Sabine Hossenfelder argues that the multiverse is “no better than God”

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 1, 2021

Intelligent Design, Multiverse, theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s not just theists who have problems with the multiverse. Sabine Hossenfelder explains her reservations.
The Big Conversation is a video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the religious and non-religious community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with John Templeton Foundation.
Luke Barnes, “The Multiverse is no better than God” at The Big Conversation (July 31, 2021)

Here’s the full version, with over 2700 comments:

Many physicists have pointed out the extraordinary ‘fine tuning’ of the physical laws of the universe that have allowed life to develop within the cosmos.
Luke Barnes believes it gives evidence for a designer behind the cosmos, whereas Sabine Hossenfelder disagrees, questioning whether we can even speak of ‘fine tuning’ as a phenomenon.
Luke Barnes, “The fine tuning of the Universe: Was the cosmos made for us?” at The Big Conversation (July 31, 2021)

See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Is math real? Hossenfelder: The physicists who believe in this argue that unobservable universes are real because they are in their math. But just because you have math for something doesn’t mean it’s real. You can just assume it’s real, but this is unnecessary to describe what we observe and therefore unscientific.

Comments

AD: Here's a question for you. What's the point of God creating an entirely different realm of existence - the material/physical world; imbuing it with one kind of transferrable information; creating a translation protocol to turn that that information into electro-chemical representations, then creating a transmission and translation system from that into our conscious awareness, and fine-tuning our conscious awareness to turn that into the sensory product we experience, the experiences he wanted us to have (seeing bananas as yellow, the smell of sulphur, the feel of bark on a tree, the flavor of food, etc.), when God could just put those mutual, physical-world experiences directly into our experience as we go about our lives? What would be different? We'd experience all the same things. We'd have all the same choices. What'd the point of taking what God had designed in his Mind for us to experience, instantiating a preliminary form of information into physical form with informational commodities, linking it through two sets of receivers and translators, only to get the same thing, at the experience end, as if He just directly fed what He had in mind into our mind as experience? Why go through all that apparently unnecessary trouble to put what was in His mind for our common world of experience into our mind as our common world of experience? Why not just do it directly?William J Murray_{August 13, 2021
August
08
Aug
13
13
2021
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

AD
Our eternal destiny is not non-physical. It is physical, and immortal, imperishable, incorruptible. Life after life after death, as NT Wright is wont to say.
True but it is a different kind of physical. As explained, Jesus' resurrected body has a different character than what we consider "physical" bodies today. However, many of the Christian saints, while living, manifested these characteristics in their bodies (bi-location, levitation, etc). So, what we consider "physical" is actually a limited perspective of what really exists. At the same time, there is something more than just "mind". There are bodies. Jesus made that clear. A body was given him by the Father - for the incarnation, and so He could offer His body in sacrifice.Silver Asiatic_{August 13, 2021
August
08
Aug
13
13
2021
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

