Everything

[Taffer]

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

Nope, I'm afraid this is just another possible to our solar system within our universe. You are imagining another way our solar system could be based on other possibles within the universe. I'm talking about different universes. Can you imagine a universe that is different to ours? Not a universe that appears different, for that is simply a re-working our our own universe, but a universe that is different. Of course you cant, because we have no basis to imagine a different universe.

 

[CplFerro]

Nope, I'm afraid this is just another possible to our solar system within our universe. You are imagining another way our solar system could be based on other possibles within the universe. I'm talking about different universes. Can you imagine a universe that is different to ours? Not a universe that appears different, for that is simply a re-working our our own universe, but a universe that is different. Of course you cant, because we have no basis to imagine a different universe.

I don't understand what you mean by "/is/ different". What is "isness" other than particular composition? Your requirement is nonsensical.

 

[CplFerro]

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?

There is no point in fanning out an array of Q&A without getting the basic idea down. That tendency of forum discussions to so form arrays is, in my experience, unfruitful.

The only question regarding reason here we need ask is whether the universe as a whole is reasonable or not. If it is not, then we, as part of the universe, cannot be reasonable either, and all is madness. If it is, then our reason is potentially valid, its validity subject to tests, the successful results of which form the history of scientific mastery of the universe. The assumption the universe is reasonable is necessary to properly reason at all, for those reasons. Otherwise we are assuming we are mad, which isn’t a good start for science.

Nothingness as an absolute, by definition means that nothing whatever would exist, not even reasonableness. From above, that which is unreasonable cannot exist in a universe containing a reasoning being, all being part of the same universe which must either be reasonable or not, but not both. To hold nothingness to be possible is thus to admit to one’s own madness.

I am not mad, therefore absolute nothingness cannot exist. I leave the burden of proof to others to convince me I am mad.

 

[Taffer]

I don't understand what you mean by "/is/ different". What is "isness" other than particular composition? Your requirement is nonsensical.

My requirement makes perfect sense, as does my conclusion that it cannot be met. When I say a "different universe", I am not talking about a different composition of our existing universe. Having our solar system as a Binary Star system does not change what our Universe is, it only changes what our universe contains. I am talking about a difference in in universe from the outside, so to speak, not the inside, which is what your difference is.

 

[CplFerro]

My requirement makes perfect sense, as does my conclusion that it cannot be met. When I say a "different universe", I am not talking about a different composition of our existing universe. Having our solar system as a Binary Star system does not change what our Universe is, it only changes what our universe contains. I am talking about a difference in in universe from the outside, so to speak, not the inside, which is what your difference is.

On the contrary, us being a binary system certainly changes what the universe is, for to have such an arrangement, a different set of universal laws would be required. Similarly if ice sunk in water, or Earth’s sky were yellow. Nothing is separable from the universe, everything is part of a single continuum. Change anything, even an infinitesimal part of that continuum, and you change the whole. There is no deeper meaning to the notion “change what something is” than this.

 

[Taffer]

On the contrary, us being a binary system certainly changes what the universe is, for to have such an arrangement, a different set of universal laws would be required. Similarly if ice sunk in water, or Earth’s sky were yellow. Nothing is separable from the universe, everything is part of a single continuum. Change anything, even an infinitesimal part of that continuum, and you change the whole. There is no deeper meaning to the notion “change what something is” than this.

Nonsense. These are all things thay you have imagined based on our universe. They are still possible within the laws of our universe, given a little tweaking of physical laws. But what if physical laws didn't exist? This, too, is not what I am talking about. Everything we can imagine is based entirely upon the laws of our universe. We cannot imagine new laws. Laws that do not exist in our universe. While we can imagine different configurations of electrons that make ice sink, this is still an imagining based only on our own universe. However, what I am talking about here is to imagine our universe being different. I.e. the essential fabric of our universe being different then that which it is. This is impossible, as too it is impossible trying to imagine colours that do not exist. We, as humans, can never experience other colours then that of the visible spectrum. Similarly, humans can not imagine any universe being different (in its make up/fabric) then our own.

