Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Problem With Most Theological Doctrines and the Theological Argument for Mental Reality

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In most theologies, it is said that God created the material world. It is also said that God is (1) omnipresent, (2) omnipotent, and (3) omniscient; that God knows the future and the past. It is also said that God is an unchanging, eternal, immaterial being and the root of all existence.

Unless God is itself subject to linear time, the idea that God “created” anything is absurd. The idea of “creating” something necessarily implies that there was a time before that thing was created. From the “perspective” (I’ll explain the scare quotes below) of being everywhere and everywhen in one’s “now,” nothing is ever created. It always exists, has always existence, and will always exist, from God’s perspective, because all those things would exist to God as “now.”

“Matter” cannot exist if God is an immaterial being because God “is” everything from a theological perspective. There is no place or state “outside of God” or “unlike God,” because there is nowhere else to exist, and nothing else to comprise anything that is said to exist. If God is fundamentally immaterial being, then everything is fundamentally immaterial. Matter cannot exist in that situation.

All spiritual or religious doctrines extend from the perspective of assigning “not-God” characteristics and perspective to God. IOW, they are characterizations of God and the assigning of attributes to God that inimical to the logical ramifications of the attributes assigned to God by those same metaphysical perspectives.

The idea that God “chose” to create this specific world and limit the experiential capacity of all sentient beings to, basically, a single architecture out of infinite possibilities is absurd because God cannot have a “perspective.” “Perspective” requires a point of view. God cannot have a point of view.

Furthermore, God cannot “make a decision.” A decision requires context, organized sequential experiences, and a perspective – none of which God can logically experience, at least not from the state of “being God”

Even if we ignore all that, let’s say God instantaneously examines all possible experiential architectures “before” he “chooses” one – let’s say the Christian architecture – to limit sentient beings to. The problem with this is that a Godly “examination” of all possible experiential pathways would necessarily mean instantly knowing all possible experiences in every possible architecture – IOW, experiencing every possible life of every possible person in every possible architecture. That’s what omnipresence and omniscience would necessarily entail.

But God exists in a complete state of omniscient, eternal “now-ness, always experiencing all of those other possibilities as those beings in those other possible reality architectures. That’s what eternal omniscience and omnipresence necessarily means. God cannot then decide to “unexist” those other individual experiences in other architectures – they eternally exist as beings experiencing other architectures. Other realities. In the only place and as the only thing any such reality can ever exist – in the mind of God.

If the “perspective” of God is “all possible perspectives at the same time all the time,” then God (from the “God perspective) doesn’t have a perspective. If the nature of your being is “always fully experiencing all possible experiences all the time from every possible perspective,” no experiential decisions can be made; they are all fully being made eternally. There are no “others” to make experiential parameters for; all possible decisions from every individual perspective always fully exist eternally AS those individual beings in the mind of God – the only way anything ever exists as “real.”

Every possible experience, every possible experiential pathway in every possible experiential architecture always and eternally exists as real as any other. As individual consciousnesses, we can only be observational aspects of God, “exploring” an ocean of fully real possibilities, only limited by what is possible in the mind of God.

IOW, no four-sided triangles or 1+1=3 experiences or the like. But that’s the only kind of limitation to what is available to experience. As observational aspects of God, everything is ultimately “within” us. All possibilities. All other aspects conscious aspects of God – other people with individual perspectives, are in this sense “within” us.