WJM
I’m not here to defend Kastrup’s version of MRT. I linked to that website to show Jerry that people do actually believe in it.
Fair enough. His is one example of MRT. We can see the flaws with it.
For example, what does he mean by “evolutionary?” I don’t see how he can make that word work for his theory from any context, but I haven’t finished the video series yet.
Agreed. He's using materialism to prove that there is no material world. Supposedly, evolution shaped our brain so that we do not see reality. But evolution should not even exist in that world. It's self-refuting contradiction. I cannot see how MRT could be anything but that, except for someone to say "everything is an illusion, including Darwinian evolution, but the illusion makes our brains believe things, even though we don't have brains". Anything can be justified this way, including contradictions to logic. It's all just "information" coming from somewhere in one universal mind, that makes it seem like people exist.
The only new thing now is that we have 100 years of scientific evidence that some form of MRT is true.
You're assuming that from an MRT perspective we can trust the science, and that the science provides metaphysical proofs, and that the science interprets itself. None of that is necessarily true and as I see it - it is all false.
Nobody knows how “what we see” is actually produced in personal qualia, because those qualities cannot be found in the electro-chemical processes or the physical brain.
Let's start there. It goes beyond "nobody knows what we see". The fact is, nobody knows "what seeing is". So, to claim that since "qualia cannot be found in the physical brain" that the physical world does not exist is speculative at best. Science does not demand that conclusion.
At best what exists “out there” are electromagnetic fields and states that interact with the electromagnetic fields and states of of our bodies, or chemicals interacting with other chemicals at the molecular level. There is no “yellowness” to those things. No flavor in them. No sound in them, in and of themselves.
This is contradictory. You're analyzing things "out there" by saying there is no yellow in them, but then saying there "is no out there". I disagree that "yellowness" does not exist. Science cannot tell us what reality is. If we are never observing anything "out there" then science has nothing to say about it. So, we have the MRT world which cannot be validated, or we have intuition and common sense that tells us that "yellowness is real" and also "there is a lot more to reality than can be understood by science". The common sense view fits reality much better than MRT does. It is less contradictory. Even the idea that "we don't see things" or that "the external world does not enter our mind" is not provable by science. God can make our soul able to receive true images from the external world he created. This obviously cannot be validated by science.
There’s certainly none of that in the electrochemical properties of our brains.
You're assuming those are the only properties involved in seeing, knowing, thinking.
Where do these qualities come from, then?
They come from the immaterial nature and forms and substances of things, built into them by God. These are inaccessible to science and non-reducible to the physical matter of a brain.
They cannot be coming from what it is we are experiencing, because they do not have these qualities to provide – given the physicalist or dualist interpretation of these things.
In Thomistic hylomorphic dualism those things do, indeed, have the qualities that we experience. They are built in substance, nature and essence of things as they were created by God.Silver Asiatic_{August 13, 2021
August
08
Aug
13
13
2021
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Jerry you are clearly not capable of grasping the concept, even on a fundamental level. You’ve become a gadfly on the discussion. Why do you insist on remaining?AnimatedDust_{August 13, 2021
August
08
Aug
13
13
2021
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Can we stop all this nonsense. We are down to physical human bodies and how they react and process external stimuli. Very interesting but not a make believe world. Actually amazing design.jerry_{August 13, 2021
August
08
Aug
13
13
2021
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

The hard problem of consciousness, of the experience of qualia, is not just explaining the existence of consciousness, it's also about: where does qualia come from? What are qualia? As Kastrup explained fairly well, colors, taste, music ... none of this exists "out there." At best what exists "out there" are electromagnetic fields and states that interact with the electromagnetic fields and states of of our bodies, or chemicals interacting with other chemicals at the molecular level. There is no "yellowness" to those things. No flavor in them. No sound in them, in and of themselves. There's certainly none of that in the electrochemical properties of our brains. Where do these qualities come from, then? They cannot be coming from what it is we are experiencing, because they do not have these qualities to provide - given the physicalist or dualist interpretation of these things.William J Murray_{August 13, 2021
August
08
Aug
13
13
2021
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

I'm not here to defend Kastrup's version of MRT. I linked to that website to show Jerry that people do actually believe in it. I agree that Kastrup seems to be trying to present his case in a materialist and evolutionary manner, which compounds the difficulty he faces as he slips back and forth between perspectives. For example, what does he mean by "evolutionary?" I don't see how he can make that word work for his theory from any context, but I haven't finished the video series yet. Anyway, my point I think has been made about the fact that there are many people who do take MRTs seriously. Some form of MRT has been argued throughout the ages. The only new thing now is that we have 100 years of scientific evidence that some form of MRT is true. Jerry asks:
Why not answer the question and show why it is dumb?
Let me say this: when Jerry or KF or anybody says that what MRT is saying is that the physical world isn't real and that MRT says it is all a mental illusion, those statements are 100% true from their perspectives about what reality is. However, from the MRT perspective of what reality is, the physical world is still 100% real, the computer is 100% real, hunger is 100% real, our need for food is 100% real, etc, because MRT defines what reality is made of, and how it occurs, in fundamentally different terms. SA said:
But to do it, he is destroying human nature and destiny.
Perhaps your concept of human nature and destiny, but certainly not all versions of those things.
This is really the core idea. Supposedly, we are not seeing “light out there” but only the electrical responses in our brain.
We're not even seeing that. Nobody knows how "what we see" is actually produced in personal qualia, because those qualities cannot be found in the electro-chemical processes or the physical brain. You might find physical things that seem to correlate to those experiences of qualia, but they are not the qualia themselves. at best, like the electrical impulses that feed the TV, they represent the qualia, but where is the TV itself? There is no physical TV, there is only the person watching. What is the consciousness observing then? We don't see electro-chemical impulses. We don't see biological cells. We don't see the brain. Where's the TV?William J Murray_{August 13, 2021
August
08
Aug
13
13
2021
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