 

[Humphreys]

There is no point in fanning out an array of Q&A without getting the basic idea down. That tendency of forum discussions to so form arrays is, in my experience, unfruitful.

The only question regarding reason here we need ask is whether the universe as a whole is reasonable or not. If it is not, then we, as part of the universe, cannot be reasonable either, and all is madness. If it is, then our reason is potentially valid, its validity subject to tests, the successful results of which form the history of scientific mastery of the universe. The assumption the universe is reasonable is necessary to properly reason at all, for those reasons. Otherwise we are assuming we are mad, which isn’t a good start for science.

Nothingness as an absolute, by definition means that nothing whatever would exist, not even reasonableness. From above, that which is unreasonable cannot exist in a universe containing a reasoning being, all being part of the same universe which must either be reasonable or not, but not both. To hold nothingness to be possible is thus to admit to one’s own madness.

I am not mad, therefore absolute nothingness cannot exist. I leave the burden of proof to others to convince me I am mad.

That's far too black and white a way of looking at things. Either we are perfectly reasonable, or we are mad? Either the Universe is perfectly reasonable, or it is pure chaos?

Where is the inbetween? Why can we not be in a process of evolution where our reasoning capabilities are currently very useful yet imperfect?

You say science cannot work if this is the case, but that's not so, and science admits our own fallibility.

 

[jan]

There is no point in fanning out an array of Q&A without getting the basic idea down. That tendency of forum discussions to so form arrays is, in my experience, unfruitful.

Sounds a bit like avoiding some of my questions. Couldn't answering questions help you to explain your ideas?

The only question regarding reason here we need ask is whether the universe as a whole is reasonable or not. If it is not, then we, as part of the universe, cannot be reasonable either, and all is madness.

And I repeat:

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.

It is imaginable that the world as a whole has a cause, but doesn't always follows rules. It is imaginable that it follows rules, but does not contain conscious inhabitants. On the other hand, it is possible to imagine that the world lacks a cause, but nevertheless contains conscious beings. It is hard to imagine a world without any laws at all. But it is sufficient that the world obeys at least occasionally laws to allow the possibility of intelligent inhabitants.

What does it mean when you say that "the universe as a whole is reasonable"? Does it mean that there can be given a reason that it is? That it is like it is? Are you aware about the ambiguity of "reason" in this context (intentional reason versus simple cause)? Could you restate your argument if you had to replace the word "reason" with either "cause" or "justification"? Note that other languages don't have a word can means both cause and justification.

Or do you think that the "universe as a whole" is intelligent?

Nothingness as an absolute, by definition means that nothing whatever would exist, not even reasonableness.

How about emptiness (=absence of things, presence of laws preserving the emptiness)?

I am not mad, therefore absolute nothingness cannot exist. I leave the burden of proof to others to convince me I am mad.

I don't have to show that you are mad if I can show that your conclusion is not valid.

 

[jan]

Nonsense. These are all things thay you have imagined based on our universe. They are still possible within the laws of our universe, given a little tweaking of physical laws. But what if physical laws didn't exist? This, too, is not what I am talking about. Everything we can imagine is based entirely upon the laws of our universe. We cannot imagine new laws. Laws that do not exist in our universe. While we can imagine different configurations of electrons that make ice sink, this is still an imagining based only on our own universe.

I am not certain what you are talking about. I think it is very easy to imagine new laws. How could there be sinking ice without a change of physical laws?

 

[CplFerro]

Taffer,

What is the “essential fabric of our universe”?

Humphreys,

There is no “in between”. If anything has genuinely irrational causes, everything does, because irrationality can have, by definition, no laws to govern it.

We as individuals may not always reason perfectly, but our ability to reason at all depends on the perfect rationality of the universe.

jan,

The essence is realising the philosophical mistake of admitting nothingness into the universe. Ever catch that film _The Neverending Story_, with “the Nothing” destroying fantasyland? It’s like that – a raging destroyer that unknits everything.

