind of betty b, I think, in this thread. We can neither observe nor describe the substance of life.

Begs the Question there is a substance of life. And to say that life is 'unobservable' is to say we cannot know that it exists apart from what is not life. To say we don't know the 'mechanism' of life is to say we haven't found it yet. You may assert that it cannot be or will never be but that commits another fallacy. It is this kind of Straw Man Fallacy that I find particularly annoying. It reminds me of the people who say that because we don't know everything we don't know anything. Nevertheless this is not an example of a non-observable source for knowledge about the Universe, which was the subject under discussion.

The rest of your comments are conjecture and opinion and thus are off topic. I am talking about what you can and cannot know. By definition the Multi-verse cannot be determined to exist one way or another, thus is a rather futile exercise. It is akin to talking about what color Unicorns are. From a Logical Positivist position it is meaningless as saying, “Argle nool varkoobin flark.”

BTTT

The concept of “intuition” is universal to scientific discussion and study. Not to equate intuition with spiritual knowledge, necessarily, but it is an example of intelligibility which is other than sensory.

Wonderful insight, reasonisfaith!

Einstein was a man who placed great importance on intuition, in particular as the principal means of access to mathematical beauty. Or as Robert Godwin notes, quoting him:

Einstein was convinced that the instantaneous emergence of [the] physical laws implied a sort of immaterial, Platonic overmind, "an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking ... of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

You wrote:

It seems extremely likely that most or all of those from the materialist side of the debate reach their conclusion about divine existence not as a result of objective analysis, but upon deciding which answer they prefer to be true.

Jeepers, dear reasonisfaith it looks that way to me, too.

Thank you so much for your outstanding observations!

First—why do you so readily accept the existence of the subconscious mind?

“To say we don’t know the ‘mechanism’ of life is to say we haven’t found it yet...It is this kind of Straw Man Fallacy that I find particularly annoying.”

Here’s something you can know: to say we don’t know the mechanism, the substance or the essence of life is an assertion which is logically consistent with the proposition that life is not reducible to material phenomena.

Logically consistent.

Perhaps this fact is what annoys you, my friend. If so, I hope you will be inspired to confront the annoyance directly.

"I wouldn’t count parallel universes and time travel out quite yet."

".....the scientific search for a "theory of everything" is totally misguided, at least to the extent that anyone imagines it will account for the higher levels of creation. Even an apprentice ... knows full well that that will never happen. At best, it will account for the lowest rung, and even then, only for people who don't know about the rest of the ladder, which necessarily has a lowest rung. In other words, it will be a satisfying theory for simpleminded flatlanders and lizards who crawl on their bellies. It will have no relevance to Upright Man, except to demonstrate the "relative unity" of that particular plane of reality. But we already know that each rung in the ladder necessarily has relative unity as a result of God's involution, so we won't really have learned anything. ...." ~ Robert Godwin

HERE

<>

Life, the multiverse and [theory of] everything
Written by: Mark Vernon | Appears in: Issue 44 Posted by: TPM May 18, 2009

[.........Huge Snip...........]

"...Evidence is what eventually settles science. But in the meantime, one should also be wary of sleights of hand. The multiverse is a hypothesis for which there is no evidence, and perhaps can never be any evidence. It is only since 1998 that it has leapt off the blackboards of a few physicists doing esoteric mathematics and lodged itself in the popular imagination. As is the way with popular science, it is easy to move from speculating that there might have been more than one big bang to proceeding on the basis that there has been more than one big bang.

So, I’d like to give the last word to another physicist, Paul Davies. He is the author of many widely read and highly readable books on cosmology and its ramifications, his latest being on the fine-tuning: The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? He is a multiverse sceptic, preferring another explanation of the fine-tuning. Very roughly, he suspects that the universe, its laws, and the presence of life somehow all emerged together. He calls it a “self-explaining universe”, that is without any external deity; though containing within it what he terms “the life principle”. Again, it is a speculative proposition: “there are many details to be worked out,” he admits.

But what is interesting about Davies is that he believes the evidence of fine-tuning is taking science in a direction that collapses the traditional distinction between physics and metaphysics: “I do take life, mind and purpose seriously, and I concede that the universe at least appears to be designed with a high level of ingenuity.”