F/N: More from Dr Kastrup:
Just what is real? How do we define real? The world each one of us lives in is the subjective inner world of our own perceptions and experiences. If our reality is the experiences we go through in our lives, then a private, imaginary experience is just as real as an objective one shared with other individuals. The most obvious difference between these two categories seems to be the following: in a private, imaginary experience the story is unconstrained; on the other hand, in an objective experience the story is somehow synchronized across the individuals sharing the experience so they all witness the same thing. The mechanisms for such synchronization are what we call the laws of nature, or the laws of physics. Such laws provide seemingly external constraints that ensure all participants share a common, consistent experience we call reality. The mainstream scientific worldview adopted in our modern society informs us that the laws of physics are external to us and that we are merely a result of their operation. We are also informed that the laws of physics are objective; that is, that they operate regardless of our belief in, as well as of our understanding and perception of, them. As such, they provide a robust and reliable, external synchronization mechanism that ensures certain modalities of our experiences are consistent across individuals. This way, when awake and in ordinary states of consciousness, most of us agree on what we experience together. In fact, it is this very consistency across the experiences of multiple individuals that motivates us to believe in an objective reality “out there,” operating regardless of our beliefs and worldviews. But there is circularity in this line of reasoning. To illustrate it, allow me to tell you a little tale about an imaginary universe called “Dhiiverse”… Dhiiverse is a universe different from ours in one very fundamental way: there, the laws of physics are not fixed and objective. Instead, reality is a projection of thought patterns imagined by its conscious inhabitants. These thought patterns, while being imagined, are projected onto a multi-dimensional fabric of space-time. Life in Dhiiverse is life in a kind of palpable, semi-autonomous, enduring dream. The inhabitants of Dhiiverse are people much like us: our brothers and sisters of a parallel reality, if you will. But, unlike us, the reality they live in is a complex amalgamation of their collective dreams. [Dreamed up World, O Books, UK, 2011]
In short, networked simulation world, where our senses and self-awareness systematically mislead us to imagine an objective, external, physically instantiated reality. The Plato's Cave pattern is plain, and the linked issue of grand delusion of minds misled to imagine that the world as commonly understood is actual. That fundamental discredit immediately raises the issue of an onward chain of delusions, etc. Such would systematically undermine credibility of mind and of views held by mind subject to such a delusion. Self-referential absurdity. In response to the notion that the laws of physics create the illusion of a shared reality, the first observation is, such laws are causally passive. They describe and summarise patterns, they do not impose. We look elsewhere to find active agents. This second passage also allows us to see that the issues and concerns raised since March have been on the money. We are dealing with a panpsychism, with a networked mind and a simulation world, which is for cause a self-referential inference of grand delusion. It thus undermines and discredits itself by making mind and belief as well as reasoning suspect. As for, oh one's thoughts are always real, yes, as thoughts. To be true, they must accurately describe states of affairs. Our reality on this model is not materially different from our delusion. A more prudent approach would take common sense and first facts of our self aware experiences seriously and would recognise that worldviews that imply or invite grand delusion inferences are self-referentially self defeating by undermining credibility of mind. And oh yes, the answer to accusations that worldviews are question-begging, is to subject them to comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power/balance. That is a service provided by this world model, it allows us to see why it is reasonable to reject it and take a greater respect for common sense than is commonly entertained in our current intellectual climate. Evolutionary Materialistic Scientism, of course, is similar in this regard. Further to all of this, we see underscored the centrality of the problem of the one and the many since Thales of Miletus. KFkairosfocus_{August 13, 2021
August
08
Aug
13
13
2021
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