Mere sense-perceptual emptiness, like the vacuum of space containing no visible structures, is admissible. It may not be possible, but it doesn’t violate reason to imagine it, so far as we know. Who knows what forms the universe can take?

On “reason” as both faculty and cause: The universe, taken as a whole, past, present, and future, being the maximally complex thing knowable, is, being necessarily wholly rational in its makeup, effectively the embodiment of maximum intelligence. Nothing humans could design using their faculty of reason, could be more complex, more intelligently designed, than the universe itself.

Is the universe conscious? Or, rather, is the rationale for the universe conscious? I don’t know. I’m not sure it needs to be.

 

[Taffer]

I am not certain what you are talking about. I think it is very easy to imagine new laws. How could there be sinking ice without a change of physical laws?

But these new physical laws are only based on what we know about our own universe. This is not what I am talking about. Let me explain with an analogy.

Imagine that we are computer programs running in a very large computer generated virtual reality. This VR consists of the entire universe. Now imagine that you and I start thinking about the nature of the universe, which is to say the nature of the universe as we observe it. You can say "but I can imagine a different universe, because I can imagine different physical laws", but I would respond "this is not a different universe, nor are they new physical laws". I'll explain further. A computer program inside a computer generated VR can not, but its very nature, exist outside the computer. We can assume that we are the same; we are unable to exist outside the universe. This includes any way of gaining knowledge about what is outside the universe. Now the computer programs do not know that they are, in fact, living inside a computer VR. So they are unable to imagine a different universe. What I am talking about when I say a "different universe" is this: a different universe to these programs inside the VR would be that they are actually living inside our 'real' universe; they are no longer a program and are flesh and blood humans. However they can never imagine this as they do not know they are inside a computer to begin with.

Now lets think about us. Let us assume, for the moment, that there is something outside our universe. However, just like the computer programs, we cannot know the nature of this. Thus any 'new universe' we try to imagine is just an extrapolation of our old universe; it is not different in any significant way. New physical laws are not really new, they are just what we get when we imagine away our current laws. But what about new laws? For all we know, what exists outside our universe is another universe with entirely different physical laws, but it is impossible to imagine them.

Originally posted by CplFerro
What is the “essential fabric of our universe”?

That which makes up our universe. What our universe is. In the VR analogy, it would be that the universe is a simulation inside a computer. So the 'fabric' could be many things; the code running the program, the computer running the code, the people running the computer. Which of these it is need not be deduced, as you should get the idea.

 

[CplFerro]

The universe is by definition everything that exists. Your VR argument is invalid on that count, that it pretends that the computer is not part of the VR universe, which it is.

Second, with your reasoning you have really just restated an ancient idea known as gnosticism: that the sensual universe is in fact created and controlled by something "upstairs" or "underneath the floorboards of reality". This is the origin of such doctrines as Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, along with modern concepts of AI and logical positivism. As with those doctrines, that you move to compare the universe to a computer program, ontologically, demonstrates you do not think true creative reason is possible. In such a "videogame" universe it would indeed be impossible to know anything at all, and I would have to concede your point.

At this point, then, I'm stuck. I know enough to convince me that creative reason exists, but I don't think I know enough yet to be able to convince you that this is so. I could only point you in the right direction. That is the real block to your understanding of my argument. It must be my faith in creative reason that allows me to accept what appears to me to be a staggeringly simple logical argument - so simple that for others to doubt it causes me to doubt my own sanity. My mistake was in believing in my common sense, which tells me that anyone presented with the straightforward implications of pure chaos would immediately agree. Thus, the prosecution of pure chaos rests.

 

[Taffer]

The universe is by definition everything that exists. Your VR argument is invalid on that count, that it pretends that the computer is not part of the VR universe, which it is.

*sigh*. The known universe only includes things within the 'universe'. As we have no basis of telling where the universe ends (just as a program in a VR simulation cannot tell where the VR ends, as by definition, it can only ever know the VR simulation), we can not consider that which makes up the universe. This is a hard concept to grasp. The universe, by definition, consists of everything we can measure/find/know about it. A program in a VR simulation cannot consider the computer as a part of the VR universe because it cannot measure/find/know this in any way. To know that their universe is a simulation, is to compare their universe to the 'outside' universe (or another universe). Since this cannot be done, they can only consider things within their universe that they can measure/find/know. The same goes for us. My VR argument is not invalid. You have misunderstood my argument. Of course, to us, the computer is part of the VR universe, but to the programs residing within, it is not. Why? Because they can never know its existance. Because, like I said before, to know its existance is to step ourside their universe (in this case the VR program), which is impossible.

Second, with your reasoning you have really just restated an ancient idea known as gnosticism: that the sensual universe is in fact created and controlled by something "upstairs" or "underneath the floorboards of reality". This is the origin of such doctrines as Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, along with modern concepts of AI and logical positivism. As with those doctrines, that you move to compare the universe to a computer program, ontologically, demonstrates you do not think true creative reason is possible. In such a "videogame" universe it would indeed be impossible to know anything at all, and I would have to concede your point.

As far as I can see, I have in no way shown that my idea of a universe requires a universal controller. When I give my VR analogy, I chose that scenario for simplicity. My theory does not require there to be anything outside the universe at all. In fact, it does not try to explain that which is outside. It simply tries to demonstrate why it is impossible to ever know why the universe exists, or why anything exists for that matter, as this rests on a comparison, which is impossible. I'm afraid I do not quite follow your "true creative reason" comment. I believe that you mean to tell me that I think that no one has free will, and that everything is controlled by something outside the universe (the universal controller). If this is the case, then you have misunderstood my argument. While I do happen to think that free will is an illusion, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. However, I cannot respond to this until you explain it to me further. As to the last comment, again I must explain that I do not think the universe is as in the VR analogy. I simply used it to explain why we cannot know what is outside, not because I actually think the universe is like that. The idea is the same, the details are not.

At this point, then, I'm stuck. I know enough to convince me that creative reason exists, but I don't think I know enough yet to be able to convince you that this is so. I could only point you in the right direction. That is the real block to your understanding of my argument. It must be my faith in creative reason that allows me to accept what appears to me to be a staggeringly simple logical argument - so simple that for others to doubt it causes me to doubt my own sanity. My mistake was in believing in my common sense, which tells me that anyone presented with the straightforward implications of pure chaos would immediately agree. Thus, the prosecution of pure chaos rests.

Again, I must admit my ignorance here. Please explain this creative reason.

 

[jan]

But these new physical laws are only based on what we know about our own universe. This is not what I am talking about. Let me explain with an analogy.

I would prefer if you could explain it with not yet another analogy, but let's try and see...

Imagine that we are computer programs running in a very large computer generated virtual reality. This VR consists of the entire universe.

Since this terminology caused some trouble between you and CplFerro: what you call "universe", I call "world", reserving the term "universe" for the totality of everything that exists, that is, the sum of all world. So I would say: "Imagine that our world is just a VR within a computer simulation hosted in a computer in a superworld". But this is just a question of terminology, that is, not something very important.

Now imagine that you and I start thinking about the nature of the universe, which is to say the nature of the universe as we observe it. You can say "but I can imagine a different universe, because I can imagine different physical laws", but I would respond "this is not a different universe, nor are they new physical laws". I'll explain further. A computer program inside a computer generated VR can not, but its very nature, exist outside the computer.

It seems to me you are confusing "modeling" and "creating". I can model a world that is outside our world. I just can't create it, per definition, since I can't do anything outside our world, since if I could, this "outside" would be part of our world.

We can assume that we are the same; we are unable to exist outside the universe. This includes any way of gaining knowledge about what is outside the universe.

No, it doesn't include this. We are, per definition, unable to exist outside our world, but that doesn't mean that we are unable to get knowledge about what is outside our world. Assume we would stumble upon some data within our virtual world that says "PentiumIII". That would allow us to learn something about the superworld our world is part of, namely, that our world is running on a certain type of machine.

Now the computer programs do not know that they are, in fact, living inside a computer VR.

In your example, maybe. But not necessarily so. And even if they do not know, they may consider it. Like we are considering this possibility. And they can still model different worlds. Those models of alternative worlds would be, of course, still subprocesses within the VR, but they would be possible.

So they are unable to imagine a different universe. What I am talking about when I say a "different universe" is this: a different universe to these programs inside the VR would be that they are actually living inside our 'real' universe; they are no longer a program and are flesh and blood humans. However they can never imagine this as they do not know they are inside a computer to begin with.

They can never be outside the box. But they can imagine it.

Assume the people inside the VR built their own virtual computer that runs its own virtual virtual reality, containing its own inhabitants. And this virtual virtual world would contain another computer, simulating a whole world with all details. And so on and so on, infinitely (that would require an infinite computer, but such a world wouldn't be impossible).

I furthermore assume that all those virtualⁿ realities are completely identical. Or, another alternative version, follow identical physical laws. Or, a third alternative, follow different laws.

In any such a world, it would be extremely surprising if the inhabitants of the basic VR, looking at an infinite chain of increasingly virtual worlds, would never ever imagine that they are living in a VR.

They might even argue that the rule of parsimony allow them to infer that they are living in a virtual world, and that the chain of virtual worlds contained within each other expands in both directions: that is, not only does every world includes another world, every world is also included in another world.

Otherwise, they would have to assume the existence of a world that is the "uppermost" world. Since they never observed such a world, Occam's law forbids them to assume that such a world exists.

Therefore, they conclude, they know that their world is just a virtual reality.

Now lets think about us. Let us assume, for the moment, that there is something outside our universe. However, just like the computer programs, we cannot know the nature of this. Thus any 'new universe' we try to imagine is just an extrapolation of our old universe; it is not different in any significant way.

It seems to me that you agree that we can imagine different physical laws. But they wouldn't be, according to you, "different in any significant way". To me, that seems to be a completely arbitrary label.

New physical laws are not really new, they are just what we get when we imagine away our current laws. But what about new laws? For all we know, what exists outside our universe is another universe with entirely different physical laws, but it is impossible to imagine them.

And once again, you seem to say that we can't imagine new laws. I, on the other hand, would say that the really difficult part is not to imagine new laws. Aristotle's or Newton imagined laws different from the laws of our world.

 

[jan]

There is no “in between”. If anything has genuinely irrational causes, everything does, because irrationality can have, by definition, no laws to govern it.

How about statistical laws? Quantum Mechanics?

We as individuals may not always reason perfectly, but our ability to reason at all depends on the perfect rationality of the universe.

How about statistical laws? Quantum Mechanics?

Yes, I start repeating myself; it could be avoided if you would try to address some of my more urgent questions.

The essence is realising the philosophical mistake of admitting nothingness into the universe. Ever catch that film _The Neverending Story_, with “the Nothing” destroying fantasyland? It’s like that – a raging destroyer that unknits everything.

I read the book. I don't think it's the best Ende has ever written; "Jim Knopf" and "Spiegel im Spiegel" are far better.

That's even worse than Taffer's analogy — it's just a simile.

To repeat it another time once again: the "Everything Possible Exists" model is a model that allows for a world that has properties that are without a reason. Perhaps it would be helpful to explain why "the essence" of your argument excludes such a possibility.

Mere sense-perceptual emptiness, like the vacuum of space containing no visible structures, is admissible. It may not be possible, but it doesn’t violate reason to imagine it, so far as we know. Who knows what forms the universe can take?

I was not thinking about a vacuum (space without anything in it), but a more ambitious absence.

The status of logical and mathematical laws is not completely clear, but many people seem to agree that they exist necessarily. We then have to distinguish between logical and physical laws. If we accept this distinction, the most empty emptiness would be one without space, physical laws or anything like that, but logical laws and mathematical truths would still exist. It would be a kind of nothingness that can't be called completely irrational.

On “reason” as both faculty and cause: The universe, taken as a whole, past, present, and future, being the maximally complex thing knowable, is, being necessarily wholly rational in its makeup, effectively the embodiment of maximum intelligence.

I addressed your conception of "maximally complex" in a previous post. I will not repeat it again — my post has become repetitious enough. I will just repeat that neither is your premise plausible, nor your conclusion valid.

 

[Taffer]

I would prefer if you could explain it with not yet another analogy, but let's try and see...

I use analogies because I seem unable to explain my position so certain people understand it otherwise. Please forgive me if you do not like this.

Since this terminology caused some trouble between you and CplFerro: what you call "universe", I call "world", reserving the term "universe" for the totality of everything that exists, that is, the sum of all world. So I would say: "Imagine that our world is just a VR within a computer simulation hosted in a computer in a superworld". But this is just a question of terminology, that is, not something very important.

As you say, this is just a question of terminology. I refrain from giving a name to that which is outside the universe, as I believe we can never know it in any way.

It seems to me you are confusing "modeling" and "creating". I can model a world that is outside our world. I just can't create it, per definition, since I can't do anything outside our world, since if I could, this "outside" would be part of our world.

I do not see how this matters, nor do I understand the difference. Sure, you can model things on the 'ouside unvierse', but it wouldn't be accurate. Perhaps you'll need to explain this further.

No, it doesn't include this. We are, per definition, unable to exist outside our world, but that doesn't mean that we are unable to get knowledge about what is outside our world. Assume we would stumble upon some data within our virtual world that says "PentiumIII". That would allow us to learn something about the superworld our world is part of, namely, that our world is running on a certain type of machine.

We can only ever assume things about the "outside world". Sure, the programs could find a sign that says "Intel Inside", but it won't mean anything. They might assume, based on this information, that they are inside a giant universe called "Pentium", or they might not. Even if they (correctly) assume that they are inside a computer simulation, since they have no way of verifying this, I would argue that this information is about as useless as ID.

In your example, maybe. But not necessarily so. And even if they do not know, they may consider it. Like we are considering this possibility. And they can still model different worlds. Those models of alternative worlds would be, of course, still subprocesses within the VR, but they would be possible.

Now I understand you're 'model'. However, I argue that these models are not, in fact, true models of a different universe. They are simply extrapolations of what their own universe could be. You seem to confuse a different configuration of our universe as a different universe. I do believe it to be so.

They can never be outside the box. But they can imagine it.

I do not think so, but even if I grant you this point, it makes no difference. The topic at hand is to answer the question given by yourself. Imagining does not help us answer this question, as it gives us no grounds for formulating an answer other then what we think is ouside the universe.

Assume the people inside the VR built their own virtual computer that runs its own virtual virtual reality, containing its own inhabitants. And this virtual virtual world would contain another computer, simulating a whole world with all details. And so on and so on, infinitely (that would require an infinite computer, but such a world wouldn't be impossible).

I furthermore assume that all those virtualⁿ realities are completely identical. Or, another alternative version, follow identical physical laws. Or, a third alternative, follow different laws.

In any such a world, it would be extremely surprising if the inhabitants of the basic VR, looking at an infinite chain of increasingly virtual worlds, would never ever imagine that they are living in a VR.

They might even argue that the rule of parsimony allow them to infer that they are living in a virtual world, and that the chain of virtual worlds contained within each other expands in both directions: that is, not only does every world includes another world, every world is also included in another world.

Ok, I agree that in this example they could infer that they are, too, inside a VR world. This does not equal knowledge (in my opinion). Scientific method allows for inferance only if it can be backed up. The argument "all the other ones are like this, so we must be too" does not hold much water for me. Us, as the observers of all this, know that their assumption is only partially correct. Their universe is a VR, but the next is not (we are assuming god like knowledge here). Our argument really is a difference in opinion over what we call knowledge, as this demonstrates.

Otherwise, they would have to assume the existence of a world that is the "uppermost" world. Since they never observed such a world, Occam's law forbids them to assume that such a world exists.

Making the inferance that their world is a VR, but the upper one, is still making an assumption. Their only correct assumption that they could make based on the evidence is that their world is not a VR world.

Therefore, they conclude, they know that their world is just a virtual reality.

Not at all. They might think it is likely, but they have no proof that this is the case. In which case, as I said earlier, this assumption is as good as the ID argument. In my opinion.

It seems to me that you agree that we can imagine different physical laws. But they wouldn't be, according to you, "different in any significant way". To me, that seems to be a completely arbitrary label.

No, we cannot imagine any different laws. I put forward that to be different, they are not simply a reworking of existing laws, but are actually different. I also put forward that it is impossible to try to imagine this, because all our knowledge, and thus our imagination, is based on the laws of this universe. Sinking ice is not a different law, but just a reworking of an existing law. I do not consider this difference arbitrary.

And once again, you seem to say that we can't imagine new laws. I, on the other hand, would say that the really difficult part is not to imagine new laws. Aristotle's or Newton imagined laws different from the laws of our world. [/B]

But they were still based on our own observations (i.e laws) of this universe. This may just come down to personal beliefs, but I do not consider these two things the same. You may label the difference arbitrary, but I do not.

 

[CplFerro]

Taffer,

I’ll describe creative reason in brief, but I’m not defending it. As with any principle, you’ll have to satisfy yourself as to its existence. Without it, nothing I say will get you out of the principle-agnostic conviction that you live in an Aristotelian universe of pure sense-perception, controlled by invisible, unknowable powers (whatever form they may take). As Aristotle said, "the infinite [final cause] considered as such is unknown,"

The opposite of this is a universe man is capable of knowing. The sensory things are reflections of the true, invisible reality, which is a network of invisible intentions or principles, the interaction of which produce the empirical world.

“In Plato's terms, true scientific knowledge comes from a process of hypothesis; when an existing state of knowledge is contradicted by newly discovered phenomena, an hypothesis based on this higher conception of the order of creation (Plato's Ideas) would provide the basis for advancing the state of knowledge as a whole, affecting the entire range of human knowledge, beyond the specific phenomena investigated.”

The best overall scientific introduction I know of is the book “The Science of Christian Economy” by Lyndon LaRouche, specifically the first essay entitled “In Defense of Common Sense” which gives the world’s most complicated definition of the term “common sense.” Its main emphasis is to get the mind thinking in terms of singularities and continuums instead of the discrete matter of sense-perceptions. LaRouche has written plenty more about the subject in his various essays, chiefly tying the matter into the historical development of humanity.

Overall, creative reason traces from Plato to the Renaissance and on to various later thinkers like Leibniz, whose “Monadology” is the first relatively in-depth, scientifically-associated treatment of the notion of panpsychism – that nothing is “dead” in the universe, but rather everything has an “intention,” “inside,” or “spirit” which he termed “monad”. This is subject of course to illusion: the two trees we see beyond the hill may be revealed to be a single forking tree upon cresting the hill, and so forth. Thus the process of science is the discovery of specific monads or universal physical principles. Beyond Leibniz are mathematicians like Gauss and Riemann who were dealing with the same essential thing when they dared to address the “complex domain” of things like the square root of negative one, and such.

Reason is thus neither agnosticism, where we can never know the infinite, nor gnosticism, where we can achieve knowledge through unintelligible magic. Rather it is the notion that man’s mind is made in the image of the Absolute, whatever its name, and can thereby know anything there is to know.

There’s more but you probably get the general idea.

jan,

Quantum mechanics are simply half-baked. Chaos cannot be controlled, by definition. A truly random, chaotic, irrational particle would have, by definition, no rules governing its size, trajectory, composition, sphere of influence, velocity, reproductive ability, or anything else. Therefore it could be anywhere, do anything, on any timescale. That’s another way of saying “Anything is possible, for no reason” which means the entire universe is chaotic, random, and irrational. The Nothing cannot be tamed. The Chaotic cannot be ordered. The Rulesless cannot be ruled. Quantum physicists who don’t realise this are simply fools who aren’t competent enough (or well-funded enough, to be fair) to dig deeper for the fundamental principles subsuming the various paradoxes that their investigations produce.

