Everything

[Iacchus]

Of course this begs the question. If the Universe is so structured that it can be assessed in a reasonable sense, then where did this sense of reason come from? Obviously it must have been here before us humans came along and, that we (in our human thinking) are merely outcroppings of "its effect." In which case all we're really doing is acknowledging that reason (through the study of cause-and-effect) exists.

So, where did this sense of reason come from?

 

[CplFerro]

Of course this begs the question. If the Universe is so structured that it can be assessed in a reasonable sense, then where did this sense of reason come from? Obviously it must have been here before us humans came along and, that we are merely outcroppings of "its effect." All we're really doing is acknowledging that reason (by way of cause-and-effect) exists.

Iachhus,

I see no reason why reasoning about reason is unreasonable. Taking the action of the mind as a distinct object of thought is the basis for all breakthroughs of principle. In this case reason tells me that reason itself is a cosmic iron cage or Moebius loop that cannot be escaped.

P.S.

As I mentioned earlier, the question begged is not why the One is, but why the One is so structured. That is, could it have been structured differently from the way it is? If so, who made the choice? And, why is the One structured to allow beings made in its image to exist?

 

[Iacchus]

Well, in our assessment of God it must be reasonable. Otherwise there would be nothing to bind the Universe together.

 

[jan]

Of course this begs the question. If the Universe is so structured that it can be assessed in a reasonable sense, then where did this sense of reason come from? Obviously it must have been here before us humans came along and, that we (in our human thinking) are merely outcroppings of "its effect." In which case all we're really doing is acknowledging that reason (through the study of cause-and-effect) exists.

So, where did this sense of reason come from?

I think this confuses two different problems. One is the problem why we humans have reason, that is, why we are intelligent. This question is answered by the modern synthesis of the theory of natural selection (also known as biological evolution). The second question is why our world is structured, that is, why it happens to be understandable, why it can be described with general laws, why it shows causality, why it can be understood in mathematical terms, and so on. Answer (3) on my list gives a possibility that doesn't require a god, but we do not know which answer is correct, so basically, we don't know the answer yet.

 

[Taffer]

And I don't think we can every actually know the answer, as we have no proof, nor can we get any, that the Universe could have been anything else other then as it is now.

 

[CplFerro]

Beyond mere existence, the universe as we know it exists for a reason. Practically attaining that whole reason may be beyond us, perhaps perpetually, defining a certain boundary to what is nevertheless the unlimited ability of science to make discoveries of principle. But even if we can't know the everything at once, we can still reasonably ask whether this reason (for the universe being as it is) is a good reason or a bad reason, or possibly a neutral reason.

Now, “good” would mean a principle of platonic love that cares about the other principles at work in the universe, seeking to have them develop themselves to the limit of their potential, minimising conflict and backwardness. This development must be hierarchical, with the unintelligent inferior to the intelligent, because in an imperfect but perfectable universe intelligence would be required to understand and intentionally work out the full intent of the Good, as Plato termed it.

“Bad” would usually mean a principle of malevolence toward other principles, offering no help toward developing goodness on their own. This precludes a neutral universe because neutrality toward suffering is just callousness, and a callous universe wouldn’t be a perfectable one, in principle, because it (or malevolence) would not organise things to allow for perfection, because it wouldn’t care.

The deciding factor between the two is creativity. True acts of creation require love, because to create something is to give life to an object, whether it is an organism or an idea of art or science. Hate or indifference is too self-absorbed to be truly creative. The great scientists had a passion for discovery that included a love for humanity and a desire to see their discoveries used for others’ benefit. A scientist who made discoveries of principle and then sat on them out of spite is an insane caricature.

The Good is thus the only quality of Reason that contains this love needed for creativity, and so is the only thing that could ultimately be responsible for the universe being the way it is (whatever the specific reasons for its structure may be). Even to imagine the Bad creating the universe for the sake of sadistic pleasure, is unworkable: the Bad would lack that quality of creative love, and would take no pleasure in the work itself, only lusting after the end-result. It would be like Dr. Frankenstein’s only motivation being to submit his creature to the rack upon revivification – such a man would never get past torturing mice or playing with voodoo dolls.

It appears, then, that (1) existence exists necessarily, (2) everything has a reason, including the universe, (3) the reason for the universe existing, is Good (capitalised to highlight its cardinality).

 

[Taffer]

Beyond mere existence, the universe as we know it exists for a reason.

Woah, hold on a second here. Why must it exist for a reason? Can you back up this claim, or is it an axiom for your argument?

 

[Iacchus]

Woah, hold on a second here. Why must it exist for a reason? Can you back up this claim, or is it an axiom for your argument?

He/she just did, by giving a good illustration of the difference between good and bad.

 

[Mercutio]

He/she just did, by giving a good illustration of the difference between good and bad.

No. Please re-read it. Taffer's objection stands.

 

[Iacchus]

Clearly if it did not come about by random, then the Universe must exist for a reason.

 

[Taffer]

Why must it? Why are those the only two options? How do you know that the universe hasn't come about by random chance? The only possible way to defend your stand point is to say that a)everything that is designed exists for a reason, b)the universe was designed, therefore c)the universe exists for a reason. How do you know the universe was designed? And for that matter, how do you know anything designed must exist for a reason.

There are two different statements here, and the wording is important. If it is "The universe exists for a reason", then I ask how you know this, and it relates to my points above. If it is "There is a reason why the universe exists", then this is more in line with the question asked by jan in the first post. If this is the case, then my answer is the same as I've been explaining throughout the entire thread: we cannot know what the reason is, because we cannot ever know what the other possible outcomes are, therefore the only logical answer is either it has to exist, or there is no reason for its existance.

 

[Iacchus]

Because most everything we know of the Universe can be explained, and in a reasonable fashion. If not, we say simply say we don't know or, we don't understand.

 

[Taffer]

An explanation does not equal a reason. The explanation, in my view, in this case is that there no reason. Or to be more precise, we can never know the reason.

However, you still haven't told me why the universe exists for a reason. Or are you trying to say that there is a reason that the universe exists? Please clarify your position.

 

[CplFerro]

First, again, to be clear, we must step away from the question of why existence exists, which has been solved by realising that nonexistence is incoherent. In other words, only reason exists, not unreason.

Now we face the universe as a particular, rather than a general class. Given that unreason is incoherent, the existence of this particularity can only be explained by reason. If we admit anything else then we must put butterfly nets over ourselves. Thus, every singular thing, that is, genuinely substantial thing, in the universe must have a reason for it being so constituted.

After doing this, we remember that the universe itself is a particular, and so also needs a reason for it being so constituted. Whether we can know this reason is debatable, but the reason is there. Nothing can be without a reason (again, have the butterfly nets handy in case this seems doubtful). This is where Taffer is getting hung up – that through reason we can know /of/ a reason without knowing the reason itself.

As I said earlier, this reason for the universe must be a Good reason. Further, in order to organise the entire universe, which is of maximum complexity by definition, this reason needs to embody maximum intelligence. That is, by its nature the Good reason could not be stupid and boring, for that would be Bad, but rather would be the ultimate, most elegant, overall most peachy of all reasons, to be able to order (through cardinality) the entire universe. The most Good universe would thus be the best designed one, so to speak.

Beyond this, we can note that each particular thing in the universe is itself a function of the ultimate reason, which sustains it in a direct relationship. This must be so, because everything that exists must have been ordered for the best reason, and there can only be one best, ultimate reason. Ordinary causality is thus strictly a construct - it works, it's reasonable, it's real, but it's a construct ordained by the ultimate reason to serve itself.

 

[Taffer]

This is where Taffer is getting hung up – that through reason we can know /of/ a reason without knowing the reason itself.

I disagree. I'm not saying that we know of the reason, but don't know what it is. I'm saying we cannot know the reason, if there is one or not. In fact, we cannot know if there is a reason or not.