He is quite aware that some scientists will already feel his approach is “crypto-religious”, even though he explicitly makes no appeal to non-natural processes. He retorts that all physicists are committed to some form of ideology. In another New York Times opinion piece, published in 2007, Davies argued that believing the universe is governed by laws is a form of faith too, faith in the existence and efficacy of laws. It is a faith that is well justified by evidence. But, as yet, science itself cannot account for these laws – where they come from, why they work. Davies concluded: “Until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.”

Davies’ piece itself produced a slew of letters. In the present climate, it is a provocative opinion to express. And yet, the implication is that a testable theory of the laws of the universe, let alone the multiverse, isn’t going to appear any time soon. Until then at least, in some scientists’ mind, physics will inevitably rub shoulders with metaphysics."

"I will postulate that we receive information via the senses that is integrated in the subconscious mind and is then presented to the conscious mind in a symbolic form that needs to be interpreted by the conscious mind but this is not direct apprehension of the Universe via “intuition” but a process rooted in the sensory world first."

"Science is and must be exciting, since it relies on largely unspecifiable clues which can be sensed, mobilized and integrated only by a passionate response to their hidden meaning.... This is the unaccountable element which enters into science at its source and vitally participates throughout, even in its final result. In science this element has been called intuition." --Michael Polanyi, Scientist and Philosopher

"Polanyi ... most adequately expressed this idea of "lower intuition," so to speak, being critical to the evolution of scientific understanding and therefore progress into the great unKnown. It's not so much that the "intuition" is lower, only that science applies (and arbitrarily limits it) to a lower order of reality, i.e., the material/horizontal world.

"But to point out that the material world cannot be understood in the absence of intuition is to simultaneously affirm the obvious fact that the world is not material. "

".... reality itself is nothing but an intuition.

HERE

Betty, although I don’t have the privilege of speaking with you very often, I have long been inspired by your wisdom and your kindness.

Hi Boop. Been off the boards, except occasionally, a long time. Hope I have time enough to attend for a while.

I gather the reason you do is because you "believe" (i.e., have faith) that faith and reason are inexorably, utterly, mutually opposed to one another. So you dump faith into the "religion" bucket, and reason into the "science" bucket (so to speak), and demand that "never the twain shall meet."

I always get a kick out of other people telling me what I 'believe' or characterize my thought processes. Runs part and parcel with the whole fallacious train of thought that I seek to illuminate.
Your terminology reveals its Circularity: I gather the reason you do is because . . . thus putting reason prior to faith while asserting what I “believe”. If I have reason to think something is true, is an actual fact then faith doesn't enter into it. No doubt you will insist that it does but this is just a semantic error on your part.

It isn't that faith and reason are inexorably, utterly, mutually opposed to one another but that faith, especially in the definitions you cited, is illusory. Faith is trust is belief is confidence is faith in an endless circle. But there is no substance to these terms other than an emotional one and emotions are not a means of perceiving reality but of evaluating one's relationship to it. One 'loves' peaches, 'hates' lemons. One 'hopes' for a better life but in order for that to come about one must work for it. Human action is predicated on thought, motivated by emotion.

At this point you would probably say I have 'faith' that my actions would be fruitful but I disagree with this assessment. Expecting an outcome based upon experience is not faith, it is judgment. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, which a person must then use reason to figure out how to correct his or her path, but faith never enters into it.

In short, your unfounded presupposition demands the result you arrive at.

You defined a Straw Man presupposition that doesn't represent my position and then seek to refute that by stating that I provide no evidence for it. True because that isn't my position.

It is merely your belief, in which you place your faith, your trust. [The Latin root word, fides carries both senses.]

That is your Assertion (presupposition) for which you have no proof. That trust is not a means of perceiving reality but a projection upon it is easy to prove. Look at all the people who placed their “trust” in Bernie Madoff, who 'believed' and who had 'faith' that he had their best interests at heart. Had 'fides' been a valid means of perceiving reality this would not have happened. Thus the belief, trust, faith circularity is a perceptual issue not a perception issue. It isn't due to perceiving reality as it truly is and using reason to integrate that perception but a projection upon it of an emotional state of hope and wish.

Today, science offers its own rendering of the totality of existence, but perhaps it is worth inquiring how much of this highly sophisticated, mostly mathematical account is based upon concepts, assumptions, and a priori intellectual commitments that are no more sophisticated (or critically examined) than the myths of antiquity.