“Everything Possible Exists” comes from Parmenides, who held it as the only rational model of the universe. By possible he also meant conceivable. I don’t dispute this. The preamble is the same (that the universe exists necessarily), and a reason is given for the specific arrangement we note the universe to be in (that the inconceivable cannot exist, and the conceivable cannot not exist). That’s fine. In his terms,

"Whatever can be spoken or thought of necessarily is, since it is possible for it to be, but it is not possible for nothing to be." [fragment 6]

On “a more ambitious absence,” I would have to agree with Parmenides, that logical and physical laws that exist are all necessary, whether or not we can work out their logical necessity on the blackboard. I see what you’re saying about a logical/mathematical, but physically empty universe, and would allow for it if I could see a way for the conceivable to not exist, but I cannot. In that I must break with Leibniz, and with free will doctrines in general. There appears to be one possible universe.

 

[Taffer]

CplFerro:

Thank you for that explanation. I'll reply to it generally rather then specifically. I do not "live in an Aristotelian universe of pure sense-perception, controlled by invisible, unknowable powers". My belief on knowledge is a true skeptic. Nothing can be known for certain, as everything we know is based on unreliable sense perception, including this statement. However, we can 'know' things as well as is possible. For example, scientific facts are 'known', but could be wrong. This does not mean certain knowledge, as this is impossible. Additionally, certain knowledge makes the assumption that there is a certain 'state' of things. For example, it assumes that when we say we know for certain that the sun is hot, there is a 'state' of the sun that is either hot or not. In other words, it assumes that there are, in fact, facts to actually know. This is way, I am in no means a Dogmatist. If I am understanding your explanation of creative reason correctly, then I do not accept it. There is no way to know anything for certain. Ever. End of story. No matter how you argue it, it will lead to an infinite regress. No matter how you argue it, it will lead back to observation, which is inaccurate. So no, I do not accept creative reason. However, this thread is not talking about epistemology. It is talking about if we can know why our universe exists. For the sake of argument, I have ignored my skepticism, and engaged in a discussion making the assumption that true knowledge is possible. From this standpoint, I have argued my view that, even if this knowledge is possible, it is impossible to know (if you follow). If my arguements have not convinced you, I guess we must agree to disagree, as I do not think I can explain myself any more clearly then I have. I'll state my position a final time. Feel free to comment you what your problem is.

a) To know why something exists, we must be able to make a comparison between its existance and its non-existance.
b) We can never leave our universe, as we are both inside and a part of the 'system'.
c) To know the universes state of 'non-existance', we must observe something that is outside our universe (as, by definition, our universe exists until its boundry)
Therefore d) We can never know why the universe exists.

 

[Humphreys]

Quantum mechanics are simply half-baked. Chaos cannot be controlled, by definition. A truly random, chaotic, irrational particle would have, by definition, no rules governing its size, trajectory, composition, sphere of influence, velocity, reproductive ability, or anything else. Therefore it could be anywhere, do anything, on any timescale.

You're still thinking too black and white. There ARE inbetweens.

For example, the result of a roll of a dice is random, but also controlled because the result must be 1-6.

The Universe could be mostly rational, but allowing irrational behaviour aswell. It could be MOSTLY reasonable.

Take cause and effect for example. What if 99% of effects have causes, but 1% occur uncaused, irrationally? Is that a possibility?

If not, why not?

 

[Humphreys]

Humphreys,

There is no “in between”. If anything has genuinely irrational causes, everything does, because irrationality can have, by definition, no laws to govern it.

Nonsense.

What if there exists a Parallel Universe where sandwiches pop out of thin air uncaused, for no reason? These sandwiches are always ham sandwiches though, and they always pop up in England.

Are these sandwiches wholly rational, or wholly irrational?

This Universe acts perfectly reasonably apart from this, and can be investigated logically.

Is this a perfectly rational, reasonable Universe, or a completely irrational, unreasonable Universe?

I think it's inbetween.