SA, a spirit does not have flesh and bone as you see I have. Our eternal destiny is not non-physical. It is physical, and immortal, imperishable, incorruptible. Life after life after death, as NT Wright is wont to say. Suffering in this world and bliss in the next is intact in this paradigm. If God is at the helm, all the old rules still apply. (Not all the OT rules, but rules about suffering and death and two destinations. And of course, the judgment.)AnimatedDust_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

because we’re observing our brain’s recreation of the data
This has been known since the beginning of time. Not the science of it but the phenomenon.
he is saying it does not exist. It doesn’t matter because we’re observing our brain’s recreation of the data.
I have made the comment several times that all Murray has shown is that we have a mind. One of the more trivial observations of all time. But millions observe the same external source and react the same so the internal image must be very similar if not essentially identical. This is all about nothing.jerry_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

:) What is the difference between you thinking/dreaming/imagining yourself drinking water and you actually drinking water. If is no difference then yes MRT is true if is a difference then ...insanity.Sandy_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Jerry
If the image in our brain is different somewhat from the image in another’s brain, or the image in our brain is not a direct reactions to the external photons, so what.
That's WJM's point. If the image in our brain is not a direct expression of the external world, then so what. The external world might be totally different, or he is saying it does not exist. It doesn't matter because we're observing our brain's recreation of the data. In my view, our brain reflects the real thing that is out there and does it accurately.Silver Asiatic_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

In other words, we only see the image that is created in our brain.
Have a thousand people look at the same external image. A thousand people will describe the same thing if it is clear enough. No trick images. That’s the real physical world. If the image in our brain is different somewhat from the image in another’s brain, or the image in our brain is not a direct reactions to the external photons, so what. The effect is the same on our understanding and behavior. We can then turn around and produce other phenomena that when witnessed by others and will be described the same way by each person. Millions of people in a large city go about their day without much mishap because they essentially see the same external physical world.jerry_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Here's the whole thing: The guy says - think about something you see. Are you really seeing the thing itself? He then says, "no, you're not". He says: "the photons coming from ‘out there’ are absorbed in the retina, and from this point on there are only electrical spike trains traveling inside your dark skull, so that the light you experience cannot be the light ‘out there." In other words, we only see the image that is created in our brain. We don't have a photo of a chair inside our brain, but only the synapses that create the image (in a primitive way of explaining). I disagree with his interpretation and conclusions but that's the basis of MRT.Silver Asiatic_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Annnnd, Jerry keeps saying dumb things
Why not answer the question and show why it is dumb?jerry_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Jerry: How can one write an article or produce a video then published on a website, all obviously from the physical world, to say the physical world does not exist? Annnnd, Jerry keeps saying dumb things. :DJack_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

If one breathes MRT is nonsense. I believe Murray admits to breathing. His near clone, Jack, admits to dying if he didn’t breathe. If one eats, MRT is nonsense. If one drinks, MRT is nonsense. If one sleeps, MRT is nonsense. Murray admits to sleeping. If one has children, MRT is nonsense. Murray said he has children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. If one has/had a job, MRT is nonsense. Murray has had more than one job. If one lives in a physical place, MRT is nonsense. Murray lives in the USA. If one publishes a book, MRT is nonsense. Murray has published a book. If one has used a computer, MRT is nonsense. Murray uses a computer. The list could go on and on.jerry_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

what is your response to that?
Nonsense. No one understands quantum theory well and its effects on the real world. But what they do know supports the physical world. Isn’t appealing to quantum theory, admitting to a physical explanation for everything. All what we know is done with physical world experiments. From the Great Course - sounds like the physical world to me.
Quantum mechanics has a reputation for being so complex that the word “quantum” has become a popular label for anything mystical or unfathomable. In fact, quantum mechanics is one of the most successful theories of reality yet discovered, explaining everything from the stability of atoms to the glow of neon lights, from the flow of electricity in metals to the workings of the human eye. At the same time, quantum mechanics does have a mysterious side, symbolized by the famous thought experiment concerning the fate of Schrödinger's cat, a hypothetical feline who is both dead and alive in a quantum experiment proposed by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger.