Now we face the universe as a particular, rather than a general class. Given that unreason is incoherent, the existence of this particularity can only be explained by reason.

I disagree. If we take our universe as 'the system', then it is the one thing that may not have a reason for existing. Everything inside the system can and must have a reason (we exist because our planet formed the right distance from the sun, and had the right organic molecules to form simple amino acids etc etc etc), but we cannot deduce such a logic about he system itself. Everything withing the system can be shown to have a reason for existance because we can see what the alternative is. The system, however, cannot be so analysed, for to see any alternative is to leave the system, which is impossible. Sure, we can assume that there is a reason, but I can also assume that it doesn't, and neither view has any proof.

 

[jan]

Beyond mere existence, the universe as we know it exists for a reason.

First, again, to be clear, we must step away from the question of why existence exists, which has been solved by realising that nonexistence is incoherent. In other words, only reason exists, not unreason.

How do you know this? We only discussed that some people proposed that nothingness is incoherent, but we never solved the question why something exists.

By the way, the expression "existence exists" is highly misleading.

But even if we can't know the everything at once, we can still reasonably ask whether this reason (for the universe being as it is) is a good reason or a bad reason, or possibly a neutral reason.

Now, “good” would mean a principle of platonic love that cares about the other principles at work in the universe, seeking to have them develop themselves to the limit of their potential, minimising conflict and backwardness.

How can one principle be good to another principle? How can a principle "seek" something? What are you talking about?

It seems quite obvious to me that our world is indeed callous. There are presumably billions and billions of dead, uninhabited planets. There is only one planet we know to be inhabited. On this planet, life is a constant struggle for survival, including killing and eating other beings.How can you suggest that this world is inherently good? The only good that there is is the good we humans do.

This development must be hierarchical, with the unintelligent inferior to the intelligent, because in an imperfect but perfectable universe intelligence would be required to understand and intentionally work out the full intent of the Good, as Plato termed it.

Why?

The deciding factor between the two is creativity. True acts of creation require love, because to create something is to give life to an object, whether it is an organism or an idea of art or science.

I don't think the term "love" is appropriate to describe the great majority of all acts of creating new life.

Even to imagine the Bad creating the universe for the sake of sadistic pleasure, is unworkable: the Bad would lack that quality of creative love, and would take no pleasure in the work itself, only lusting after the end-result.

But you just equaled the neutral with the bad, so this conclusion doesn't work any more.

It appears, then, that (1) existence exists necessarily, (2) everything has a reason, including the universe, (3) the reason for the universe existing, is Good (capitalised to highlight its cardinality).

As far as I see, (1) is unproven, (2) is unproven, (3) had an attempt of proving, but is still unproven.

Now we face the universe as a particular, rather than a general class. Given that unreason is incoherent, the existence of this particularity can only be explained by reason. If we admit anything else then we must put butterfly nets over ourselves. Thus, every singular thing, that is, genuinely substantial thing, in the universe must have a reason for it being so constituted.

Even if I would concede that the universe in general has a reason, how does this boil down to single objects?

After doing this, we remember that the universe itself is a particular, and so also needs a reason for it being so constituted.

Aren't you going in a circle here?

Further, in order to organise the entire universe, which is of maximum complexity by definition, this reason needs to embody maximum intelligence.

I don't know of any definition of the universe or complexity that states that the universe is of maximum complexity. Furthermore, complexity doesn't necessarily require intelligence.

 

[CplFerro]

Taffer,

The universe presents itself as being a particular way, the sum of its contents. We can indeed imagine other particular ways for it to be, by changing the selection and arrangement of its contents. That the universe displays a particular way, means there must be a reason for it to be that way, and not another, just like any other thing that is so particular.

jan,


::::::::::How do you know this? We only discussed that some people proposed that nothingness is incoherent, but we never solved the question why something exists.

::::::::::By the way, the expression "existence exists" is highly misleading.

1. Yes, that nothingness is incoherent demonstrates the necessity of being. Further since irrational causes are also incoherent, we have the Principle of Sufficient Reason, in other words everything needs a reason for being the way it is and not another way (including, as I mentioned above, the entire arrangement of the universe, which could be imagined to be arranged differently).