Comments
DS (attn VL), first, see Dr Carol Woods, on Model theory as discussed; in for example a video shared here some time ago she discussed even and odd hyperintegers briefly; which makes sense, H and H+1 in Z* will "naturally" have one being odd, one even. Second, I am not suggesting any idiosyncratic oddity but simply identifying what is embedded in the ellipses of transfinite extension in say . . . -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 . . . These indicate that beyond any particular k we have k+1 etc, and the additive inverses, i.e. for k' additive inverse to k, we have had past stages k'-1, k'-2 etc without limit, implying precisely transfinite succession to k'. Of course this implies too that there is no specifically identifiable maximal finite integer z so z+1 is transfinite. The Hyperreals embrace the Reals and allow us to see what is implied in a descent of stepwise finite stage causal temporal succession to now where any past value k' is transfinitely preceded L-wards. The point is, not abstract sets but actual past. That is where the transfinite traverse enters. KFkairosfocus
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
JVL said:
Fine, but what you describe still takes energy and storage and interpretation of perceptions. Where and how is all that done?
Those things are only relevant and meaningful in the external, physical-world model. Which is part of the reason why I said the logic and principles involved are the best way forward in a discussion about MRT I'm still waiting for someone to produce evidence that an external physical world exists. No takers?William J Murray
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Watch your comments, people. Keep it friendly and civil. Some comments have been removed and future comments that contain personal attacks or derision will be removed. I'm being entirely civil, respectful and friendly. I expect others to exhibit the same civility.William J Murray
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Viola Lee, Yes, that paragraph states the point very nicely.daveS
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Thanks. Looks like that paper agrees with me, but it's behind a paywall so I can't read it. However, it is probably more extensive than I would study anyway. The intro is clear:
Several contemporary philosophers, like G. J. Whitrow, argue that it is logically impossible for the past to be infinite, and offer several arguments in support of this thesis. I believe their arguments are unsuccessful and aim to refute six of them in the six sections of the paper. One of my main criticisms concerns their supposition that an infinite series of past events must contain some events separated from the present event by an infinite number of intermediate events, and consequently that from one of these infinitely distant past events the present could never have been reached. I introduce several considerations to show that an infinite series of past events need not contain any events separated from the present event by an infinite number of intermediate events.
Viola Lee
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
William J Murray @98,
Querius @96: I think I’ve already answered that question just above in my responses to JVL.
No. Thinking that you already answered the question is not the same as answering the question.
WJM: If anyone has evidence an external, physical world exists, lay it on me.
Q: How about the observation that we have nerves that connect to our spinal cord rather than just our brain?
WJM: How is referring to a mental experience (the observation you described) evidence of an external physical world?
Q: What triggers a mental experience?
I bet you'll say choosing to focus our consciousness on a piece of information, to which I'll ask what triggers our choice to focus on a piece of information, to which you might respond by saying by choosing to focus on a prior piece of information, to which I'll ask what triggers our choice to focus on that prior piece of information and so on into a sort of mental perpetual-motion von Neumann chain without any external reality to initiate it. How do you know that you're not the only conscious agent as in solipsism? Do you take it on faith? -QQuerius
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Viola Lee,
From what I’ve seen, that seems like a good idea. Discussing infinity in terms of the real number line, as I did, is not “narrowing the perspective”: it is accurately using the perspective that everyone else uses in discussing this topic. (I have done some google research and found no evidence that anything but the real number line meaning of infinity is being used in other conversations about this topic.
I basically agree, although I do know of one exception, a paper by Quentin Smith which considers models where time coordinates can be separated by infinite intervals. However, I've never seen work by infinite-past cosmologists (or anyone else) which seriously advocates such a thing. The truth is that KF has dug in on this point and is using every tactic available to avoid discussion of the actual position that is being proposed.daveS
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
William J Murray:
The base of existence is infinite (or “universal”) mind. Mind is all that exists. Mind can be characterized this way: infinite consciousness of infinite available information. That state would be what some would call the “God” state. I prefer infinite or universal mind, but whatever.
Hmmmmm . . . what is "mind" made of? What holds it together? Why doesn't it just dissipate. Thinking takes energy yes? Where does that energy come from?
If we have “every possible” perspective, then there will be large numbers of individual perspectives that share large amounts of base information, but just different enough in some ways that would distinguish one “person” from another. This means that we can have an enormous amount of shared, consistent, mutually verifiable experiences, as long those experiences reflect shared information the “algorithmic” process is accessing. Our experiences will diverge inasmuch as (1) the information being processed is the same, (2) other aspects of individual information sets don’t cause the algorithm to generate divergent experiences, and (3) individuals in a shared experiential set don’t turn their attention to other available information that would cause experiential divergence.
Where and how is the information being processed? Where does the energy come to do the process? How is the 'algorithm' stored and read and implemented? How is the information stored and read?
