Is GOD In The 'Multi-verse'?

[freejohn]

I hope that it's okay to post this in the Religion forum!?

I have been thinking about this for quite some time now and have come to my own conclusion and that is .. GOD HAS TO EXIST and not only does he exist .. He is the main argument Against the now popular 'Multi-verse' scenario!

Scientists from many different areas are pondering an infinite number of universes to explain our existence.

They talk about 'string theories' and 'infinite universes' where anything and everything can and does exist!

An example may be that in one universe, I am alive but in another I never was.

In one universe, I am a doctor while in others I may be a lawyer or an Indian Chief while in THIS one .. I'm just another 'smuck'! *)

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'!

Now .. Wouldn't it make sense that if GOD were to exist in even one of these universes then NONE of the rest of those universes could or would exist!?

GOD is a GOD of ORDER and Not a GOD of DISORDER so-o-o .. HOW could such a chaotic universe or in this case Chaotic Universes exist!?

I believe that Science has backed itself into a hole on this one!
(or maybe just created another paradox?)

What do you think?

If you were able to get beyond the multi-use of the word 'exist' in my ramblings .. I would Really like you Scientific and Religious thinkers input on this! 8)

[21stCenturion]

Well, you didn’t pay any attention the first time. Why would I expect you to do any better THIS time ?

Post 117 —

Man’s ‘knowledge of God’ is merely the product of faith and the belief in some supernatural power that operates outside the realm of reason or the scope of man’s intelligence. That is NOT ‘knowledge’, that is the denial that ‘knowledge’ is possible.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you could first give an account of something implicit in your claim, which you take for granted; namely, “the realm of reason” itself.

How do you justify or account for the existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities - those laws of thought in the realm of reason - in a materialistic, constantly changing universe, not subject to the control of a personal God?

Post 186 —

The simple fact is, I DON’T. I saw you palm that card, Bud. When you refer to ‘ ... those laws of thought in the realm of reason ... ‘ as instances of ‘ ... the existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities ... ‘, you just swallowed your own tail in a Circular ( beggin’ the question ) fallacy.

Since this is a strawman of your own conception, NOT mine, I don’t see any purpose in figuring out whatever that gobbledy-gook is supposed to mean — it certainly means nothing to me.

[ Me again ... ]

It STILL means nothing to me. It’s STILL gobbledy-gook and sophistry. You haven’t illuminated your so-called ‘argument’ or shown any connection between what I originally stated and the moosh you’re peddling. In fact, you’re demanding that I do that FOR YOU. Shucks.

See what I meant earlier about not being able to have a meeting of the minds here ?

You presume you can suck me into conducting an ‘argument’ based upon the following formula —

If I were to ask you how you would go about proving that statement itself, how would you do so? Have you experienced or observed every instance of the “rules of evidence” and every empirical observation or experience?

If you say that the statement is true by the rules of evidence or reason, then you are just engaging in circular reasoning, simply assuming what must be proved. Please note that my point is NOT to say that you don’t have any commitment to rules of evidence or reason, but simply to observe that your preclusion of anything supernatural from being part of the explanation from the outset is just a pre-commitment or a presupposition. It is not something that you has proven by empirical observation or reason, but rather it is that by which you proceeds to prove everything else.

[ Me again ... ]

Wow. You shuffle the deck, cut and then deal cards ONLY to yourself, declare yourself ‘the winner’ and that’s the whole game. Except, you failed to notice I never agreed to play your game ...

You further ‘accuse’ me of lacking grounding in the nature of ‘the problem’, stated as follows —

The existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities has certainly been a subject of philosophical discussion for centuries, if not millennia, That you are unaware of this history is indicative only of your lack of knowledge of this particular subject, and why you have apparently have not even begun to comprehend the problem.

[ Me again ... ]

The existence of angels, fairies, leprechauns, Atlantis, Mu and numerous other ‘concepts’ has been the subject of endless ‘discussion’ for centuries, if not millenia. So what ? Does that in any way ‘instantiate’ them as ‘real’ entities worthy of further discourse ?

‘abstract, universal, invariant entities’ seems to be a particular fetish with you. Why do I have to sign up for ‘em ?

So, rather that continue this exercise in futility, how ‘bout we just declare a draw and call it quits ???

21stCenturion

[Diamond]

The existence of angels, fairies, leprechauns, Atlantis, Mu and numerous other ‘concepts’ has been the subject of endless ‘discussion’ for centuries, if not millenia. So what ? Does that in any way ‘instantiate’ them as ‘real’ entities worthy of further discourse ?