Well, for starters I don't accept 'a priori' as a valid concept, so we will lock horns on that point. This sophistry is probable the worst damage that Kant has done to logic and reason. So Godwin's exposition doesn't hold much water as far as I am concerned. When he gets to:

However, is it not equally evident that science has its own set of names for things it does not understand, names such as "big bang," "genetic program," "life," "consciousness," or even "universe" — for what scientist has ever stood athwart and observed this thing called "universe?"

he commits the Fallacy of Reification. These are concepts, symbolic representations the mind uses to identify these things in an attempt to understand, since there is no other way the human mind can operate. This goes back to my previous comment: It reminds me of the people who say that because we don't know everything we don't know anything. If our understanding were complete there would be no reason to investigate anything, an absurd situation. So his statement is basically meaningless. After Whitehead's comment you said:

In other words, for some "science" is an ersatz religion . . .

The operative word here is 'some.' Just because some do doesn't mean all do, but you present your arguments as if this were the case. Some people are murderers, but that doesn't mean everyone is guilty of murder. It doesn't even qualify as a Glittering Generality so there really isn't any point.

On the evidence, I do not agree that faith and reason are "mutually exclusive."

They aren't so much “mutually exclusive” as they are sets that have no members in common. One is an emotive illusory formulation and the other is the manner by which we integrate the evidence of the senses.

As to your definitions the only valid one would be the social one: 1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
Having faith that another person will perform in a given manner is valid in a social context, but Madoff demonstrates that that faith is often misplaced. If you substitute the word 'trust', the alternate meaning of fides then you trust a policeman to not shoot you for calling 911. But as for the other definitions they do not have an Epistemological value and have nothing to do with “knowledge” per se.

The one I object to the most would be 2 b : : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

This is the connotation that many people often conflate with 'believing' the Laws of Physics which has its basis in evidence and reason. To the degree a 'belief' is congruent with reality it is actually something separate from 'belief' or 'faith' and is more properly called knowledge. I don't 'have faith' that the sun will come up tomorrow, I know it. The only possibility I can conceive of is that the solar system was taken out by a supernova overnight.

Thanks for writing back. Nice talking (metaphorically) with you.

First—why do you so readily accept the existence of the subconscious mind?

I have extensively studied the subject of psychology, for starters. Second, have you ever been talking to someone when you wanted a particular word, or maybe someone's name, and cannot recall it but then do recall it two hours later.

Where was that knowledge? Clearly in your mind but not available to your conscious mind.

Extensive training in the martial arts teaches one that there is a form of knowledge that operates far too quickly for the conscious mind but is known by the mind nonetheless. What mind possesses this knowledge?

Finally, from whence come dreams?

Here’s something you can know: to say we don’t know the mechanism, the substance or the essence of life is an assertion which is logically consistent with the proposition that life is not reducible to material phenomena.

Your proposition that life is not reducible to material phenomena is not capable of verification, therefore it is irrelevant. You are arguing for the validity of a proposition on the basis of long standing, well known fallacy. You can't prove a negative, friend. That's what I find annoying.

Science is and must be exciting, since it relies on largely unspecifiable clues which can be sensed, mobilized and integrated only by a passionate response to their hidden meaning.

Perhaps this means something to you but I find it the kind of gobbledygook that Kant obfuscates with so well. This type of language is actually irresponsible, especially for a scientist/philosopher. To whit: largely unspecifiable clues. This is a term, a phrase, without any discernable meaning. What does “unspecifiable” mean? If they are “ unspecifiable” then how does he know they exist as “clues?” This is a blatant contradiction. Another violation of the Proving the Negative Fallacy and/or Assertion Without Proof that is so common in these discussions.

. . . which can be sensed, mobilized and integrated only by a passionate response to their hidden meaning.

This is nice poetry and all but it isn't serious philosophy. It is wrong though since information can only be “sensed, mobilized and integrated” by reason. (What does 'mobilized' in this context mean? Just words.)

This also backhandedly acknowledges the point I made (sensed, integrated) from the quote you used. But to call the process “intuition” is to Beg the Question or use the term in a manner in which it isn't traditionally meant.

"Polanyi ... most adequately expressed this idea of "lower intuition," so to speak, being critical to the evolution of scientific understanding and therefore progress into the great unKnown.