Conscious attention is the 100% free variable in the algorithm. The variable is a referential variable; it represents what information the algorithm is referring to in the experience-generating process. The observer directs the path of experience as it moves its attention around. The observer directs it’s attention at information and then has the experience the algorithm produces from that information. The consciousness of the observer is not the experience it is having, although the process creates our “personality,” things we usually refer to as characteristics of who we are, or our “internal” experiences.
'Where' is the observer relative to other observers? Where does the energy come from that enables the observer to direct its attention?
Remember, this is a model intended to better understand our existence and how it works. All the words and thoughts about it are representational from a perspective – mine. The only proper way to discuss or debate it is in principle and logically and not to think of the representational labels as an exact and full understanding of what they are “in principle” describing.
Fine, but what you describe still takes energy and storage and interpretation of perceptions. Where and how is all that done?JVL
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Querius @96: I think I've already answered that question just above in my responses to JVL.William J Murray
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Further info on MRT: We don't actually experience "free will choices," or the decision to put one's attention on something. That is our ineffable free will that is beyond individual experience. We can only experience the result of the choice. This can be understood by thinking, "I choose to think about ...." and then experiencing whatever you chose; you only know your choice after it has been made and expressed in the experience of what you chose. Give it a try.William J Murray
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
William J Murray @85,
How is referring to a mental experience (the observation you described) evidence of an external physical world?
What triggers a mental experience? -QQuerius
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Dave, you quoted KF as saying, "that narrowing of perspective inadvertently erects a strawman that distorts ability to see what an infinite past implies." You then replied, "I planned to respond further, but I don’t think I will, for the sake of my sanity." From what I've seen, that seems like a good idea. Discussing infinity in terms of the real number line, as I did, is not "narrowing the perspective": it is accurately using the perspective that everyone else uses in discussing this topic. (I have done some google research and found no evidence that anything but the real number line meaning of infinity is being used in other conversations about this topic.) I think my argument in 51 is sound: KF's wanting to talk about hyperreals doesn't invalidate my argument about infinity on the real number line.Viola Lee
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Let me give you a little more meat to chew on, JVL. Apparently you missed where I more fully fleshed out the MRT model. The base of existence is infinite (or "universal") mind. Mind is all that exists. Mind can be characterized this way: infinite consciousness of infinite available information. That state would be what some would call the "God" state. I prefer infinite or universal mind, but whatever. Infinite consciousness has its attention on every possible informational subset. An "individual" exists as the experience of consciousness' attention on any particular subset of information. Individual perspective is generated by this conscious attention on an informational subset. This means there are infinite individuals representing every possible attention/informational subset relationship. Everything an individual experiences might be characterized as an algorithmic, or "most efficient" expression of this informational structure. If we have "every possible" perspective, then there will be large numbers of individual perspectives that share large amounts of base information, but just different enough in some ways that would distinguish one "person" from another. This means that we can have an enormous amount of shared, consistent, mutually verifiable experiences, as long those experiences reflect shared information the "algorithmic" process is accessing. Our experiences will diverge inasmuch as (1) the information being processed is the same, (2) other aspects of individual information sets don't cause the algorithm to generate divergent experiences, and (3) individuals in a shared experiential set don't turn their attention to other available information that would cause experiential divergence. Please note, what is being generated by the algorithmic expression of the information generates is ALL experience. Consciousness is not experience, it is what is observing, or having, the experience. Thoughts are not consciousness, they are experiences consciousness is having by having it's attention on a particular informational structure or pattern. Conscious attention is the 100% free variable in the algorithm. The variable is a referential variable; it represents what information the algorithm is referring to in the experience-generating process. The observer directs the path of experience as it moves its attention around. The observer directs it's attention at information and then has the experience the algorithm produces from that information. The consciousness of the observer is not the experience it is having, although the process creates our "personality," things we usually refer to as characteristics of who we are, or our "internal" experiences. Remember, this is a model intended to better understand our existence and how it works. All the words and thoughts about it are representational from a perspective - mine. The only proper way to discuss or debate it is in principle and logically and not to think of the representational labels as an exact and full understanding of what they are "in principle" describing.William J Murray
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
JVL @90 asks:
The bundle of perceptions you identify as being yours . . . where are those happening? How are they stored?
In mind, by mind.
How are you able to recall them, frequently on command? What is the mechanism?
By placing my attention on them. Do you have evidence for an external, physical world you'd like to share?William J Murray