If I had referred to angels, fairies, leprechauns, Atlantis, and Mu, you might have a point. I didn't. I referred to words that you yourself used:

"order"
"discipline"
"purpose"
"useful"
"to further"
"improve"
"quality"

Those are your words. Does your use of concepts such as these in any way ‘instantiate’ them as ‘real’ entities worthy of further discourse? On your terms, apparently not. You don't want to talk about it. One minute they are real to you and the next minute they are like fairies, leprechauns, and Atlantis.

‘abstract, universal, invariant entities’ seems to be a particular fetish with you. Why do I have to sign up for ‘em ?

You don't have to. That is, if you don't care about using reason, because without those attributes reason is impossible. And if you don't want to sign up for them then why do you keep using concepts of that nature in your language? See the list of your words just above as instances.

So, rather that continue this exercise in futility, how ‘bout we just declare a draw and call it quits ??

You're right. It is futility.

Cordially,

[LogicWings]

In other words, we have access to no empirical data that tells us that only empirical data exist. There is no knowledge at the level of the senses. Likewise, no rational operation can provide its own content.

No, that is not me speaking. Yes, I believe it to be true, and yes it is a quote.

Good. I did not want to impugn you with a proposition you did not agree with. The construction: . . . no rational operation can provide its own content.

Is a refutation of Kant's a priori conceptualization of knowledge. And I happen to agree that a priori is not a valid concept. I just wondered if you understood that.

".....Now, as Jimmy Carter might say, back to our regularly scheduled pogrom.”

Well, to quote Jimmy Carter for anything? And did you really mean pogrom? (As Vinnie Barbarino once said, “I'm so confused!”

There are only four sources of knowledge, 1) empirical (through the senses), 2) rational, 3) pure intellection, and 4) revelation.

Well, since most of this conversation has been about intuition - I'd say you missed the boat.

In other words, we have access to no empirical data that tells us that only empirical data exist. There is no knowledge at the level of the senses.

Do you understand the difference between percepts and concepts? Percepts are 'empirical data'. Concepts are knowledge, two fundamentally different things.

Likewise, no rational operation can provide its own content.

A complete non sequitur from the two previous sentences (Undistributed Middle Term Fallacy) but as previously noted, refutes the concept of a priori.

Rather, a person decides the purposes for which he will use his powers of reason. Evidently, it does not go without saying that this personal decision cannot be reduced to reason.

This is getting painful. Remove the unnecessary negatives (contrapositive) and you have -

Evidently, it goes without saying that this personal decision can be reduced to reason.

Not only that, but so much is now known about "emotional intelligence," that this alone should suffice to put the kibosh on any form of unalloyed rationalism.

emotional intelligence concerns evaluation not perception. I don't even know what unalloyed rationalism means. As opposed alloyed rationalism?

Knowing is a deeply personal experience, both in telling us what is important to know and in assimilating the depth of the truth of what is known.

Have you considered taking up poetry? That is all this assertion is.

It is possible to be deeply stupid, but in order for that to happen, you generally have to be quite intelligent.

Have you considered giving up the drugs and alcohol?

For this is the bottom line: either my spiritual writing is a product of intellection, spontaneously produced on the spot each morning just because I enjoy doing it; or it is a product of delusion.

Well, you nailed that one. It is the latter.

But either way, it is not susceptible to rational refutation.

I do my best to refrain from couching it is such terms: But in this case you are wrong. If it is illogical, it is irrational, by definition.

You may not understand this, you may not agree with it, but for those of us who understand reason, it is true. To quote your next line:

Either you get it or you don't.

And you, apparently, don't.

Those who do get it are, like me, either deluded or just enjoy the intellection.

As noted, you're deluded, that is precisely my point. (Well, actually I don't really think you are 'deluded', that would be rude. I think you are in over your head.)

It's just a feeling we have. But feeling, like everything else, runs along a vertical continuum.

“Vertical continuum.” I like that, says exactly nothing. But, in reality, feelings (emotions) are derivative of values. They do not precede perception but are subsequent to it. Thus feelings (emotions) are not a means of gathering knowledge about reality, but evaluating its importance to you. Two completely separate things, or modes.

But even with politics, I would say that the majority of my stances are a result of intellection, not reason.

Please explain how you accomplish intellection without employing reason.

For example, my understanding of the spiritual primacy of liberty leads me to reject the left, which always erodes liberty.

Well, I don't understand how 'spiritual primacy' relates to liberty. I would agree though that the left always erodes liberty.