Quantum physics is more than just a fun intellectual exercise. It is the key to countless technologies, and also helps to explain how the natural world works, including living systems. Professor Carlson discusses many such examples, among them: Color vision: What we perceive as color has its origin in quantum events in the outside world, which produce photons of visible light. Color-sensitive cones in our eyes detect some of these photons. Depending on their wavelength, the photons trigger quantum reactions that our brains interpret as different colors. Global Positioning System (GPS): GPS satellites are essentially atomic clocks in orbit, sending out very accurate time signals based on tiny transitions in energy states of cesium atoms. The time for the signal to reach Earth gives the distance to the satellite. Signals from four GPS satellites suffice to fix a position exactly. Flash memory: Smart phones, solid-state hard drives, memory sticks, and other electronic devices use flash memory to store data with no need for external power to preserve information. When it's time to erase the information, quantum tunneling allows electrons that encode the data to be quickly discharged. Superconductivity: Dr. Carlson covers the crucial difference between the two classes of subatomic particles—fermions and bosons. Then, in a later lecture, she shows that, under special conditions, fermions can be induced to behave like bosons, leading to a frictionless state of zero electrical resistance known as superconductivity.
jerry_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

AD
I think he’s rethinking the materialist paradigm. That may be where he’s trying to break free from.
The more I think about it, the more problems I find. The MRT view also has to deal with human suffering. It's a failed attempt to deal with that. In fact, it causes great harm to the human family by claiming, essentially "your suffering doesn't exist". That's similar to Buddhism, where all suffering is considered to be caused by the person themselves, by their own ego. Then, a true enlightened one, overcomes suffering by meditation. Or the Hindu view deals with suffering by saying it's your fault for sins of a previous life. But the fact is, people really suffer and to say that it's just "all in your mind" and doesn't really exist is harmful. In the Christian view, Jesus elevated suffering as redemption. It's a view of justice - because sin and evil deserve punishment, but through charity and love of other people, suffering can be offered to redeem those who are trapped in their own sins. Nothing like that can exist in the MRT view.Silver Asiatic_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

AD That's a good insight because we would have to say, with orthodox Christian teaching that Jesus' resurrected body is "not really material" as we know matter in a body to be. He was able to appear anywhere, enter a room through the walls, and then ascend up to heaven where He continues to live. Then the second thing is that we know the temporal earth will end one day and all who rise with Christ will have new bodies - like that of Jesus. Thus, we can say that "there will not be a material world" like the one we know. So, that's something we believe already. But that hasn't happened now, and plus there are many other big problems such as "there is only one mind, only one experiencer", that everything is a "shared dream" that all people have together, thus there are no individuals. But sin and redemption and judgement are done on an individual, personal basis. We repent for our own sins. We can't blame anyone else. We can share the blessings of others and their good deeds, but each person has the responsibility for themself. We can't just say "everybody is just one thing".Silver Asiatic_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Thanks SA. I think he's rethinking the materialist paradigm. That may be where he's trying to break free from. I am a convinced, persuaded Christian. I see the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit at the very root of this giant THING we are discussing. Fits perfectly for me in my early stages of learning about IRT/MRT. But that could be confirmation bias, too.AnimatedDust_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

KF
That’s seriously problematic from the title page, subtitle. We see already, a hyperskepticism root and denial of a basic fact of life. One might consider whether it is intended as a rhetorical hyperbole to deny extinction of all existence at death [the materialistic view] but that would then be a case of discrediting idiosyncratic use. Actually, it seems the context is that as all of reality is mental, he seems to imply there is no dead body that separately exists and goes through decay after death.
True. As I said before, he is attacking materialism - and that's good. But to do it, he is destroying human nature and destiny. That's the danger of completely wiping out the material world in the interest of trying to refute materialism.
This is fairly familiar and leads straight to the concerns long since put on record. It is not true that consciousness is all we can be certain of, for there are many self-evident truths (ponder 2 + 3 = 5, error exists, first principles of logic and other first principles etc) and more broadly certainty comes in degrees starting with moral certainty.
True. There has to be an origin or source. There's a communication network. A sender, medium, receiver and then translation process. So, the mind has to receive a source. Consciousness is "about" something. It must receive. That means there is an outside - it does not just circle on itself. Rationality requires comparison - thus dualism. As quoted:
From a philosophical perspective, this notion is entirely coherent and reasonable, for conscious experience is all we can be certain to exist. Entities outside consciousness are, as far as we can ever know, merely abstractions of mind. Taking consciousness to be an ontological primitive also circumvents the ‘explanatory gap’ and the ‘hard problem of consciousness,’ since both only arise from the attempt to reduce consciousness to matter.
They choose only one option: "reducing consciousness to matter". Then to solve the problem, they say that matter does not exist and the only thing that exists is consciousness. They do this because they think quantum physics has refuted dualism, but it has not. The immaterial exists, and the material exists - both. They are not separate (like Decartes thought) but combined by immaterial form (soul) as united with matter (body). It's strange that anti-materialists will have to be the ones defending the idea that "matter actually does exist".Silver Asiatic_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