Evolution? Very funny. So now we have “lower intuition” which implies a 'higher intuition' without having proven the existence of intuition in the first place. Not very convincing.

But to point out that the material world cannot be understood in the absence of intuition is to simultaneously affirm the obvious fact that the world is not material.

Same errors is logic, over and over again. But to point out that the material world cannot be understood in the absence of intuition . . . this statement cannot be proven. It is merely an Assertion Without Proof, since it is attempting to Prove a Negative “cannot be understood”.

Then the second half: is to simultaneously affirm the obvious fact that the world is not material.

Oh really. Then why do bullets kill people? Do people just 'intuit' that they are deadly? See this is where this stuff crosses the line into nonsense (in a very literal sense of the word). How can it be “an obvious fact” if there are no “facts” since the world isn't material? Do you see the contradiction here? Let me put this another way, taking out the obfuscation in between and parsing the whole phrase for logical validity we have:

But to point out that the material world cannot be understood in the absence of intuition is to simultaneously affirm the obvious fact that the world is not material.

Which gives us: the material world . . . is not material.

In other words: A is not A. (That groaning sound you hear is Aristotle turning in his grave.)

Thus it fails the most basic truth table.

Thus your final statement: ".... reality itself is nothing but an intuition is a non sequitur since it follows from none of the above. If reality is nothing but an intuition there is no way to validate anything since nothing 'exists' except intuition, including the statement ".... reality itself is nothing but an intuition.”

Can you say “absurdity?”

Perhaps this means something to you but I find it the kind of gobbledygook that Kant obfuscates with so well. This type of language is actually irresponsible, especially for a scientist/philosopher. To whit: largely unspecifiable clues. This is a term, a phrase, without any discernable meaning. What does “unspecifiable” mean? If they are “ unspecifiable” then how does he know they exist as “clues?” This is a blatant contradiction. Another violation of the Proving the Negative Fallacy and/or Assertion Without Proof that is so common in these discussions.

Not only that, "largely unspecifiable"? That's somewhat like "almost infinite."

IF the multi-verse theory were correct then GOD would HAVE to exist simply because 'Scientists' say ALL things MUST take place in 'Infinite Universes'!

If God is, by definition, supernatural, then he is not a thing that must take place in any one of an infinite number of universes. There is nothing in the universe or a multiverse that necessitates that God exist. If there were, then God would not be a cause of all, but simply one of many different results.

M-PI: "Science is and must be exciting, since it relies on largely unspecifiable clues which can be sensed, mobilized and integrated only by a passionate response to their hidden meaning."

LogicWings: "Perhaps this means something to you but I find it the kind of gobbledygook that Kant obfuscates with so well. This type of language is actually irresponsible, especially for a scientist/philosopher. To whit: largely unspecifiable clues. This is a term, a phrase, without any discernable meaning. What does “unspecifiable” mean? If they are “ unspecifiable” then how does he know they exist as “clues?” This is a blatant contradiction. Another violation of the Proving the Negative Fallacy and/or Assertion Without Proof that is so common in these discussions.

M-PI: ". . . which can be sensed, mobilized and integrated only by a passionate response to their hidden meaning."

LogicWings: "This is nice poetry and all but it isn't serious philosophy. It is wrong though since information can only be “sensed, mobilized and integrated” by reason. (What does 'mobilized' in this context mean? Just words.) This also backhandedly acknowledges the point I made (sensed, integrated) from the quote you used. But to call the process “intuition” is to Beg the Question or use the term in a manner in which it isn't traditionally meant.

M-PI: "Polanyi ... most adequately expressed this idea of "lower intuition," so to speak, being critical to the evolution of scientific understanding and therefore progress into the great unKnown.

LogicWings: "Evolution? Very funny. So now we have “lower intuition” which implies a 'higher intuition' without having proven the existence of intuition in the first place. Not very convincing."

"Gödel was a mathematical realist, a Platonist. He believed that what makes mathematics true is that it's descriptive -- not of empirical reality, of course, but of an abstract reality. Mathematical intuition is something analogous to a kind of sense perception. In his essay 'What Is Cantor's Continuum Hypothesis?', Gödel wrote that we're not seeing things that just happen to be true, we're seeing things that must be true. The world of abstract entities is a necessary world -- that's why we can deduce our descriptions of it through pure reason."

"... things are not true because they are logical, but logical because they are true; our ability to use logic and math to describe the world is because they derive from something higher and eternal ..."

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

M-PI: "But to point out that the material world cannot be understood in the absence of intuition is to simultaneously affirm the obvious fact that the world is not material.

LogicWings: "Same errors is logic, over and over again. But to point out that the material world cannot be understood in the absence of intuition . . . this statement cannot be proven. It is merely an Assertion Without Proof, since it is attempting to Prove a Negative “cannot be understood”. Then the second half: is to simultaneously affirm the obvious fact that the world is not material.

"Oh really. Then why do bullets kill people? Do people just 'intuit' that they are deadly? See this is where this stuff crosses the line into nonsense (in a very literal sense of the word). How can it be “an obvious fact” if there are no “facts” since the world isn't material? Do you see the contradiction here? Let me put this another way, taking out the obfuscation in between and parsing the whole phrase for logical validity we have: But to point out that the material world cannot be understood in the absence of intuition is to simultaneously affirm the obvious fact that the world is not material. Which gives us: the material world . . . is not material. In other words: A is not A. (That groaning sound you hear is Aristotle turning in his grave.) Thus it fails the most basic truth table. Thus your final statement: ".... reality itself is nothing but an intuition is a non sequitur since it follows from none of the above. If reality is nothing but an intuition there is no way to validate anything since nothing 'exists' except intuition, including the statement ".... reality itself is nothing but an intuition.” Can you say “absurdity?”

Since the physical world exists prior to our exploration of it, so do the higher worlds. This is easy to prove to anyone who goes there. But for those who wish they were mere animals no proof is enough to convince them otherwise.

......on Darwinist grounds, I can well understand why the flower is attractive to the bee. But why is it beautiful to man? After all, I am not attracted to a female chimp in heat with a swollen pink rump.

.....our access to the realm of beauty is a key that unlocks many cosmic mysteries.

"....How stupid would I have to be to think any of my answers to questions asked by ignorant flat-landers --(who limit their thinking to the horizontal world)-- would make any sense at all to them?

We have gained an ability to understand God's pointing and this alone can replace a multitude of instincts that would be necessary if living apart from God. Imagine a dog trying to explain the concept of pointing to a wolf. The wolf would just look dumbly and say: 'It's a hand. No matter how it moves, it is still just a hand. Can we eat it already?'" In a way, the capacity to point and to understand pointing is everything, for it is what lifts us out of our engulfment in matter and imprisonment in the senses. It is the essence of Polanyi's philosophy, what he calls the distinction between subsidiary (the finger) and focal (the moon) knowledge. The obligatory atheist is essentially fixated on the finger while barking at the moon.

...As the biologist Richard Lewontin describes it, "the properties we ascribe to our object of interest and the questions we ask about it reinforce the original metaphorical image and we miss aspects of the system that do not fit the metaphorical approximation." ..... Since that's the case, please excuse me if I'm not dumb enough to believe that those who Work on Darwin's Farm have the capacity to understand any of the answers I would give to their "questions".

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Why Darwinists Reject Evolution

"....Darwinists specifically do not believe in evolution, being that they reject its very possibility (i.e., directional change into an intrinsically higher state). Rather, they believe in change, a very different thing. In this regard, they are very much like progressives, who also believe in change, but not genuine progress, since their metaphysic abolishes any absolute standard by which real progress can be measured. ..." bttt

Gödel was a mathematical realist, a Platonist

Platonism is demonstrably false. For it to be true it would mean there would have to be a Platonic form for every wrong idea as well as every true one, or it couldn't be conceived. So there is a Platonic form for Unicorns? Or the Hindu Gods Shiva or Ganesha? Or the mistaken Ptolemaic geocentric Universe? Or the ether? Why didn't Newton discover Einstein's Theories instead of the ones he did formulate? If mathematics were pure discovery rather than formulation then no one could ever get it wrong.

He believed that what makes mathematics true is that it's descriptive -- not of empirical reality, of course, but of an abstract reality.

I don't care if it is Gödel an 'abstract reality' is a contradiction in terms. An 'abstract' by definition is a concept that subsumes a number of concretes (real things = reality) or a number of other abstracts. An abstract has no other reality than as a concept. Period.

Mathematical intuition is something analogous to a kind of sense perception.

Another sentence that has very little meaning. It is just a pile of words.

Gödel wrote that we're not seeing things that just happen to be true, we're seeing things that must be true. The world of abstract entities is a necessary world -- that's why we can deduce our descriptions of it through pure reason.

Same thing applies here, “abstract entities” in the sense that they have a reality separate from the fact they are concepts is a contradiction in terms. These are assertions that aren't founded on anything other that opinion. To say they must be true is to Beg the Question that they are, not proof. The ability of the mind to formulate ever higher level abstractions doesn't mean they have actual existence. This is reminiscent of the theory of the 'ether' that Michelson & Morley finally put to rest. What medium do these 'abstract entities' exist in? Unprovable, by definition.

things are not true because they are logical, but logical because they are true; our ability to use logic and math to describe the world is because they derive from something higher and eternal (more on which below).

The part in blue presents a false dichotomy and reaches a false conclusion thereby and the part in red is an Assertion Without Proof. It shows a very poor understanding of what logic actually is and, in fact, Reifies logic. How does someone determine if something is true or not without using logic? Thus the first part of the blue sentence is demonstrably false. Logic can be used to create valid syllogisms that are constructed with false premises so that Assertion is false. Logic is a mental process, not a thing.

Since the physical world exists prior to our exploration of it, so do the higher worlds. This is easy to prove to anyone who goes there. But for those who wish they were mere animals no proof is enough to convince them otherwise.

A human being is not a mere animal so this assertion is without meaning. If higher worlds exist then they should be provable. If they are dependent upon the 'belief' of the individual then they are not provable, by definition. Another Straw Man constructed to knock down an argument not made.

.....our access to the realm of beauty is a key that unlocks many cosmic mysteries.

That is an opinion, not fact. You write as if beauty were an objective fact. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My father lived in Fiji for a while. He told me a story of how he was fishing with a bunch of Fijians at sunset and there was this incredible sunset. My dad said, “Wow! Look at that!” The Fijians all turned and said, “What? What?” My father said, “The sunset, it is so beautiful.” The Fijians all shrugged and went back to fishing. They couldn't see it, couldn't see what he was talking about.

"....How stupid would I have to be to think any of my answers to questions asked by ignorant flat-landers --(who limit their thinking to the horizontal world)-- would make any sense at all to them?

Careful there, your arrogance is showing.

"the properties we ascribe to our object of interest and the questions we ask about it reinforce the original metaphorical image and we miss aspects of the system that do not fit the metaphorical approximation."

Agreed, see how it applies to you?

. . . have the capacity to understand any of the answers I would give to their "questions".

As I said, your arrogance is showing.

LogicWings: ... information can only be “sensed, mobilized and integrated” by reason.

That is just a perfect abstraction, LogicWings, referring to nothing identifiable in the actual world of experience. "Reason" isn't doing the sensing, mobilizing, and integrating here. A cognitive/cognizing Self is, hopefully utilizing the criteria of reason in the process.

Of course, the problem for the scientific method is this Self is immaterial, intangible, immeasurable, and thus unisolatable as a datum of scientific observation and experiment.

Yet since it appears we need this Self to explain our own thought processes — as the source that can discern, identify, collect, integrate, analyze, and attempt to explain its findings — indeed, for "science" to occur at all, it hardly seems that science can just dump it down the memory hole of a superstitious human past without at the same time permanently putting itself "out of business."

An interesting condundrum, no???

And this goes to Robert Godwin's poignant question: "Does science really understand what it purports to know?" A question which you, LogicWings, completely dismissed in a recent post. Rather than engage the question, you took exception to the (IMHO) sound observation that "science has its own set of names for things it does not understand, names such as "big bang," "genetic program," "life," "consciousness," or even "universe" — for what scientist has ever stood athwart and observed this thing called "universe?"

Which tells me, you missed two points: (1) that words actually have meanings that persevere over time, multigenerationally. They are (in a certain way) "stores" of a shared cultural heritage, expressions of actual human historical experience, passed down from generation to generation through time. If you think you can make words mean other than what they actually do mean in this context, then you are taking an ax to the foundation of human communication. The Tower of Babel (redux) is before our eyes....