Likewise, my belief in low taxes and a small federal government is a reflection of my principled belief that this arrangement produces better human beings and is vital to our collective spiritual evolution;

Agreed, “low taxes and a small federal government . . . this arrangement produces better human beings” but collective spiritual evolution is a concept I cannot agree with, in any sense of the phrase. First of all, “collective” anything is fallacious as a social construct. It is the basis for Marxism, socialism and liberalism. Since spiritual development is individual, not collective, I don't know what this phrase means.

. . . capital punishment for murderers is a deeply moral act of cosmic and divine justice.

I don't see how government implementing a legal sanction is cosmic and divine justice rather than secular justice but if you say so.

[betty boop]

I would think that you know me well enough by now to know I am not that limited. And considering all of the posts I have made deriding Kant's sophistry I would think you would know better than to lump me in with him in any fashion.

Putting you into the same category as Kant was just my way of poking some gentle fun at my worthy correspondent. :^) I meant "no harm," and so I'm truly sorry if I've offended you.

Notwithstanding, we definitely seem to be pretty much agreed on one point, dear LogicWings: For I gather you, like me, generally have little use for German Idealist philosophers (e.g., Kant), and perhaps even less use for German Transcendental Idealist philosophers (e.g., Hegel). It seems to me they are "system-builders," not "system-describers." And generally, I deplore that sort of thing....

But that is not to say that these men did not have profound insights about the relations between mind and world of inestimable value and influence on the evolution of human thought. For instance, Kant's radical distinction of phenomenon and noumenon.

In a nutshell, the phenomenon is basically a "reduction" of a perceived object into human-readable form via the inputs of sense perception. But Kant insisted that sense perception could never disclose the thing-in-itself in its fullness. All we see of it is what the senses (as technologically aided if need be, given means provided) can report. This unknown and in principle unknowable thing-in-itself is the noumenon.

Perhaps it's only in my imagination; but it seems to me William James [in The Principles of Psychology] was imbibing something from Kant's insight in saying:

There are two kinds of knowledge broadly and practically distinguishable: we may call them respectively knowledge of acquaintance and knowledge about. Most languages express the distinction; ... I am acquainted with many people and things, which I know very little about, except their presence in the places where I met them. I know the color blue when I see it, and the flavor of a pear when I taste it; I know an inch when I move my finger through it; a second of time, when I feel it pass; an effort of attention when I make it; a difference between two things when I notice it; but about the inner nature of these facts or what makes them what they are, I can say nothing at all. I cannot impart acquaintance with them to anyone who has not already made [the acquaintance] himself.

Which — to me — is just more evidence for the truth of Alfred Korzybski's observation: “The map is not the territory.”

Anyhoot, I brought James up again because if we are to find any common ground between us, he seems to be the best "mediator" I can find.

Especially on your question: "Do you make a distinction between psyche and consciousness?"

James was not an Idealist — to put it mildly. William James above all was a philosophical "Pragmatist," an attitude characterized by George A. Miller (the writer of the Introduction to my current volume of Principles of Psychology) as "the characteristically American version of [British] empiricist philosophy."

On the faculty at Harvard, William James taught at various times the academic disciplines of physiology, psychology, and philosophy. The truly tremendous feat he accomplished in his lifetime of arduous work was to take psychology out of the provenance of philosophy entirely, especially out of metaphysics, in order to ground it in empirical (scientific — for surely James was a man of his Age, an Age inspired by Newtonian Optimism, and Darwinian Fitness) methods of investigation.

On the question, "do you make a distinction between psyche and consciousness?" I'd have to answer: Not much of one. To me at the most basic level they are effectively synonymous.

But at this level of discourse, the problem that James raised — the problem of Soul — does not typically arise in science.

And yet, James worked this very problem through a pragmatist, empiricist, skeptical-bordering-on-Positivist (with a good deal of Stoicism added in for good measure) viewpoint, thereby exemplifying at once his unique genius as a thinker and man of his time. I give him the "public podium" here:

My final conclusion, then, about the substantial Soul is that it explains nothing and guarantees nothing. Its successive thoughts are the only intelligible and verifiable things about it, and definitely to ascertain the correlations of these with brain-processes is as much as physiology can empirically do. From the metaphysical point of view, it is true that one may claim that the correlations have a rational ground; and if the word Soul could be taken to mean merely such problematical ground, it would be unobjectionable. But the trouble is that it progresses to give the ground in positive terms of a very dubiously creditable sort. I therefore feel entirely free to discard the word Soul.... If I ever use it, it will be in the vaguest and most popular way. The reader who finds any comfort in the idea of the Soul, is, however, perfectly free to continue to believe in it; for our reasonings have not established the non-existence of the Soul, they have only proved its superfluity for scientific purposes.