AD @ 275 That is a good reference - thank you. Just at the beginning he says:
You may then challenge her with the fact that the photons coming from ‘out there’ are absorbed in the retina, and from this point on there are only electrical spike trains traveling inside her dark skull, so that the light she experiences cannot be the light ‘out there’. She may now admit that our subjective experience is a virtual reality show, but at the same time, she will probably insist that this show is created by our evolutionarily optimized brain in a way that faithfully represents the true world around us, because otherwise we could not survive.
This is really the core idea. Supposedly, we are not seeing "light out there" but only the electrical responses in our brain. But I believe the light out there caused the synapse response. But this author says, no - it's an illusion caused by evolution.
At this point of the discussion, you could argue that precisely because evolution wants us to survive, it will not show us the world as it really is, but rather a mental ‘desktop’ of dumped-down, fitness-oriented ‘icons’ that stimulate us to act in the right way.2
That's the consequences of Darwinism and materialism. As he says, evolution basically tricks our brain so we do not see reality. That makes perfect sense from a Darwinist view. Evolution does not show us reality, since there would be no reason for that as a survival advantage. Instead it shows illusions.Silver Asiatic_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

F/N: I looked around, ran across:
How Materialism is Baloney: How true skeptics know there is no death and fathom answers to life, the universe and everything, Dr Bernardo Kastrup, iff Books, 2014
That's seriously problematic from the title page, subtitle. We see already, a hyperskepticism root and denial of a basic fact of life. One might consider whether it is intended as a rhetorical hyperbole to deny extinction of all existence at death [the materialistic view] but that would then be a case of discrediting idiosyncratic use. Actually, it seems the context is that as all of reality is mental, he seems to imply there is no dead body that separately exists and goes through decay after death. Later we see:
recent and powerful physical evidence indicates strongly that no physical entity or phenomenon can be explained separately from, or independently of, its subjective apprehension in consciousness. This evidence has been published in the prestigious science journal Nature in 2007.48 If this is true, the logical consequence is that consciousness cannot be reduced to matter –for it appears that it is needed for matter to exist in the first place – but must itself be fundamental. From a philosophical perspective, this notion is entirely coherent and reasonable, for conscious experience is all we can be certain to exist. Entities outside consciousness are, as far as we can ever know, merely abstractions of mind. Taking consciousness to be an ontological primitive also circumvents the ‘explanatory gap’ and the ‘hard problem of consciousness,’ since both only arise from the attempt to reduce consciousness to matter.
This is fairly familiar and leads straight to the concerns long since put on record. It is not true that consciousness is all we can be certain of, for there are many self-evident truths (ponder 2 + 3 = 5, error exists, first principles of logic and other first principles etc) and more broadly certainty comes in degrees starting with moral certainty. That is, the book's claims seem to lack due consideration of key philosophical and general considerations; on fair comment, significantly damaging credibility. In that context, self-aware consciousness is not an empty thing, it has aboutness and delivers as first facts our embodiment and interaction with a wider world. This leads to the problem of being, appearance and credibility of mind long since highlighted. If our consciousness is taken as fundamentally dubious in the first facts through which we experience other facts of our senses and activities, then it is dubious period, i.e. a grand delusion plato's shadow show that we are embodied fatally undermines the faculty we may use to infer such. This is a typical fate of hyperskepticism, self-referential undermining of rationality. Further to such, we see the monism resort and failure to resolve the problem of the one and the many. A better solution would take mindedness and embodiment seriously, including of course death. This last brings us back to waking awareness vs dreams, visions and dream-scapes, simulations etc. The cease breathing for an hour thought exercise is sufficient to show that a distinction exists and that death is a significant matter. KF PS: Those imagining that such ideas are theologically sound would do well to ponder the centrality of resurrection of the dead in Christian, NT thought and why certain Greeks found it absurd. The Christian faith agrees that in him we live, move and have our being, accepts God as creator-sustainer who upholds all things by his powerful word. Mind is involved in the origin, operations and ends of creation and creatures, but this does not require or invite that the physical world is some sort of simulation etc. But that is just a side-note.kairosfocus_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Jerry, When someone says, "there is no material world, and this is proven by Quantum Physics" - what is your response to that? In this thread: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-how-philosopher-john-locke-turned-reality-into-theatre/#comments post #4 - BA77 says this:
"As the following Wheeler Delayed Choice experiment that was conducted with atoms found, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”"
He says something like that just about every day (or at least every time he mentions quantum anything). Right?Silver Asiatic_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