(2) As to Godwin's second point — "what scientist has ever stood athwart and observed this thing called "universe?" — I gather you missed it entirely, dear LogicWings. The scientific method demands direct observation and replication of experiments. But just as no man can put the Soul down on a scientific template, no man can put "this thing called 'universe'" under the microscope of "direct" human observation. Which is just to say that the cosmic "whole" does not "reduce" to its parts....

Gotta run for now, LogicWings.

Dear Matchett-PI, thank you ever so much for hosting this exchange — and for your outstanding cites and links to sources!

You might like the following from Martain’s Saint Thomas Aquinas

Reasons in Proof of the Existence of God
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/gc1_13.htm

WE will put first the reasons by which Aristotle proceeds to prove the existence of God from the consideration of motion as follows.

Everything that is in motion is put and kept in motion by some other thing. It is evident to sense that there are beings in motion. A thing is in motion because something else puts and keeps it in motion. That mover therefore either is itself in motion or not. If it is not in motion, our point is gained which we proposed to prove, namely, that we must posit something which moves other things without being itself in motion, and this we call God. But if the mover is itself in motion, then it is moved by some other mover. Either then we have to go on to infinity, or we must come to some mover which is motionless; but it is impossible to go on to infinity, therefore we must posit some motionless prime mover. In this argument there are two propositions to be proved: that everything which is in motion is put and kept in motion by something else; and that in the series of movers and things moved it is impossible to go on to infinity.*

The Philosopher also goes about in another way to show that it is impossible to proceed to infinity in the series of efficient causes, but we must come to one first cause, and this we call God. The way is more or less as follows. In every series of efficient causes, the first term is cause of the intermediate, and the intermediate is cause of the last. But if in efficient causes there is a process to infinity, none of the causes will be the first: therefore all the others will be taken away which are intermediate. But that is manifestly not the case; therefore we must posit the existence of some first efficient cause, which is God.*

Another argument is brought by St John Damascene (De Fid. Orthod. I, 3), thus: It is impossible for things contrary and discordant to fall into one harmonious order always or for the most part, except under some one guidance, assigning to each and all a tendency to a fixed end. But in the world we see things of different natures falling into harmonious order, not rarely and fortuitously, but always or for the most part. Therefore there must be some Power by whose providence the world is governed; and that we call God

And...

Of the Opinion of those who say that the Existence of God is a Tenet of Faith alone and cannot he demonstrated
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/gc1_12.htm

THE falseness of this opinion is shown to us as well by the art of demonstration, which teaches us to argue causes from effects, as also by the order of the sciences, for if there be no knowable substance above sensible substances, there will be no science above physical science; as also by the efforts of philosophers, directed to the proof of the existence of God; as also by apostolic truth asserting: The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (Rom. i, 20).* The axiom that in God essence and existence are the same is to be understood of the existence whereby God subsists in Himself, the manner of which is unknown to us, as also is His essence; not of the existence which signifies an affirmative judgement of the understanding. For in the form of such affirmative judgement the fact that there is a God falls under demonstration; as our mind is led by demonstrative reasons to form such a proposition declaratory of the existence of God.* In the reasonings whereby the existence of God is demonstrated it is not necessary to assume for a premise the essence or quiddity* of God: but instead of the quiddity the effect is taken for a premise, as is done in demonstrations a posteriori from effect to cause. All the names of God are imposed either on the principle of denying of God Himself certain effects of His power, or from some habitude of God towards those effects.* Although God transcends sense and the objects of sense, nevertheless sensible effects are the basis of our demonstration of the existence of God. Thus the origin of our own knowledge is in sense, even of things that transcend sense.

Time travel .. In which direction?

The funny thing about time travel, if indeed it's truly possible, is that it will end up proving predestination, so I don't see it as being any particular challenge to Christianity, since God exists outside of the created order.

If it's going to happen it already has. It's a part of history, whether traveling into the past or returning from the future. If the one is possible then so is the other; they're dependent upon one another. Time is not so fragile as science fiction portrays. A future exists that culminated in the time traveler, no matter what action that time traveler might undertake. A past that contains a time traveler is a given in order for one to exist at all.

But only if it's possible, of course. I believe it is. Barring some scientific breakthrough beforehand, we or a subsequent generation will see it with the two witnesses.