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
JVL @ 89, anyone who says there was/is an infinite past is saying thatET
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
KF,
that narrowing of perspective inadvertently erects a strawman that distorts ability to see what an infinite past implies.
This can only lead to a trivial semantic debate---"What they are proposing is not a truly infinite past, rather quasi-infinite" or some such. I planned to respond further, but I don't think I will, for the sake of my sanity. Except for this point:
H has relevant numerical properties, e.g. it can be even or odd
I don't think I'd read this before (about the evenness or oddness)---do you have a source?daveS
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
William J Murray: If anyone has evidence an external, physical world exists, lay it on me. The bundle of perceptions you identify as being yours . . . where are those happening? How are they stored? You know they're stored because you have memories of past perceptions (unless you want to think that those memories are being created instantaneously as your 'universe' is recreated over and over and over again) so where are those memories collected? How are you able to recall them, frequently on command? What is the mechanism?JVL
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: To assert that at any particular stage that is finitely remote from now the onward past infinity has already been traversed does not answer as to feasibility of such a supertask. No one who is mathematically aware is saying that.JVL
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
You may want to discuss your theory with a psychiatrist or an exorcist. Don't worry they are part of your inner self ,they are just different masks of yourself,pigments of your imagination.JohnB
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT
DS, that narrowing of perspective inadvertently erects a strawman that distorts ability to see what an infinite past implies. You will particularly note that for something to be the actual past as a stage, it had to have once been the present and then have been succeeded in causally connected cumulative stages to the now stage, 2020 AD in particular. That requires stepwise cumulative succession of finite stages. We are only warranted to account for a finite traverse on those terms, arguments we have seen since 2016 boil down to perpetually begging the question of prior traverse. To assert that at any particular stage that is finitely remote from now the onward past infinity has already been traversed does not answer as to feasibility of such a supertask. The use of the wider frame R* mileposted by Z* allows us to have conceptual tools to address that traverse more clearly and the result is almost trivial, given that the negatives are in effect the additive inverses of the positives. That is, if forward traverse from a given point in N* on in stages cannot be actually transfinite by accumulation, neither can that be so for the prior traverse enumerated by using the negatives. We cannot exhaustively count N, yes, and any k in N is exceeded by k+1 etc, but that simply means the ellipsis of onward succession highlights that the process points to the transfinite and that successive stepwise cumulation cannot traverse such; which is the core point. N*, Z* and R* allow us to clearly represent such and in so doing the challenge of supertask traverse rapidly becomes patent. KF PS: for onlookers, the idea per model theory is, accept some H such that it exceeds any such k in N, and such that 1/H = h, a number closer to 0 than 1/k for any k in N. this gives us transfinite and infinitesimal hyperreals and a catapult function which connects the two. H has relevant numerical properties, e.g. it can be even or odd and we can get to a grand continuum, we can even get to C*. This wider frame also allows us to reduce Calculus to an extension of Algebra, using infinitesimally augmented numbers. And much more.kairosfocus
October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
The question is if some mental experiences are caused by an external physical world. You can't point at a mental experience and say it is evidence of an external physical world because mental experiences are the very thing we're debating the cause of. It's like saying that we're looking for evidence that Bob dropped the gun found at a crime, then pointing at the gun and saying that the gun is evidence that Bob dropped it there.William J Murray
October 20, 2020
October
10
Oct
20
20
2020
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
How about the observation that we have nerves that connect to our spinal cord rather than just our brain?
How is referring to a mental experience (the observation you described) evidence of an external physical world?William J Murray
October 20, 2020
October
10
Oct
20
20
2020
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
How about the observation that we have nerves that connect to our spinal cord rather than just our brain? -QQuerius
October 20, 2020
October
10
Oct
20
20
2020
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
You mean any one of us in the external, physical world? -QQuerius
October 20, 2020
October
10
Oct
20
20
2020
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
I'll open that up to everyone: If anyone has evidence an external, physical world exists, lay it on me.William J Murray
October 20, 2020
October
10
Oct
20
20
2020
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Drc466 said:
Thought Experiment #1: If I see a train rushing at me, using your logic, I cannot “prove” that the train is a real object in “an external, physical world [that] exists”, and not just an imperfect representation of a mental experience being perceived by my mind. However, the only sane response to my upcoming mental experience is move out of way of the [not real] onrushing train, so I don’t transition from my “living” mental experience to my “dead” mental experience. So which approach is more logical – external, objective reality or MRT? And, again, if your reply is that the mental phenomena called “train” will kill me just as dead as the external objective reality called “train”, we’re just arguing semantics, aren’t we?
Every aspect of your thought experience would be solely experienced in mind regardless of whether or not there is an external physical world. If the mind was not capable of producing these experiences, even if caused by an external world, we would not be able to experience them. So, we know for an empirical, experiential fact everything in your thought experiment is experienced in mind and can be produced by mind. All the physicality. All the consistency of laws, cause and effect, etc. Otherwise, we couldn't experience those things. This means the burden is on those who assert an external, physical world cause for those experiences to provide evidence that such a world exists. "What everyone else believes" or characterizing it as what "sane" people think is not evidence. IF you have evidence an external, physical world exists, feel free to provide it.William J Murray
October 20, 2020
October
10
Oct
20
20
2020
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
Drc466 said:
Your argument basically summarizes down into MRT is a better descriptor than Objective Reality because both theories acknowledge that our experiences are dependent on what we perceive through our sense and mind.
Nope, that's not even close.
The fact that we all experience the same “mental” reality, and can create an entire discipline called “science” that defines “laws” of how Mental Reality behaves, is merely coincidental, as there is absolutely no reason why (if reality is not objective) we should all experience a consistent reality that abides by such laws.
A few things here. First, to be explicit, I'm talking about mental reality theory vs the theory that a physical world external of mind exists that is causing mental experience. You keep using the term "objective reality," but I'm going to assume you mean "external physical world" when you say that. Second, you say that under mental reality theory, there is no reason we should have shared mental experiences that largely conform to what we call the laws of physics. I'm assuming you've read the reasons offered here and/or by other authors on the subject of mental reality theory Why do you say, then, that there is "no reason?" Third, you haven't actually provided evidence for the existence of an external, physical world. You only made a circular argument - that if there was "no reason" for mental reality experiences to behave this way, what we are left with is external physical world theory. But, that assumes physical reality theory is the best "other" option. You haven't provided evidence that it even exists, much less that it would or should behave as it does in our experience. Could you please begin by first providing evidence that an external physical world exists?William J Murray
October 20, 2020
October
10
Oct
20
20
2020
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
Viola Lee, Actually, I just experimented with the program, I'm not a programmer. But I know of some resources that I think you might really enjoy: There's an old DOS program named CA LAB that was briefly sold by Autodesk. Check this out: http://www.rudyrucker.com/oldhomepage/cellab.htm Also check out the following program named Chaos (Mandelbrot set, strange attractors, etc.) http://www.rudyrucker.com/oldhomepage/chaos.htm And for students who want a humorous cartoon introduction to functions, calculus, and sets https://www.amazon.com/Prof-McSquareds-Calculus-Primer-Intergalactic/dp/0486789705 Enjoy! -QQuerius
October 20, 2020
October
10
Oct
20
20
2020
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Hi Q. Here are a few comments about your post at 77. (I'm interested in some of the topics and not others.) I like your answer to Kairosfocus:
I think there’s a significant difference that should be carefully maintained between mathematical concepts and observed physical reality. For example, I can easily imagine an integer, but as a real-world measurement, I’d suggest that integers are never encountered (i.e. a decimal integer with an infinite number of zeros after the decimal point).
I've taught both pure and applied math, and built a lot of stuff, so I appreciate the distinctions you made. Cellular automata and interative functions are a favorite topic of mine. Not many people have heard of Sierpinski triangles, so it's neat you worked on programming related to them. I teach about infinite geometric series in pre-calculus, of which 0.999999... = 1 is an example. The whole business about "infinitesimally small" is of course one of the central issues in calculus. I enjoy talking and thinking about math, so thanks for the feedback.Viola Lee
October 20, 2020
October
10
Oct
20
20
2020
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Drc466 @72, Nicely explained! I strongly feel that any attempt on the part of a human to trap God by seemly logical statements and conclusions is doomed to failure for the reasons you provided. That we can hardly escape from our temporal perspective isn't a limitation on God. It's as if a point on a line tries to logically construct a human in 3D. Kairosfocus, I appreciate your answer, but frankly admit that I don't understand the concepts previously argued over. Personally, I think there's a significant difference that should be carefully maintained between mathematical concepts and observed physical reality. For example, I can easily imagine an integer, but as a real-world measurement, I'd suggest that integers are never encountered (i.e. a decimal integer with an infinite number of zeros after the decimal point). William J Murray,
If you know of any evidence that supports the theory that an external, physical world exists, feel free to provide it.
How are your beliefs different from solipsism? I suppose that you might assert that our shared human experiences are also solo mental constructs. If so, how many independent minds are there? Many physicists believe in the possibility of a holographic universe and that our external world is not actually physical but rather a simulation. How does that conflict with your beliefs? In other words, could we be living in a simulated world while a different world, an external physical world, also exists? Viola Lee, You're right, I wasn't thinking about hyperreals. Yes, I have a passing familiarity with a variety of cellular automata, having played with software generating them, including Sierpinski triangles. It's possible to create a "square circle," that is an object that can appear as a circle or a square, namely the projection of a cylinder (height = diameter). This is to your point about even Euclidean geometry yielding strange results. Regarding infinitesimals, you might enjoy this if you've not already seen it: n = 0.999 . . . Most people would say that this number is infinitesimally smaller than 1. But 10n = 9.999 . . . 10n - n = 9.999 . . . - 0.999 . . . 9n = 9 n = 1 :-) - QQuerius
October 20, 2020
October
10
Oct
20
20
2020
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
1 11 12 13 14 15 16

Leave a Reply