AD
Interested, as an aside, why you choose to identify Kastrup as “highly Jewish.” I have heard that kind of description before, but we don’t say people are highly French or highly Mexican. Just curious about that.
True, we wouldn't say "highly French" like that. But Judiasm is a belief-system, culture and worldview. A person can be shaped and formed by it more or less. A person, for example, who was taught in a rabbinical school from youth and attends synagogue every day (if it was possible) - probably would be "highly Jewish" in outlook. This has nothing to do with ethnicity. Probably most Jews intermarry with each other so they are of one kind of nationality. But liberal Jews intermarry with all sorts of people. So, it's the belief-system that is the identifying factor, not the biology.Silver Asiatic_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

How can one write an article or produce a video then published on a website, all obviously from the physical world, to say the physical world does not exist? By the way, Murray has written a book with a physical cover and published on a physical website which can be delivered to your house to be held in your hand and read by your eyes. He obviously thinks this not a problem in his world. Is this how MRT works?jerry_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Great post at 274, SA. I have only read one article, and this from a German physicist, whom I think does a good job of laying the foundation as understandable to a layman. https://www.essentiafoundation.org/reading/can-a-physicist-embrace-idealism/ Interested, as an aside, why you choose to identify Kastrup as "highly Jewish." I have heard that kind of description before, but we don't say people are highly French or highly Mexican. Just curious about that.AnimatedDust_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