Thank you, dear William James! :^) I shall continue to have converse with "entities" that you yourself seemingly confess cannot be "obviated" by scientific/empirical methods....

As James said: "Through feelings we become acquainted with things, but only by our thoughts do we know about them."

Which insight seems to suggest a possible resolution of any "dispute" between you and me, dear LogicWings, regarding "abstractions from Reality" and Reality Itself — the fullness of the latter of which is as incomprehensible to me as it is to you. (I suspect.)

Must close pretty quickly now, having run on so long. But I absolutely have to say one thing more about Albert Einstein, following-up our last — in which I proposed that he was an "intuition-led" scientist.

My first attempt to describe the situation of Einstein's "intuition-led science" having seemingly failed, please allow me to have recourse to the same thing, by way of analogy, as stated by William James, in a footnote:

Mozart describes ... this manner of composing: First bits and crumbs of the piece come and gradually join together in his mind; then the soul getting warmed to the work, the thing grows more and more, "and I spread it out broader and clearer, and at last it gets almost finished in my head, even when it is a long piece, so that I can see the whole of it at a single glance in my mind, as if it were a beautiful painting or a handsome human being; in which way I do not hear it in my imagination at all as a succession — the way it must come later — but all at once at it were. It is a rare feast! All the inventing and making goes on in me as in a beautiful strong dream. But the best of all is the hearing of it all at once.

I daresay, that way was the very "way" that motivated Einstein....

But bidding adieu to William James for now, just let me say — in eternal tribute to him — that he recognized: "My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will."

Speaking personally, I just gotta love a guy like that....

I'll just leave it there for now. And wait for you "on the flip side!"

Dear LogicWings, thank you so very much for your fine correspondence in these matters!

[21stCenturion]

I only WISH I had your patience and persistence in dealing with some of the less rational bloviators that seem to populate these threads. You do ‘slap down’ about as well as I have ever seen it done.

I, on the other hand, seem to lose patience far too quickly when I am inundated with BS from one or another of these ‘wish fulfillment’ junkies who think big words, convoluted sentences and endless marginally appropriate citations from dubious sources constitutes ‘argument’.

As I mentioned to one on an earlier thread — Do you ever wonder why you never seem to persuade or impress anyone who doesn’t already agree with you ?

Anyway, thanks for simply existing ‘round here, setting such a good example and, Please keep up the good fight.

I’m going back to school to try to assemble some tools to allow me to function more effectively when I decide to take another at-bat ...

Regards,

21stCenturion

[Alamo-Girl]

That was very informative! Thank you so much for your wonderful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!

[betty boop]

Thanks, dearest sister in Christ, for your kind words!

My last really was all over the lot.... I just hope LogicWings doesn't think it's over the top....

I hope and pray that all is well with you and all your loved ones. I know how busy you've been lately with elder care. Me too, as you know....

Thank you so much for writing!

[LogicWings]

If it were possible, I would speak in mathematics because that is the most precise language known to me.

Funny, because Boop said:

One might say that science, as it is currently understood and practiced, is excessively devoted to abstractions, in a sort of process of "reification" in reverse.

You want to speak only in abstractions and she thinks we science uses them “excessively.” (perhaps) Interesting.

And I prefer the Oxford Dictionary for definitions.

I find them inadequate, stilting and rather narrow. Not sufficient for a philosophical , metaphysical discussion.

A creature bound by the space-time continuum has no means by which to determine that anything exists outside of that space-time continuum except upon a hypothetical basis.

That statement equates the universal set of knowables to the subset of knowables by empiricism. That is illogical.

Your definitions are as narrow as Oxford's, maybe that is why you prefer it. Please name for me any “knowable” that exists outside the space-time continuum.

Here and Here

[LogicWings]

If LogicWings can give me three examples of what a "member" of the "set of faith . . . " looks like

No can do. It is an empty set.

and give me three examples of what a "member" of the "set of reason" looks like

I don't know. You might find at least three examples in Aristotle's Prior Analytics somewhere.

The thought has struck me that "set modeling" is not the best way to approach such problems....

Maybe, maybe not. Someone else used the method (probably AG) and I just followed the lead.

[betty boop]

The “living Universe” — now that's an interesting turn of a phrase.

Indeed it is. It is also interesting that there are scientists — mainly physicists of Eastern/Central European origin — who take the hypothesis of a "living universe" seriously; though mostly the idea is scoffed at on this side of the Great Pond....

Yet it seems to me the American mathematician Robert Rosen gives us a reason to take this hypothesis — originally proposed by Plato believe it or not — seriously. In Life Itself, he wrote:

...theoretical physics has long beguiled itself with a quest for what is universal and general. As far as theoretical physics is concerned, biological organisms are very special, indeed, inordinately special systems. The physicist perceives that most things in the universe are not organisms, are not alive in any conventional sense. Therefore, the physicist reasons, organisms are negligible; they are to be ignored in the quest for universality. For surely, biology can add nothing fundamental, nothing new to physics; rather, organisms are to be understood entirely as specializations of the physical universals, once these have been adequately developed, and once the innumerable constraints and boundary conditions that make organisms special have been elucidated. These last, the physicist says, are not my task. So it happens that the wonderful edifice of physical science, so articulate elsewhere, stands today utterly mute on the fundamental question: What is Life?

One of the few physicists to recognize that the profound silence of contemporary physics on matters biological was something peculiar was Walter Elsasser. To him, this silence was itself a physical fact and one that required a physical explanation. He found one by carrying to the limit the tacit physical supposition that, because organisms seem numerically rare in the physical universe, they must therefore be too special to be of interest as material systems. His argument was, roughly, that anything rare disappears completely when one takes averages; since physicists are always taking averages in their quest for what is generally true, organisms sink completely from physical sight. His conclusion was that, in a material sense, organisms are governed by their own laws ("biotonic laws"), which do not contradict physical universals but are simply not derivable from them.

Ironically, ideas like Elsasser's have not had much currency with either physicist or biologist.... Elsasser was only carrying one step further the physicists' tacit supposition that "rare" implies "nonuniversal."...

The possibility is, however ... that this supposition itself is mistaken.... [T]here is no reason at all why "rare" should imply anything at all; it needs to be nothing more than an expression of how we are sampling things, connoting nothing at all about the things themselves.... Why could it not be that the "universals" of physics are only so on a small and special (if inordinately prominent) class of material systems, a class to which organisms are too general to belong? What if physics is the particular, and biology the general, instead of the other way around?

Just some stuff to think about, dear LogicWings!

[betty boop]

In brane theory, higher dimensional branes (more complex, if you will) can 'project' onto lower dimensional branes, and I suspect something akin to that occurred in Babylon long ago.

Indeed. And it was a "miraculous" event.

FWIW, I have no problem with miracles. To me, all they are basically is "local effects" (i.e., within our 4D spacetime) of a "non-local cause" arising outside 4D spacetime. That is to say, miracles — and this miracle in particular — actually provide us with "evidence" that another "timelike" dimension exists "beyond" the 3 of space and 1 of time we humans normally experience.

I'm not sure the best way to imagine this new-found "timelike dimension." Which for all practical purposes is entirely beyond our merely human experience and understanding of time, compared to which it stands for timelessness, or Eternity....

Here's an intriguing question: Is this "dimension" hierarchically "vertical" to "us?" Or could it be the case that our 4D spacetime block is "nested" into it?

You wrote, "THE Universe is indeed more odd than we have yet to imagine, much less 'parallel' universes of only imaginary existence."

Indeed. Why do people construct imaginary worlds when they don't seem to understand the real world of which they are parts and participants in the first place?

Thank you ever so much for your outstanding essay/post, dear brother in Christ!

[betty boop]

No can do. It is an empty set.

Jeepers, LogicWings, but that seems to be a "cop-out." The only reason the set is "empty": You don't know what to put in it.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I have been trying to post and old Calvin and Hobbs cartoon as my last position on this subject but I can’t get it to paste. So I will have to settle for dialog.

Calvin: (reading a book) The more you know the harder it is to take decisive action. Once you become informed you start seeing complexities and shades of gray. You realize that nothing is as clear and simple as it first appears. Ultimately, knowledge is paralyzing.(Tossing the book aside) Being a man of action I can’t afford to take the risk.

Hobbs: You’re ignorant, but at least you act on it.

So, that is my final answer!

[LogicWings]

Putting you into the same category as Kant was just my way of poking some gentle fun at my worthy correspondent. :^) I meant "no harm," and so I'm truly sorry if I've offended you.

No offense taken. I don't think you could offend me if you tried. You don't have it in you.

Notwithstanding, we definitely seem to be pretty much agreed on one point, dear LogicWings: For I gather you, like me, generally have little use for German Idealist philosophers (e.g., Kant), and perhaps even less use for German Transcendental Idealist philosophers (e.g., Hegel). It seems to me they are "system-builders," not "system-describers." And generally, I deplore that sort of thing....

Won't get any argument from me there.

But that is not to say that these men did not have profound insights about the relations between mind and world of inestimable value and influence on the evolution of human thought. For instance, Kant's radical distinction of phenomenon and noumenon.

Well, that is a matter of opinion. Since, by Kant's definition noumenon is that it is 'unknowable' then it is a concept without any function or use to human beings. It is the first piece of Kantian sophistry I reject, followed by a priori. Thus I will skip your following exposition, not because there is anything wrong with it, rather because the whole line of thinking is fallacious.

Your James quote:

but about the inner nature of these facts or what makes them what they are, I can say nothing at all.

Pardon me, but yet again, this Begs the Question that there is an inner nature. I read and respond to these posts in the order in which they come, and rarely read ahead, so I found your next comment apropos since I had already referred to it.

Which — to me — is just more evidence for the truth of Alfred Korzybski's observation: “The map is not the territory.”

That kind of is, exactly my point, what I have trying to say. I read most of James' work many years ago. I should probably revisit him but where do I find the time?

My favorite James quote is:

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.

But that might have been the nitrous oxide talking.

On the question, "do you make a distinction between psyche and consciousness?" I'd have to answer: Not much of one. To me at the most basic level they are effectively synonymous.

See, I do make a distinction. I see consciousness as the vessel and psyche as the mechanism, for lack of a better metaphor. A person has one psyche at his or her disposal but there varying states and/or modes of consciousness. How the psyche views and interprets its surroundings is predicated upon the current state of consciousness.

for our reasonings have not established the non-existence of the Soul, they have only proved its superfluity for scientific purposes.

. . .you yourself seemingly confess cannot be "obviated" by scientific/empirical methods....

We had these discussions before. What, I'm supposed to make a hypocrite out of myself and attempt to Prove a Negative? There is a difference between “There is no evidence for . . .” and “Asserting positively the non-existence of something."

As James said: "Through feelings we become acquainted with things, but only by our thoughts do we know about them."

Well, I disagree with him on this point, but this is a quote taken out of full context. As this quote stands we don't become acquainted with things through feelings but through perception. We evaluate their meaning to us through feelings.

Which insight seems to suggest a possible resolution of any "dispute" between you and me, dear LogicWings, regarding "abstractions from Reality" and Reality Itself — the fullness of the latter of which is as incomprehensible to me as it is to you. (I suspect.)

Yes, I agree. I think we have ironed out the differences between "abstractions from Reality" and Reality Itself. The Korzybski quote means basically we are on the same page in that regard. The Universe is ultimately still mostly mystery no matter what we do think we know about it.

I must say that my experience with the human mind and what I know about it is that it is as mysterious as the Universe and we don't know near as much about it as we think we do. It has capabilities that far exceed our capacity to imagine. But life is in the discovering, traveling, exploring, investigating and seeking to understand.

"My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will."

Interesting, he exercised it before be believed in it.

Thanks for the wonderful conversations. I always learn something conversing with you two.

Until next time. . .

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I have been trying to post an old Calvin and Hobbs cartoon as my final answer to this subject but I can’t get it to paste in the reply box. So, I will settle for dialog.

Calvin, reading a book - The more you know the harder it is to take decisive action. Once you become informed, you start seeing complexities and shades of gray. You realize that nothing is as clear and simple as it first appears. Ultimately, knowledge is paralyzing.

Calvin, tossing the book away. - Being a man of action I can’t afford to take that chance.

Hobbs - You’re ignorant. But at least you act on it.

MnR - So, that is my final answer.

[Alamo-Girl]

The elderly cousin is in the hospital so I do not have much time tonight.

But I wanted to offer a short list of things off the top of my head which would be in the universal set of knowables but not in the subset of knowables by empiricism: standards/normatives, hopes/plans, stories/music/art, qualia (love, hate, pain, pleasure, etc.) and most importantly, Spiritual knowledge.

There are of course things which are both unknown and unknowable. betty boop mentioned noumenons - very important - what a thing is in itself.

To that I would add particles and fields which have no direct or indirect measurable effect and the full number and types of dimensions.

I'll try to catch up tomorrow.

[betty boop]

There are of course things which are both unknown and unknowable.... I would add particles and fields which have no direct or indirect measurable effect and the full number and types of dimensions.

Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for your marvelous insights!

Jeepers, I know you're busy. I hope and pray all is well with your elderly cousin.

When you are at leisure, I hope we can continue to explore these ideas....

[MHGinTN]

The quibble over ‘multiverse’ is odd to me, from my perspective. Certain theoreticians want to imagine whole universes with different parameters of reality, some of these parameters don't even allow for the universe to maintain physical structure for long enough to spawn galaxies. I ask myself, if such a fleeting 'universe' ever exists/existed/will exist, does it not arise from a real set ofalready existing parameters? The question hangs upon 'faith' in cause and effect. So whatever EVER has existence, even if fleeting, that thing had/has a cause.

As the ancient Hebrews understood, The Creator of all is no thing else The Creator would be the result of some cause greater or earlier than The Creator.

Until Physicists figure out how many variable expressions there are for dimension Time, and how many variable expressions there are possible for dimension Space, the argument of multiverses sifts down to someone trying to set aside the cause and effect intelligence. God's name is I AM, and I AM did not have a cause, God is The Cause.

With any Physicist I would quickly agree that there are 'parallel' continuua (Daniel Chapter Five shows that reality; Jesus leaving from the stone-blocked tomb, appearing in a locked Upper Room, etc. shows that quite plainly), but to propose multiverses, as the current crop of theoreticians are trying to do is folly of the most arrogant kind, where man seeks to eliminate The Cause from effects. I happen to believe the source of such folly is the same created being who sought to usurp God's position though it is absolutely impossible for a created being to rise above the Creator because the created can never be uncaused and thus will always be vulnerbale to effect.

[betty boop]

bb wrote: But that is not to say that these men did not have profound insights about the relations between mind and world of inestimable value and influence on the evolution of human thought. For instance, Kant's radical distinction of phenomenon and noumenon.

LogicWings replied: "Well, that is a matter of opinion. Since, by Kant's definition noumenon is that it is 'unknowable' then it is a concept without any function or use to human beings. It is the first piece of Kantian sophistry I reject, followed by a priori. Thus I will skip your following exposition, not because there is anything wrong with it, rather because the whole line of thinking is fallacious."

Jeepers, now I'm really confused, dear LogicWings. First you reduce Kant's noumenon to merely his "opinion." That is, as possibly bearing no correspondence to "objective" reality whatsoever. Then you suggest we can just dispense of the crittur out-of-hand, because dealing with the problem of the "unknowable" has no "utility" for human beings anyway. You accuse Kant of "sophistry." [What on earth do you mean by that?] You reject the philosophical concept a priori out of hand. Then essentially tell me that it's worthless to discuss my "exposition," "not because there is anything wrong with it, rather because the whole line of thinking is fallacious."

The difficulty I have: If there's nothing "wrong" with it, then how can it be "fallacious?"

All the "sophist" Kant is saying is that natural objects are not completely "reducible" to the terms of human sense perception. We are not entitled to believe/expect that what the senses "report" and the mind "processes" in some "mysterious" brain/mind [i.e., physical/psychic] transformation can entirely "capture" all possible information about the object as it is "in itself." All that is "captured" is what the senses can report to the cognitive subject....

To be reminded of the existential importance of the "unknowable" strikes me as a salutary thing.... You seem to regard it as a distinctly NEGATIVE, inutile one....

But then as James wrote: ...about the inner nature of these facts or what makes them what they are, I can say nothing at all.

To which LogicWings replied: "Pardon me, but yet again, this Begs the Question that there is an inner nature. I read and respond to these posts in the order in which they come, and rarely read ahead, so I found your next comment apropos since I had already referred to it.

"[Korzybski's observation: “The map is not the territory”] is exactly my point, what I have trying to say...."

And on that point, LogicWings, we definitely agree. But that "Begs the Question": What is the "territory?"

As James said: "Through feelings we become acquainted with things, but only by our thoughts do we know about them."

To which LW replied: "Well, I disagree with him on this point, but this is a quote taken out of full context. [What is the "full context?"] As this quote stands we don't become acquainted with things through feelings but through perception. We evaluate their meaning to us through feelings."

And thus you stand James "upside down": In his empirical studies, he determined that feeling (including the meaning of "sensing," but not reducible to it) is prior to perception.

bb wrote: On the question, "do you make a distinction between psyche and consciousness?" I'd have to answer: Not much of one. To me at the most basic level they are effectively synonymous.

To which LW replied: "See, I do make a distinction. I see consciousness as the vessel and psyche as the mechanism, for lack of a better metaphor. A person has one psyche at his or her disposal but there [are] varying states and/or modes of consciousness. How the psyche views and interprets its surroundings is predicated upon the current state of consciousness."

On the basis of this statement, I gather/infer you have come up with a splendid model of "machine 'consciousness'." But to me, such a thing is an oxymoron.

In a certain way, though, your approach resembles James': It seems clear to me that he recognized the [unnamable] psyche as somehow involving a spatiotemporal succession of "states and/or modes of consciousness" and their "interpretation."

Unlike you, however, on the basis of the "phenomenal" evidence, he seems to suggest (to my ear) that there must be an ulterior "organizing principle" (as it were) "judging" the sequence of "states." In other words, a "central" cognitive Self, fundamentally organized by (or reflecting) the single, undivided, continuous primal feeling in which our own enduring sense of "self-identity" continuously inheres over time. It is our fundamental "ground and organizing principle" as conscious thinkers. Otherwise, the succession of states would be utterly meaningless, now and always....

James said: for our reasonings have not established the non-existence of the Soul, they have only proved its superfluity for scientific purposes.

Which seems pretty plain to me: James is saying the Soul (under the aspect of its Judeo-Christian and classical meaning) cannot be "obviated" by scientific/empirical methods.... He is saying science does not need to concern itself with this "problem"; for

"My final conclusion, then, about the substantial Soul is that it explains nothing and guarantees nothing. Its successive thoughts are the only intelligible and verifiable things about it, and definitely to ascertain the correlations of these with brain-processes is as much as physiology can empirically do."

In saying this, I did not hear James say that, because empirical science cannot exhaust a problem, therefore the problem does not exist. He's just handing it over to the philosophers and theologians to deal with.

For again, as James said: "for our reasonings have not established the non-existence of the Soul, they have only proved its superfluity for scientific purposes."

James said: "My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will."

And LW replied: "Interesting, he exercised it before be believed in it."

It's interesting to me that James wrote that line in a personal journal he kept as a young man. I disagree with your interpretation of it, LogicWings. For before one can "act" on something, there must first be a "felt" need to act; and then comes the "perception" part: (1) What is required to qualify and quantify the "felt" threat (or benefit)?" and (2) what logistics specify successful action necessary to either defend against it, if perceived as a threat; or to draw it closer to oneself, if perceived as a benefit — in either case by rational means?

James gets down into the weeds, seeking the intersection of physiology and psychology. But it seems to me he also probes the very root of rationality itself, wonderfully clarifying the epistemological roots of empirical science in the process.

Well, must leave it there for now, dear LogicWings. Thank you oh so very much for writing! Hope to see you on the flip side!

[betty boop]

...to propose multiverses, as the current crop of theoreticians are trying to do is folly of the most arrogant kind, where man seeks to eliminate The Cause from effects. I happen to believe the source of such folly is the same created being who sought to usurp God's position though it is absolutely impossible for a created being to rise above the Creator because the created can never be uncaused and thus will always be vulnerbale to effect.

Oh so beautifully, eloquently said, dear brother in Christ! I definitely catch your drift about "the same created being who sought to usurp God's position," but will not belabor it here....

I think it's fairly safe to say that many, if not most "multiverse theories" have been propounded as a means of obviating the requirement of a beginning in time for the universe. To acknowledge a beginning is to invoke an uncaused cause; and of course, "science" cannot possibly abide such an idea, so uncomfortably close to the Genesis account of God's creative Word in the Beginning, His Logos Alpha to Omega....

In the process, such theorists imagine entities — other universes organized according to principles different than those of the universe in which we humans live — that are, in principle, completely undetectable by human beings. Jeepers, maybe that's the charm for such theorists: Then NOBODY can ever prove you "wrong" about anything!

At the same time we have "string theorists" who are "multiplying entities" as needed; but entities of a sort that are wholly mathematical objects, absolutely (in principle) undetectable by direct human observation. We are speaking here of a proliferation of new spatial dimensions, which, as entities, are "curled up" into a measure less than Planck length. (Which right there tells you such critturs are simply undetectable by man in the first place.)

Thus these folks are building monuments on foundations that will forever remain elusive to the human mind's capabilities of direct measuring and imagining through ordinary human experience.

Somehow, I do not think this is a "Good Thing"....

Thank you oh so very much, dear brother in Christ, for your deeply insightful essay/post!