::::::::::How can one principle be good to another principle? How can a principle "seek" something? What are you talking about?

::::::::::It seems quite obvious to me that our world is indeed callous. There are presumably billions and billions of dead, uninhabited planets. There is only one planet we know to be inhabited. On this planet, life is a constant struggle for survival, including killing and eating other beings.How can you suggest that this world is inherently good? The only good that there is is the good we humans do.


2. Kepler described the orbital system as having an “intention,” as we also see with Fermat’s least-time principle of light, where light seeks out the shorted-time path through any medium or set of mediums. A principle is an idea, a truth, a reason, an intention that the universe have to do a certain thing under certain circumstances, similar to how you or I have such intentions. Our intentions, though, are much clearer, while those of the inanimate world are closer to opaque - I don’t imagine light ponders its own intention much, for instance, it simply purely intends or seeks without consideration.

That the present state of affairs is not absolutely good does not indicate that the overall reason for these affairs being allowed to exist is not good, even maximally good. With the universe existing necessarily, the Good reason would seek to rationalise the best possible universe, emphasis on “possible.” The present universe with its share of suffering must be the best possible one, with the others being inferior for either leading to more suffering, or lacking the potential for man to exist. Thus, although I agree most of the universe is indeed as callous toward suffering as most humans are to each other’s, the reason for the universe existing particularly per se is not callous. The good that humans can do is a function of this Good reason; it, as maximally good and maximally rational, is the highest ideal to which we could aspire.

::::::::::Why? [is intelligence required to perfect the universe]

3. For something maximally good and reasonable, to order the universe, is to order a universe of relatively less goodness and reasonableness. Each thing exists for a reason, but those things taken together form a system that does not and never could equal maximum good and reason. In other words the world is imperfect. Correcting that imperfection cannot be done directly by the Good reason, because that would make it at cross-purposes – it cannot at once order an imperfect universe and also order a perfect one. The best possible solution is to evolve one or more cognitive species that are capable of embodying the maximal ideal of love and cognition, who will inevitably transform the universe.

::::::::::I don't think the term "love" is appropriate to describe the great majority of all acts of creating new life.

4. By creative love I don’t mean the rutting passion or the vegetable fruiting, I mean what the successful scientist feels for his discoveries, and the classical artist for his art – cognitive love, agapic love.

::::::::::But you just equaled the neutral with the bad, so this conclusion doesn't work any more.

5. Yes, ultimately to have anything other than maximal Good organising the universe is unacceptable. Anything else would lack the creative love to organise the best possible (most reasonable) universe.

::::::::::As far as I see, (1) is unproven, (2) is unproven, (3) had an attempt of proving, but is still unproven.

6. See 1.

::::::::::Even if I would concede that the universe in general has a reason, how does this boil down to single objects?

7. Again, for a thing to exist it must have a reason, for without a reason, its existence is inexplicable, irrational, inconceivable, and so forth. However, since a given thing exists not alone but as part of the universe, which already has the maximally good reason for being so arranged, that given thing’s ultimate reason for being, is also the maximally good reason just mentioned. In other words, any object’s behaviour is primarily governed by its relationship with the universe as a whole, and only secondarily in terms of other objects.

::::::::::Aren't you going in a circle here?

8. The matter can be argued in any direction, but always with the necessity of absolute universal reason as the starting point.

::::::::::I don't know of any definition of the universe or complexity that states that the universe is of maximum complexity. Furthermore, complexity doesn't necessarily require intelligence.

9. The universe, being composed of everything, is the most complex thing possible, by definition. In other words, the maximum. Whether it gets more complex than before, or less, as time goes on, at any given point it remains maximally complex relative to all things. If we view the universe’s past, present, and future as a unity also, then we see how it is so maximal.

Intelligence is just another word for effective rationality. If mankind were to acquire the ultimate reason for the universe, we would become maximally intelligent. Even without our reaching that state, the ultimate reason remains the embodiment of maximum intelligence. The universe’s behaviour is governed primarily in relation to that ultimate reason, which orders things to the most reasonable degree – in other words, as if possessed of maximum creative intelligence. I don’t think this means we can have a conversation with it, any more than we can converse with a beam of light, but there we are.

 

[Taffer]

We can indeed imagine other particular ways for it to be, by changing the selection and arrangement of its contents.

Er, not really. Can you imagine anything other then our universe? Nope.

That the universe displays a particular way, means there must be a reason for it to be that way, and not another, just like any other thing that is so particular.

Yes. But as I've said time and time again, we can never know this reason. I will attempt to prove this to you.

A) To know this reason is to know other possible outcomes of the way the universe could be.
B) To know these outcomes is to step outside our own universe and look at it compared to another.
C) Since we are of this universe (like the computer program in my original analogy), we can never do this.
Ergo D) we can never know the reason our universe exists. QED.

 

[CplFerro]

Er, not really. Can you imagine anything other then our universe? Nope.

Easily. I imagine our solar system having a binary star.

Yes. But as I've said time and time again, we can never know this reason. I will attempt to prove this to you.

A) To know this reason is to know other possible outcomes of the way the universe could be.
B) To know these outcomes is to step outside our own universe and look at it compared to another.
C) Since we are of this universe (like the computer program in my original analogy), we can never do this.
Ergo D) we can never know the reason our universe exists. QED.

I would agree that to know the reason for the entire arrangement of the universe as we see it, would require maximum knowledge, which is beyond us. That is different from knowing there is a reason, which is already demonstrated.

(An analogy is the Dirichlet principle which I have heard can be used to predict the existence of a reason for a given system, allowing us to know it exists even before we know it. In my own case this is ironic because I know of the Dirichlet principle without personally knowing it. The universal reason is similar, except with the caveat that it is beyond our reach, in principle, just as a polygon can never become a circle by increasing its number of sides. It can get very close, but can never cross the infinitesimally small gap between an infinite polygon and true circularity.)

 

[jan]

The universe presents itself as being a particular way, the sum of its contents. We can indeed imagine other particular ways for it to be, by changing the selection and arrangement of its contents. That the universe displays a particular way, means there must be a reason for it to be that way, and not another, just like any other thing that is so particular.

Doesn't follow. Three out of the four solutions I presented in my first post do not require that the universe has to have a reason to be how it is; the last one of them even strongly denies that there can be such a reason.

How do you know this? We only discussed that some people proposed that nothingness is incoherent, but we never solved the question why something exists.

Yes, that nothingness is incoherent demonstrates the necessity of being.

I only said that some people proposed such a statement. In no way is it established that nothingness is incoherent.

Further since irrational causes are also incoherent, we have the Principle of Sufficient Reason, in other words everything needs a reason for being the way it is and not another way (including, as I mentioned above, the entire arrangement of the universe, which could be imagined to be arranged differently).

Once again, it does not have to be this way. See the "everything possible exists" model above.

Kepler described the orbital system as having an “intention,” ...

...and he also believed in astrology. So what? Are you trying to establish an appeal to authority?

...as we also see with Fermat’s least-time principle of light, where light seeks out the shorted-time path through any medium or set of mediums.

That's not goodness, that's just a minimum principle. By the way, if I recall correctly, there are quantum mechanical explanations of this minimum principle of light paths.

A principle is an idea, a truth, a reason, an intention that the universe have to do a certain thing under certain circumstances, similar to how you or I have such intentions.

So you are saying principle = idea = truth = reason = intention. I used to think that principles are abstract entities, that is, they are not affected by time. Intentions, on the other hand, always refer to time, since they refer to the future. I don't see how this can work.

Our intentions, though, are much clearer, while those of the inanimate world are closer to opaque - I don’t imagine light ponders its own intention much, for instance, it simply purely intends or seeks without consideration.

You claim that it is sensible to attribute an intention to a light beam. I don't see why this should be so; most of the time, it is possible to talk about light beams without referring to intentions. Furthermore, that doesn't establish your intentional good universal principle.

That the present state of affairs is not absolutely good does not indicate that the overall reason for these affairs being allowed to exist is not good, even maximally good.

Certainly not. But it is not hard to imagine a better universe. Which would make it dubious to assume that the reason why things are as they are (if there is any, see above) is maximally good.

With the universe existing necessarily, the Good reason would seek to rationalise the best possible universe, emphasis on “possible.” The present universe with its share of suffering must be the best possible one, with the others being inferior for either leading to more suffering, or lacking the potential for man to exist.

I suggest you read Voltaire's "Candid" to cure your idea that this universe is the best one possible.

And why is it good that man exists?

Thus, although I agree most of the universe is indeed as callous toward suffering as most humans are to each other’s,...

I never said that most of human interactions are callous.

...the reason for the universe existing particularly per se is not callous.

You seem to say: since our world contains some tiny, scattered possibilities of non-callous behavior, our world is the best that is possible.

For something maximally good and reasonable, to order the universe, is to order a universe of relatively less goodness and reasonableness.

How is this "ordering" supposed to work? Do you imagine the "good principle" as some kind of supernatural force magically violating the physical laws? Otherwise, how can the good principle make any difference?

Each thing exists for a reason, but those things taken together form a system that does not and never could equal maximum good and reason.

Why not? Why not have the good principle be the only thing existing?

In other words the world is imperfect.

Yes, I already noticed that...

Correcting that imperfection cannot be done directly by the Good reason, because that would make it at cross-purposes – it cannot at once order an imperfect universe and also order a perfect one.

You lost me here. Are you saying that the good principle created the perfect world, but it turned out that it is imperfect, and now the good principle can't perfect the world, since this would mean to admit an error?

The best possible solution is to evolve one or more cognitive species that are capable of embodying the maximal ideal of love and cognition, who will inevitably transform the universe.

Once again, how can the good principle evolve those species without violating Naturalism? And why and how will the cognitive species perfect the universe?

By creative love I don’t mean the rutting passion or the vegetable fruiting, I mean what the successful scientist feels for his discoveries, and the classical artist for his art – cognitive love, agapic love.

You said: "True acts of creation require love, because to create something is to give life to an object, whether it is an organism or an idea of art or science." So you not only referred to art and science, but also to "rutting passion" (italics mine).

Yes, ultimately to have anything other than maximal Good organising the universe is unacceptable. Anything else would lack the creative love to organise the best possible (most reasonable) universe.

"Unacceptable"? Do we have a choice? Maybe things just lack perfection.

Again, for a thing to exist it must have a reason, for without a reason, its existence is inexplicable, irrational, inconceivable, and so forth.

Again and again, I am waiting for evidence that this is true.

The universe, being composed of everything, is the most complex thing possible, by definition.

Since our world seems to be infinite, it is doubtful whether the concept of complexity is applicable at all. Given an appropriate definition, I have no problems to imagine a world more complex then ours. So our world is not the most complex possible (imagine, for example, an infinite world where each electron contains a tiny little infinite world)

Intelligence is just another word for effective rationality. If mankind were to acquire the ultimate reason for the universe, we would become maximally intelligent.

It seems to me your concept requires a special feature of the English language, that is, that the word "reason" confuses the distinct concepts of cause and intelligence.




Allow me some more general remarks.

I think the history of science shows the necessity to test our ideas. Some of the most certain theories have been shown to be wrong (there have been philosophers who tried to show that Newton's mechanic was not only empirical true, but necessarily true). But dealing with metaphysical ideas, we have no means to test them (otherwise, they wouldn't be metaphysical). Our chances to hit the right solution are negligable if we are unable to test our ideas.

You start your speculations based on the assertion that nothingness is incoherent; that may sound convincing (or it may not, depending on your audience), but it is just an assertion. You add to it a string of similar speculations, which may all sound convincing — for you. But how do you test these ideas? How do you test, say, the assumption that nothingness is impossible?