WJM
It’s interesting that Kastrup refers to those philosophers about nature, essence and being and explains them in video #4, quotes them, and explains them in terms of MRT.
I took the time to go through it. Here are my impressions: I searched but could not validate for certain, but I consider Kastrup a Jewish philosopher (or heavily influenced by Judaism). The Essential Foundation has a full explanation of "Kabbalistic panpsychism" which is basically what the whole thing is. I believe Kastrup contributed to analyses on the Talmud - and it struck me immediately upon encountering his work before even knowing about him "This guy is very Jewish". Some key indicators - he's struggling against materialism, but uses an entirely scientistic view. There's the classic ambivalence towards God and at the same time the religiosity that one finds in Judiasm, all pointed to pan-psychism. Finally, you referred to the philosophers he quoted but he did most of his explanation on Spinoza - a highly Jewish philosopher who hailed from the Netherlands, as does Kastrup. So, Kastrup did a passionate defense of Spinoza - even though Spinoza's thought conflicts with Kastrup, but that's just his loyalty for a home-boy as I see it. So, what does it mean to me? Kastrup does not understand realist-philosophy and has no category for an understanding of the nature of God. His ideas are all built on materialism and evolution - and he is struggling the best he can to get some kind of meaning out of it, thus "the universal mind". From the Transcript:
There is not any fundamental ontological distinction between experience and experiencer. Why? Because if we made an ontological distinction between the two we would run into all kinds of problems namely how can the experience relate to the experiencer how does the experience the experiencer feel the experience if the two are completely separate and distinct ontologically so you get into the interaction problem for instance of substance dualism and a number of other problems not the least of which is parsimony so to avoid this we are going to say that an experience is a excitation of the experiencer in the same way that ripples are an excitation of water or that dance a choreography is an excitation of the dancer there is nothing to the dance but the dancer in movement in excitation there is nothing to ripples but the water in which they ripple there is nothing to ripples but watery movement
That's just flat out wrong. Obviously, the water does not move itself. But this is the contradiction between potency and act, as well as subject and object. And this MRT destroys causality. In this case, "experiences" are the same as the person experiencing. But actually - there is only one experiencer ... thus, the human person, as defined by Christian theology is destroyed. In the Jewish view, there is no incarnation and God is not three Persons - or even a Person.
i want to argue that as we've seen there is an experiencer. I want to argue that there is only one experiencer. If there are multiple fundamentally distinct experiences we run into all kinds of problems again like why would nature be such that fundamentally distinct experiences just pop and how do they interact if they are fundamentally and ontologically distinct again the interaction problem to make sense of reality by postulating only one experiencer and then finding a way to explain how seemingly distinct minds how seemingly distinct subjects of experience arise from this one fundamental experiencer
Again, there's just one experiencer, one universal mind. This destroys the notion of Creator and creature - subject and object. Kastrup does nothing to reconcile this.
The network structure of the universe and the network structure of neuronal networks they are uncannily similar and we know of no reason why they should be so similar that physics provides us with absolutely no reason or biology with no reason whatsoever to expect this similarity this uncanny uh similarity so this is not just images that look alike this is the
Yes, he's absolutely right. However, if we only use physics and biology, "we know no reason" why the universe should resemble neuronal networks. Thus, materialism is lacking. However, we do have use of philosophy and theology which both give us good reasons why the cosmos resembles the cell. But Kastrup avoids that. Instead:
under the premises of analytic idealism if matter all matter if all what everything that is displayed on the screen of perception is simply how inner conscious life presents itself to observation in other words how mental states that constitute the world outside as it is in itself how they present themselves in the dials of our dashboard of dials if that's what matter is then it's no surprise that the universe as a whole should have some degree of similarity is the following the mathematical structure
If there's one universal mind, then "there's no surprise" that there are similarities in the design. Ok, but if God exists as traditional theology speaks, then I think we already had that answer without the need to propose a universal mind somewhere.
of the fundamental laws of physics is compatible with with the mathematical structure of how a neuronal network performs computations and learns in other words the laws of physics of that learning process that we perceive and call the laws of physics so the regularities we call the laws of physics are expressions of an underlying learning process of of a neural network now what is it that learns uh when we talk about learning what are we referring to usually we refer into a mind a mind learns so you could say that this paper is providing at least some indication that underlying and imminent in the entire physical universe there is a mind that is learning and the laws of physics the regularities we call the laws of physics are an expression of this learning process
It's pan-psychism or pantheism or animism of a sort. But the problem is that it does not explain the origin except to propose Mind. It does not respond to the need for a First Cause.
to the endogenous character of those experiences in other words the experiences of this one universal mind are akin in some way to our ideas and emotions but not identical to them because this universal mind is not a human being evolution has found a way to leverage this impingement and the result is what we call the screen of perception evolution has found a way to zero in on that subtle impingement and amplify it and display it to us at a glance on the screen of perception and what way is that that's the dashboard that we talked about in part one the dashboard that instrument panel full of dials that contain information about the world those dials are they are representations of natural naturals they are symbols and icons that point at natura naturals they are the appearance of natura naturan and what those appearances are they are the classical physical world the world of solid objects spread across space and time well as we've seen mental activity across the dissociative boundary can impinge on it which evolution has leveraged in order to create the screen of perception our
Evolution made it appear that real things exist but actually they are just projections on a "screen of perception". Bottom line for me - he did nothing to respond to classical realist philosophy and the critique there, and he said nothing at all about the nature of God. His reference to older philosophers (Kant and Schopenhauer) are early idealists who shared the same view. I think there are many in the Jewish theological community who would find Kastrup hopeful and encouraging. He relies entirely on a atheist-scientistic basis to undermine materialism, and that's a refreshing thing for a world where atheism is dominant (41% of Jews do not believe God exists). But from the Christian view, Kastrup's world is dark and confused. God is (maybe but not even mentioned as) some sort of distant universal mind and actual people do not exist. It's all just "one experiencer". What this says about sin, redemption and destiny is - nothing coherent, really. For me, in the end - it's a religious question. Revelation from God teaches us things about reality that science and philosophy cannot teach.Silver Asiatic_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

My sense about it is, these kinds of discussions are only psychological, and have nothing to do with logic and science. People should be indoctrinated into creationism, so that they comprehend subjectivity and objectivity. So they are useful people, to themselves, and others.mohammadnursyamsu_{August 12, 2021
August
08
Aug
12
12
2021
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply