Non-theistic Deism Explained
PLEASE CLICK ON ALL THE LINKS THEY ARE IMAGES ESSENTIAL TO THE ARGUMENT
If the world is logical it must have a logical reason for being. If it does not have a logical reason for being it is not fundamentally logical and we should have no expectation that it would behave logically. As science suggests the world does appear to behave logically (which is why it has been so successful in describing it) must be assumed it is logical. And if it is logical it can be explained. So what is logic?
The phrase “I think therefore I am” is a self-referential observation that provides certain knowledge of our own conscious existence (in fact it is the only thing of which we may be absolutely certain). But that observation can also be put in the form of a syllogism which is the formal expression of a logical statement:
I am a thinking being.
In order to think a being must exist.
Therefore I must exist.
This is the basis of all philosophy and everything we know about logic is derived from it; proper distribution of terms to avoid non-sequiturs, the copula which establishes the relationship between those terms, either positive or negative, by using a form of the words "is" or "is not", and the fallacy of contradictions because how could I be aware of myself if I did not exist? In order to better understand it let’s look at it in generic form:
A is B major premise
B is C minor premise
A is C conclusion
Notice how the term "B" occurs in both the major and minor premises thus connecting the term "A" to the term "C" allowing for a conclusion. This connection must exist so if a statement does not conform to this model it must be dismissed as illogical because the conclusion is a non sequitur that does not follow unbroken from the premises.
Now it could be argued there are some things that do appear to be illogical or contradictory. However to know if they truly are illogical we would have to have a complete theory of knowledge. But we don’t. And history is overstuffed with things that were once thought beyond understanding but which were later explained and there is no reason to think the problems of today are any different. So as long as that trend continues we must, again, assume the world is logical and regard any theory that contains contradictions as incomplete (which science is otherwise there would be no more need for research). Therefore we should be prepared to follow logic wherever it leads without predjudice.
Traditionally attempts to answer to the question, "why is there something instead of nothing?" have failed because, if we assume our common materialistic notion of "nothingness" as a void that is absolutely "without property" is correct, "something from nothing" is a non sequitur. But is this definition correct?
According to the rules of logic as revealed above there are only two ways we can legitimately derive definitions; induction (observation or experience), and deduction (the syllogism). Since we see "something" when we look around us we cannot experience "nothingness" so the only way we can define it is by deduction.
Utilizing the methods allowed by those rules then we should be able to strip away all the permutations of existence and reduce it to its essence simply by putting a form of the words "is not" (the negative form of the copula in the syllogism) in front of "being as a whole". This ought to give us a definition of "no being" or "nothingness" as absolutely "without property".
But potential is a property and the world could not exist if it did not have the potential to. So is this itself not a contradiction proving the world is not logical?
No. Because of what is known as the fallacy of composition, which states it cannot be assumed that what is true of the whole (being) is also true of it's parts (the attributes of being), the definition of nothingness cannot be assumed to be absolute because it is derived from being as a whole.
A good example of a concept that may not be considered to be bound by the same rules as a lesser one is the universe as a whole. Consider entropy. The apparent conservation of matter and energy has been well established by scientists and is referred to as the laws of thermodynamics.
The first law says that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed only changed in form. And aside from the fact there apparently is no evidence energy can be created from nothing there are good philosophical reasons to accept this as true. If we assumed that “new” energy could be created from nothing shouldn't we also suppose that there would probably be an equal chance “old” energy would be destroyed at the same rate keeping the total energy level in the universe constant?
The second law says that energy flows in a definite direction. Heat from a flame will flow into a block of ice melting it but we never see heat flow from the colder ice back into the flame making it hotter. Energy levels tend to equalize and once that equilibrium has been achieved energy flow stops.
The universe as a whole, however, is not the same as the systems within it. The total energy level of the universe appears to be finite and will probably never change. There is no apparent input from outside of it nor is any energy seen to be released. All the energy that has ever existed still seems to be a part of it (in fact accounting for so called "missing" energy has led to the prediction and discovery of previously unknown particles such as the neutrino a feat which would be highly unlikely if the conservation laws were wrong). In this way the universe as a whole is different from the subsystems within it, like the fire and ice, which we know can gain or lose energy.
Likewise the concept of absolute nothingness is not the same as the absence of something in the world. Absolute means just that. ABSOLUTE! No property. No potential. No exceptions. Therefore, since the world exists, logically "nothingness" is not absolute and thus must have at least one property. So perhaps the question should be rephrased as "what is it about nothingness that keeps it from being absolute?"
"Nothingness" is the only thing (and since it has property it is a thing) that can be thought of in completely negative terms except for the fact it is a concept that can be thought of. Nothingness is a concept. You're thinking about it right now!
So even when "being" is stripped of every other attribute we are still left with the idea of nothingness. It has no other property. But what does that mean?
Consider a scale with 1 ounce of gold in each pan. The scale would read 0 because the pans are balanced but there would still be 2 ounces of gold. So in this case 0 means "no difference" or "neutrality" not "empty".
Likewise what we call "nothingness" is not an empty void "without property" but is actually a neutral concept (which is something) permitting us to now define it as absolute equilibrium (which is also exactly what the conservation laws imply). All other definitions must, for the time being, be dismissed as unfounded and meaningless. So how can the world emerge from that?
Imagine a straight line that extends outward forever.
http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Straight_Line/drawnline.png
Such a one dimensional line is analogous to "nothingness" by this definition because it has but one property- it is a concept in equilibrium (this technique is called the principle of equivalence and was used by Albert Einstein to equate gravity with acceleration when he formulated the theory of relativity).
There are an infinite number of waveforms that exist in potential in such a line.
http://plus.maths.org/issue38/interview/sine.gif
Now if things happen simply because they can happen and they can happen because they don't result in contradiction then as long as the probability of an event does not equal zero (which is what happens when two identical but opposite waves try to emerge at the same time and cancel out) they may occur for no reason other than the fact there is nothing to prevent them from occurring. Therefore any of these waveforms may emerge spontaneously by themselves or in combination by simple addition.
By themselves the most basic waveforms (sine waves) have no meaning but, utilizing a technique developed by the French mathematician Jean Baptiste Fourier, we can see that merged with others they can create radically different patterns which not only match the same patterns we see in our world they also permit the emergence of an infinite number of other universes each with different physics.
http://math-reference.com/series/fimg2748.gif
In other words in this model there is a spectrum of universes. And they don't just obey mathematical rules they are mathematics- manifest. Ours just happens to be one that is conducive to life explaining why it seems so finely tuned.
However all the evidence we have says that for a concept to exist there must be a mind to consider it. And if you claim to believe in science and reason you have to go with the evidence you have not the "evidence" you want to have. And there is just no evidence concepts can exist without being observed.
For example you can have 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from what you hold? Aside from the fact they are “physical” we can sense no other property they have in common. But changing the quantity doesn’t seem to affect the physical characteristics of either group so that particular integer itself is not intrinsic to either group physically. 9 has attributes we can understand. It is the square of 3. It is an odd number. And we can distinguish those traits from; say, the number 8 which is even and not a square. So even though it is not tangible it is a thing in its own right as a concept but that is all. You can not point to anything in nature and say, “This is the number 9 by itself.” You can only think about it.
A materialist (someone who assumes the world has an objective existence and does not need to be observed) may reply that the number 9 must be expressed physically as stones or coins to exist but what is the "physical"? Albert Einstein proved that mass (matter) is just energy in particle form. Then the physicist Erwin Schrodinger discovered that energy could be manifested as a wave as well as a particle. And finally another scientist, Max Born, showed that waves are just the probability distribution of a possible event. Probability, in turn, is mathematical in nature and mathematics itself is nothing more than the rules that govern numbers which are concepts.
Others say the numbers themselves are merely the products of material processes in the brain we impose on the world. But it seems to me this is just substituting one unsubstantiated statement for another.
One can not assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material as that is a circular argument. The brain is made of tissue composed of cells built from molecules of atoms that are particles of matter which is energy...
Even the evidence of science itself seems to cast doubt on materialism.
One of the consequences of the wave/particle nature of physics touched on above is Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Simply stated, this points out a fundamental mathematical law that says that an observer can never know both the position and the speed or frequency of a "particle/wave" at once. To know it's position energy must be at rest and in particle form and to know its speed it must be a wave. Since it can’t be both at rest and in motion at the same time, it creates uncertainty.
The first evidence of the dual nature of matter was discovered in 1801 when a medical doctor named Thomas Young built a device called an interferometer and sent a beam of light through it. Until that time it was thought light was composed of only particles because Isaac Newton showed they seem to travel in straight lines.
The instrument Young built is very simple. An interferometer is just a box with a pin hole at the front end to admit light, a panel with two off center slits in it which divides the front of the interior from the back, and a screen at the rear. If light really is made of particles they should travel in straight lines and either strike the panel in the middle of the box so they could not be observed on the screen or, if they had just the right trajectory, pass through the slits and show up on the screen as a concentration of dots right behind them and no where else. But if light is a wave it should spread out like a ripple and strike the entire center panel. The slits in the divider would then act as new points of origin for that part of the light that happened to fall there. As they passed through they would, again, spread out like ripples but as there are now two of them they would interfere with each other. That is when a trough of a wave met another trough (or a crest met a crest) they would reinforce each other. However when a trough met a wave they would cancel out. Together these would appear as light and dark bands on the screen. And that is exactly what Thomas Young saw proving light was a wave.
However about a century later Albert Einstein revived the particle theory of light in order to explain a phenomenon known as the photo electric effect. It had been observed that an electric current could be produced by shining a light of a specific wave length on certain metals. But other frequencies would have no effect no matter how intense the illumination. For instance a very bright red light was unable to cause an electric current but a very dim blue could. Einstein theorized that the current was initiated by the light kicking out electrons from the metal itself. Because the electrons were bound to the atom so tightly it would take a great deal of energy to dislodge them. But if light was a wave it would spread the energy out too thin. The only way it would work is if the energy of the light was concentrated in a particle. That was why a bright red light could not create a current but a dim blue one could. The individual particles of red light are just not energetic enough to overcome the force binding the electron to the atom. But the individual particles of blue light are much more energetic and so can knock the electrons out and make an electric current.
So depending on how they are observed light can appear as either a particle or a wave. The experimenter determines which form it will take by the way she
decides to measure it. If she sets up an experiment to detect particles
that is what she’ll find. Likewise, if she wants to find waves she will
see them. Not both at once.
The uncertainty principle has created a great many problems for physicists and philosophers alike. The consequences that arise from it deeply troubled many scholars when it was first set forth, Einstein among them. He, along with the scientists Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (tests based on their views are called EPR experiments after them) pointed out that if two particles are produced by the breakdown of another and one of them is then sent off into space while the one that remains is examined to determine it’s direction of spin, for example, it’s twin must instantly assume the opposite spin in order to keep from violating the law of conservation no matter how far apart they are!
Up until it is observed all the properties associated with a particle, including its direction of spin, exist only in potential so that trait is also bound by chance and it could just as easily have spun the other way. But, by what mechanism does the other particle “know” to assume the spin opposite it’s counterpart?
The fastest means of transmitting information available is light but even it can only go so fast and nothing can make it go faster. Imagine yourself in the intersection of two roads. To your right an old jalopy is puttering along at 50 mph. Straight ahead comes a sports car at 100 mph. If light could gain speed it should pick up an extra 100 mph from the sports car so the light from it should reach your eyes before the light from the slower car. But if that was the case when the cars collided it would appear as if the faster car collides with nothing and then when the light from the slower car car finally reaches your eyes it would seem to perfectly form itself around the damage on the other car. But that's not what we see. We see both cars enter the intersection at the same time. So we may conclude the speed of light is finite. And so is the information it can transmit. And there is nothing known that can go faster.
Light travels at the incredible speed of 186,000 mile per second, but even that takes time and what if an observer on another planet tests that particle for direction of spin before the information can reach it? Is there a chance it could assume the same spin as its partner and violate the conservation laws?
If not and someone on Earth can “determine” the properties of a particle light years away she has never seen simply by measuring another one here, it would seem that the role of the observer in keeping the universe orderly is more important than previously thought. And the reported results of EPR experiments do seem to confirm that order is indeed maintained.
In an effort to do away with the need for an observer while avoiding the problem of super luminal information transference (and, I think, to avoid the obvious religious implications) some materialists have advanced what is known as the “many worlds theory by decoherence", a hypothesis which holds that in order to avoid uncertainty whenever there is an event with more than one possible outcome the entire cosmos actually splits like a wave in an interferometer to accommodate every single one. According to the many worlds theory there is a place where Abraham Lincoln was not assassinated and the Titanic still sails.
However for it to work there must be a way by which a universe can tell what it's sister world is doing so it can do the opposite. The only mechanism I am aware of that has been put forth which can allow for the communication necessary for it to do that is a shared history up to the point of differentiation where they "branch".
If true considering the rapidity of nuclear interactions as well as the sheer number of them and the fact that there is more than a handful of probable outcomes for any event and all must occur separately, parallel universes of this type must be being created continuously at a rate that boggles the mind. Imagine tossing just one coin ten times. The first flip would produce two coins (heads in one world tails in the other), the second would create four since each of those would have two possible outcomes.
The third throw makes eight, then sixteen, thirty two, sixty four and so on until by the tenth flip you have produced one thousand twenty four coins each in their own separate universe (ten more and you will create over a million)!
This seems ludicrous on the surface, but so have many other theories in the past that have been confirmed by observation and if it follows from the premise and fits the facts it must be accepted no matter how outlandish it may seem. My own criticism of it must, therefore, be based on what I believe to be logical grounds and I do have reservations about it, the main one being it appears to violate the laws of conservation. If this materialistic explanation is correct how can an infinite number of universes be created out of a finite amount of energy?
When a wave of a finite amount of energy propagates the total power in it initially stays the same but it spreads out over a greater distance, thinning and thus getting weaker at any particular place. If the ocean is wide enough even a tsunami will eventually become nothing more than a ripple unless more energy is supplied to it to maintain its strength and there is no evidence I am aware of that is happening anywhere in the universe (in fact observation of the residual heat of the Big Bang known as the cosmic background radiation idicates the universe is getting cooler and fainter as it expands suggesting the amount of energy in the universe is, indeed, finite). Splitting a wave only accelerates the process suggesting that the cosmos would likewise become so dilute so fast there would never be enough energy in any specific universe long enough to form the matter we see around us and the world as we know it could not exist.
As we have seen that doesn't mean there are no other universes only that there is no reason to believe they can come into being in this way. So it may be there are an infinite number of types of universes but not every variation of a type may be realized. Nor does it suggest decoherence isn't a real phenomenon. It is. It fact it has reportedly been observed in the laborotory but all the constituent parts remained firmly ensconced in this world.
So to summarize all this the world appears to be made of a finite amount of energy and ruled by the laws of conservation. That energy can take one of two forms;particles or waves. The form they take seems to depend on how they are observed. But it is possible to set up experiments that should allow the possibility for the conservation laws to be violated because the information needed to uphold them is prevented from reaching the appropiate particle in time by the finite speed of light. However the results of such experiments indicate the conservation laws are not violated suggesting they are indeed being observed. In order to get around this some materialists have said the whole universe splits so that every possible outcome of an event occurs so there is no need for an obsever. But that leads to the problem of creating an infinite number of universes out of a finite amount of energy which would not allow the existence of the world as we know it. In my opinion that is just absurd.
My strongest objection to materialism, however, is that it is also appears to be self-contradictory. Even though materialists claim to believe in reason they seem to advocate a form of mysticism when it comes to the problem of origins. For example they often say asking what happened before the Big Bang is misleading and meaningless because that implies time. Since time cannot exist prior to the Big Bang, questions about an era of “pre-time” are non-sensical.
But if we now ask, “Well why was there a Big Bang?” The materialist answer is generally, “Because the laws of physics allow it.” If we then inquire as to where the laws of physics came from they will almost always respond that they are synonymous, co-emerging with the universe. While sounding reasonable this doesn’t explain anything. For the laws of physics to emerge they had to have had the potential to emerge. Without that potential they wouldn’t have emerged so didn’t the potential itself have to be pre-existent? This again begs the question, “Why is there potential?”
“Because of the laws of uncertainty”, the materialist asserts!
“But don’t you have to have something to be uncertain about?”
The question/response pattern that is beginning to emerge here seems to be that of infinite regress; axiom based on axiom based on axiom and so on forever.
There is a story entitled the “Tower of Turtles” illustrating the problem with this type of reasoning. There are different versions of the tale but basically it goes like this:
A physicist is giving a public lecture about the structure of the universe as described by science when an elderly lady in the audience raises her hand.
“Yes?” he says rather annoyed at the interruption.
“Sir you have it all wrong. I know how the world really is!”
“Please enlighten us madam.”
“The universe sits on the back of an elephant which is riding on the back of a turtle.” She informs him.
“But what, pray tell, is the turtle riding on madam?” the physicist asks condescendingly.
“Ah! You can’t fool me sir! Its turtles all the way down!”
This amusing little story makes a serious point. If materialism is logical it must be able to explain itself- but it can’t because "something from nothing" in materialism is a non-sequiter. So it is either forced into an unexplanable infinite regression (such as suggesting this universe was spawned by another universe and that one likewise and so on forever) that is almost identical to the "who created the creator" argument so many delight in ridiculing or it must assert it is intrinsically unknowable which, though few will admit it, means the world is fundamentally mystical. And if that is the case not only does it (contrary to all evidence) imply we should have no expectation logic could explain anything it opens the door to all sorts of religious dogma.
So not only is materialism unable to explain itself it is also lacking any supporting evidence. In fact all it seems to offer is a circular argument, an infinite regression, or a contradiction that suggests logic is an illusion built on a mystery. All the while ignoring the obvious question, “why is there a 'Tower of Turtles' at all?”
Given all these problems I just see no reasonable basis for a belief in materialism. So unless it could somehow be shown that one can observe the world not being observed (which is itself a contradiction) it must be dismissed as unfounded and illogical.
Idealism (the view the world is basically nothing more than a concept), however, follows, as demonstrated above, directly from the definitions of being and nothingness themselves and suffers from none of those problems. The difficulties that arise from thinking about the world in materialistic terms just don’t exist in it. In fact because immaterial ideas in the form of numbers seem to be the building blocks of everything, including the atoms the brain is made of, idealism would seem a more logical belief.
But if, as the evidence suggests, the world is basically concept and concepts must be observed what was observing it before intelligent life evolved? This "problem" is really no problem at all. Lines may curve in many ways. One is a circle. Bending a line in on itself makes it self referential or self observing. Bending the line representing the "concept of absolute equilibrium" in on itself makes it self referential or self observing. That also makes It conscious because structurally It is identical to the self referential observation "I am" which tells us just what "concept" it is in equilibrium and thus gives it meaning. It is awareness itself and it is a true tabula rasa.
http://www.barclaycardbusiness.co.uk/images/content/icons/circle_arrow.g...
It also stops infinite regressions similar to the "who created the creator" problem because looking at the world as concept seems to fit a general trend in the advancement of knowledge which is completely incompatible with the notion of infinite regress. That is generalizing and simplifying a field to a succinct school of thought. In biology, the entire spectrum of life on Earth has been reduced to one idea - DNA. Chemists have gone further by taking the very stuff of DNA (as well as what everything else in the world is made of) and explaining it with the atom. Again, one simple theory that unites an entire science. Reducing the universe to a concept, based on its common relationship with nothingness as an idea, is the ultimate expression of this, it cannot be reduced any further.
I call this foundational state the Prime Observer because It is literally observing Itself. The circle in this model is perfectly smooth and therefore in equilibrium but contains within It an infinite number of potential worlds which may emerge spontaneously as an epiphenomenon or side effect. In other words It is the simplest possible structure but contains within It all the complexities that can ever be.
By this model the Prime Observer could be thought of as an
ocean unbounded by any shore and the world as a wave of pure
mathematical patterns of probability traveling through it (which is all
that is needed to constitute an observation) explaining how observers in the world can interact with it in a way the Prime Observer can't. Imagine secondary
observers such as ourselves as icebergs in that ocean. If it encounters no
obstruction the wave would move through the water unhindered but if it
hits an iceberg it will be deflected. The ice is made of the same
“stuff” as the ocean it floats in but while it is in a solid state it
can affect the wave in a way liquid water can’t. Thus even though the wave needs the ocean it has no influence on the wave and the wave will develope guided by nothing more than it's own internal dynamics.
As it is a concept we can say "nothingness" is not nothing. That is a contradiction thus such a state cannot exist if the world is logical. Just saying "nonexistence exists" is absurd. But an unobserved concept is also paradoxical and therefore unstable. It must collapse into a state that is stable but in order to do that it must have something in common with that state. Since the only property that which we commonly call "nothingness" (but which is better defined as the "concept of absolute equilibrium") has is that of a concept it can only be reduced to something else that is also a concept to avoid a non sequitur. And all it has to do to accomplish that is bend back on itself. Nothing more.
Thus may we construct a model providing us with a possible answer to our original question, "why is there something instead of nothing?" that not only explains itself but matches what we see in the world. And though it is not a proof when contrasted with the problems arising from the alternative (atheistic materialism) it seems, to me at least, the only reasonable conclusion. However its most profound revelation may be that, contrary to traditional Theism which holds the cosmos is a purposeful creation, because of the possibility the world may only be an unintentional "byproduct" of what is essentially a Deistic "God" the only purpose to our existence may be that which we choose to make for ourselves.
Bibliography
**********
Adler, Mortimer J.
How To Think About God: A Guide For The 20th Century Pagan
Collier Books
1991
Asimov, Isaac
Understanding Physics
Walker and Co.
1983
Dawkins, Richard
The Blind Watchmaker: Why The Evidence Of Evolution Reveals A Universe Without Design
W. W. Norton
1996
Greene, Brian
The Elegant Universe
Vintage Books
2005
Hawking, Stephen
A Brief History Of Time
Bantam
1998
Isaacs, Alan
The Survival Of God In The Scientific Age
Pelican
1966
Pagels, Heinz R.
The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics As The Language Of Nature
Bantam
1984
Smith, George H.
Atheism: The Case Against God
Prometheus Books
1980
Stenger, Victor J.
God: The Failed Hypothesis How Science Shows God Does Not Exist
Prometheus Books
2007
Thomas, Norman L.
Modern Logic: An Introduction
Barnes and Noble
1966
"If we assumed that “new” energy could be created from nothing shouldn't we also suppose that there would probably be an equal chance “old” energy would be destroyed at the same rate keeping the total energy level in the universe constant?"
Why would we need to assume the total energy in the Universe has to be constant? If new energy can be created, I see no logical reason that old energy must be destroyed. It may, but there is no proof of it being required.
"Likewise what we call "nothingness" is not an empty void "without property" but is actually a neutral concept "
Maybe what YOU call nothingness, but sorry, what I call nothingness is "non-existence" of ANYTHING. Period. The human mind can't really grasp that concept very easily though.
The particle/wave forms of energy can be explained if the "wave" is actually a quantum jump. In atoms, when an electron moves from a lower energy state to a higher one, it doesn't just move to a higher orbit, it seems to disappear, to cease to exist and the reappear at the higher level. Wave forms can be explained in the same manner. The particle form ceases to exist and then reappears at a different point, appearing to move as a wave.
"When a wave of a finite amount of energy propagates the total power in it initially stays the same but it spreads out over a greater distance, thinning and thus getting weaker at any particular place. "
That would depend on the medium it was traveling through. If it were traveling in an absolute vacuum (which can't exist), that would not be true.
As for you argument against materilism, I agree for the most part. But I have problems with things only existing if they are observed. It's the old "if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear..." argument. It means nothing. This type of argument is in itself a opening for religious doctrine. That things can only exist because humans exist to observe them. As in religions, it puts humans in a "special" place in the Universe and gives them a "special" role. What evidence is there for that? I would say none.
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
"If we assumed that “new” energy could be created from nothing
shouldn't we also suppose that there would probably be an equal chance
“old” energy would be destroyed at the same rate keeping the total
energy level in the universe constant?"
Why would we need to assume the total energy in the Universe has to
be constant? If new energy can be created, I see no logical reason
that old energy must be destroyed. It may, but there is no proof of it
being required.
We have no evidence energy can be created or destroyed at all. Just the opposite all the evidence we have suggests energy cannot be created or destroyed. And we have to go with the evidence we have. I was just demonstrating the fact that even if we speculated that energy could be created or destroyed a good argument could still be made the energy level of the universe is constant. But if you have any evidence to the contrary I'll be willing to listen.
"Likewise what we call "nothingness" is not an empty void "without property" but is actually a neutral concept "
Maybe what YOU call nothingness, but sorry, what I call nothingness
is "non-existence" of ANYTHING. Period. The human mind can't really
grasp that concept very easily though.
Your definition does not hold up. As I pointed out in the essay if "nothingness were absolute it would be completely devoid of property. And since potential is a property it would not exist either. But as the universe could not exist if it did not have the potential to exist then "nothingness" cannot be absolute. Therefore there is no such thing as "nothingness" by that definition. All you can do is reduce "being" to it's essence and when you strip all it's permutations away from it all you have left is the idea of it. Nothing more.
The particle/wave forms of energy can be explained if the "wave" is
actually a quantum jump. In atoms, when an electron moves from a lower
energy state to a higher one, it doesn't just move to a higher orbit,
it seems to disappear, to cease to exist and the reappear at the higher
level. Wave forms can be explained in the same manner. The particle
form ceases to exist and then reappears at a different point, appearing
to move as a wave.
I agree with this. But quantum leaps can easily be explained if you think of them idealistically as purely mathematical. A wave is nothing more than probability distribution patterns. And, as Fourier demonstrated in the images linked to in the essay (you did click on all of them didn't you?), you can cause one pattern to change to another instantly simply by adding another wave function to it or subtracting one from it (which is exactly what happens when a quantum of energy is absorbed or emitted by a particle). To us it would appear as if a particle "leapt" from one state to another but in actuality all it did was go from one pattern to another. The problem of wave/particle duality only arises when you try to think of it in materialistic terms.
"When a wave of a finite amount of energy propagates the total
power in it initially stays the same but it spreads out over a greater
distance, thinning and thus getting weaker at any particular place. "
That would depend on the medium it was traveling through. If it
were traveling in an absolute vacuum (which can't exist), that would
not be true.
This goes back to the definition of "nothingness". If an absolute vacuum cannot exist then "nothingness" is not absolute. Therefore, by your own admission here, there is no reason to assume the total energy level of the universe can change.
As for you argument against materilism, I agree for the most part. But
I have problems with things only existing if they are observed. It's
the old "if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear..."
argument. It means nothing. This type of argument is in itself a
opening for religious doctrine. That things can only exist because
humans exist to observe them. As in religions, it puts humans in a
"special" place in the Universe and gives them a "special" role. What
evidence is there for that? I would say none.
You've completely misunderstood this point. It gives no special place to humans at all. And contrary to your assertion there is evidence that concepts do need to be observed.
All the evidence we have says that for a concept to exist there must be a mind to consider it. And if you claim to believe in science and reason you have to go with the evidence you have not the "evidence" you want to have. And there is just no evidence concepts can exist without being observed.
For example you can have 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from what you hold? Aside from the fact they are “physical” we can sense no other property they have in common. But changing the quantity doesn’t seem to affect the physical characteristics of either group so that particular integer itself is not intrinsic to either group physically. 9 has attributes we can understand. It is the square of 3. It is an odd number. And we can distinguish those traits from; say, the number 8 which is even and not a square. So even though it is not tangible it is a thing in its own right as a concept but that is all. You can not point to anything in nature and say, “This is the number 9 by itself.” You can only think about it.
A materialist (someone who assumes the world has an objective existence and does not need to be observed) may reply that the number 9 must be expressed physically as stones or coins to exist but what is the "physical"? Albert Einstein proved that mass (matter) is just energy in particle form. Then the physicist Erwin Schrodinger discovered that energy could be manifested as a wave as well as a particle. And finally another scientist, Max Born, showed that waves are just the probability distribution of a possible event. Probability, in turn, is mathematical in nature and mathematics itself is nothing more than the rules that govern numbers which are concepts.
Others say the numbers themselves are merely the products of material processes in the brain we impose on the world. But it seems to me this is just substituting one unsubstantiated statement for another.
One can not assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material as that is a circular argument. The brain is made of tissue composed of cells built from molecules of atoms that are particles of matter which is energy...
As it is a concept we can say "nothingness" is not nothing. That
is a contradiction thus such a state cannot exist if the world is
logical. Just saying "nonexistence exists" is absurd. But an unobserved
concept is also paradoxical and therefore unstable. It must collapse
into a state that is stable but in order to do that it must have
something in common with that state. Since the only property
that which we commonly call "nothingness" (but which is better defined
as the concept of equilibrium) has is that of a concept it can only be
reduced to something else that is also a concept to avoid a non
sequitur. And all it has to do to accomplish that is bend back on
itself. Nothing more.
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
He's right that's why I didn'y rely on belief but critically examined the evidence I have available to me. But, again, if you have any evidence to the contrary I'll listen to it.
I think you should read this essay too (check link) because every single one of your objections has already been considered and addressed here: http://godvsthebible.com/node/83
"And there is just no evidence concepts can exist without being observed."
A concept is not a tangible thing. So I would grant that. However I've seen no real evidence that matter, an atom or an electron cannot exist without a mind to observe it. Or energy.
But I still disagree on nothingess. Nothingness may not exist, nor have never existed but I think we can define it. In my view, it's the absence of anything. No matter, no energy, no time, no space. Non existence. It may be hard to grasp but I think some have tried to define it in the context of a vaccum. There is of course no such thing as an absolute or perfect vacuum. At least not in the Universe. There are a few particles, electronic fields, gravitational fields etc. even in the remotest reaches of the Universe. But aside from that, space/time may actually have a framework of sorts, an "ether" or whatever you may want to call it. I think the jury is still out on that but it's possible.
But no, that isn't nothing. Even if a perfect vacuum could be established it would still exist in time and space. NOTHING, doesn't exist in time and space because it doesn't exist at all. It's the abscence of anything. Time, space, potential, energy, matter, gravity, etc. etc. Maybe there has never been nothing. But the concept is as real as the concept of the number 9. (In my humble opinion).
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
Esse Est Percepi
"And there is just no evidence concepts can exist without being observed."
A concept is not a tangible thing. So I would grant that. However
I've seen no real evidence that matter, an atom or an electron cannot
exist without a mind to observe it. Or energy.
I would agree with you except for the fact that when you start looking closely at "matter" it seems to lose its objectivity. What we call "matter" seems to disappear at the atomic level. Replaced by nothing more than numbers values and probabilities. And they are concepts. Therefore since that is what the macroscopic world is made of it, again, follows that the world may be nothing more than a mathematical concept. And as concepts must be observed there must be an observer.
But again, that would seem to have humans occupy a "special" place in the Universe, which is religion.
Today I was feeding my cats. I noticed that of course, they go through the same exact routine everyday. I put their bowls down and they run and look at the empty bowl. I put water in one bowl, they run and look at it and then run back and look at their food bowls. I put a little dry food in their bowls. They run and look at it. Take a couple of bites and then run to each other's bowls, looking for the canned food that I haven't put in yet. Then I get the canned food and put it in one cat's bowl. They all go to that bowl but back off and let that cat eat. Then I put canned food in the other two cat's bowls and they start eating. It's exactly the same thing every night and has been exactly the same routine every night for years. They just don't get it. They can't make the connection in their little brains that the food isn't in the bowl until all of the orther tasks are complete. They look for the food as soon as the bowl is put down. And they will never understand it because their little brains are limited.
Our little brains are limited too and we will probably never get it either. We're constrained by the tiny filter of our brains to look at the Universe in a certain way and to understand only the tiny little part we're capable of understanding.
My cats understand a moving object. Their instincts make them pounce on it with amazing accuracy. I've seen one of my cats jump 3 feet into the air and pull down a bird in flight. But she doesn't get the food bowl concept.
I think humans have a similar problem.
But when we run into something we can't explain, we tend to assign it to the supernatural.
I think there's a perfectly logical reason things "appear" to disappear or whatever. Actually, I'm coming to think that string theory has some merit. Subatomic particles are really minute vibrating strings. Or maybe just tiny packets of energy that are vibrating at a particular frequency and energy level. Depending on the frequency and energy level, they manifest themselves as quarks or gluons or photons or whatever.
But again, our tiny little brains may never be able to completely work out the answer. That doesn't mean there is anything supernatural at work. It just means our brains haven't evolved far enough to get it yet.
Sorry to ramble on....
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
Negative.What makes you think humans are the only possible observers? Nor is there anything "supernatural"or "mystical" about this. It is based entirely on logic. I really think you should go back and reread it because you have completely misunderstood what it says.
Okay...it could be that I misunderstood. But it still seems to me that you're saying that some phenomena don't exactly exist unless they are observed. Which implies to me that intelligent life is required and somehow special in that it's needed to make things real. Which doesn't make a lot of sense.
But maybe I am misunderstanding...where am I missing something?
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
Did you click on all the illustrations? They are meant to show how the fundemental foundation of existence itself can be self observing. There is no need to assume intelligent "life" is required at all.
Here's a very abbreviated version:
The argument basically says this; the world is fundamentally mathematical not material. And it is not a "creation" but an epiphenomenon or "side effect". That's it.
The only property "nothingness" has is it is a concept. Using the principle of equivalence this is represented by a straight line because it also only has one property- length.
http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Straight_Line/drawnline.png
There are an infinite number of waveforms that exist in potential in such a line.
http://plus.maths.org/issue38/interview/sine.gif
Now if things happen simply because they can happen and they can happen because they don't result in contradiction then as long as the probability of an event does not equal zero (which is what happens when two identical but opposite waves try to emerge at the same time and cancel out) they may occur for no reason other than the fact there is nothing to prevent them from occurring. Therefore any of these waveforms may emerge spontaneously by themselves or in combination by simple addition.
By themselves the most basic waveforms (sine waves) have no meaning but, utilizing a technique developed by the French mathematician Jean Baptiste Fourier, we can see that merged with others they can create radically different patterns which not only match the same patterns we see in our world they also permit the emergence of an infinite number of other universes each with different physics. So it predicts a "multiverse". Ours just happens to be one conducive to life eliminating the need for a designer.
http://math-reference.com/series/fimg2748.gif
But if, as the evidence suggests, the world is basically concept and concepts must be observed what was observing it before intelligent life evolved? This "problem" is really no problem at all. Lines may curve in many ways. One is a circle. Bending a line in on itself makes it self referential or self observing.
http://www.barclaycardbusiness.co.uk/images/content/icons/circle_arrow.g...
But a self observing concept is aware of itself. Which means, since all being is derived from it, awareness is the basis of all reality. But one should be carefull not to confuse secondary observers that evolve in the world with this Prime Observer which is the self observing foundation of existence itself from which the world arises.
Sounds interesting but does it really have anything to do with reality or is it just a thought experiment. The Universe exists. In my view, it would exist even if there were no intelligent beings to observe it. And observing itself is again, nothing more than a thought experiment. How can something that's not alive, observe anything. Again, it just sounds like that nonsense about a tree in the forest. It sounds impressive until you really think about it. Then it just sounds silly.
Lots of things don't happen, even though there's nothing preventing them from happening. I think we're ALL missing something. Again, our tiny little brains aren't equipped to really understand so all we can do is speculate about silly things that don't really have anything to do with reality.
Sorry, maybe I'm just too tired tonight to really think about this...it's been a long day.
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
Hmmmm....... Is that what your critique has been reduced to? Calling it "silly"?
No this is anything but "silly". It follows directly from our most basic observation, "I think therefore I am." It is also rigidly logical and able to explain itself without contradiction or unfounded assumtions. And it matches what we see in the world exactly. Atheistic materialism can't do any of that.
So even though, as I have always said, it is not a "proof" it is the only reasonable explanation I am aware of why anything exists at all. But if you know of any other I am still willing to listen.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. I don't believe the Universe exists solely on the basis of whether it's observed or not. And yes, that just sounds silly to me. It's religion, not science. I think we simply don't know all the facts yet.
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
Then so is Atheistic Materialism by that definition. It doesn't have any foundation at all.
You are confusing this with religion which postulates a mystical creator God that is all knowing and all powerfull and reaveals Itself through prophets. This is philosophy. It rejects all of the above. It has no ceremony and it denies "God" must be worshipped. Nor did I ever claim it is science. Although it is compatible with science it is, as I just stated, philosophy. Nothing more.
"Then so is Atheistic Materialism by that definition. It doesn't have any foundation at all."
Actually, there is no real evidence for anything but atheistic materialism. Although, I'm not an athiest nor a materialist.
Religion is not only what you state above, but in my view anyway, it includes the notion that human beings, or even intelligent beings, whether they be human or not, hold some special place in the Universe. And that things must be observed by these beings to actually exist. To me that sounds like the old story about the man who thinks everything around him is temporary and only created to fool him. It's only created for his benefit and the moment he leaves an area, everything is taken apart. It's all for him and all about him. It's a neurosis that he has.
In my view, man holds no special place in the Universe. The Universe would exist, exactly the same, whether an intelligent being was around to observe it or not. The only difference would be the lack of an intelligent race. To say otherwise, is to say that intelligent beings are somehow special and that they define reality. A religious concept in my view, not a philosophical one.
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
I'm sorry but you're wrong. There is no evidence to support materialism at all. Take the Michelson Morley experiment for instance. It clearly shows that light, though a wave, travels through space without benefit of a medium. But that contradicts the very definition of a wave which is a medium undulating in a rhythmic manner. The standard explanation for the results of the experiment is the special theory of relativity which says the speed of light is the same for all observers. But the consquences of that is that space curves! That only makes sense when it is seen from a mathematical point of view (and remember mathematics is just the logical manipulation of numbers which are concepts). That is it makes perfect sense if the propagation of light is thought of as waves of probability not "matter".
The same goes for quantum mechanics. The closer you look at particles the less they appear to be tangible "things". Things like wave/particle duality and quantum super position are easily understood from a purely mathematical point of view but only result in contradictions and paradoxes when looked at from a materialistic point of view.
No, there is no "evidence" for materialism at all. The senses are easily fooled. And besides how do you know you're not hallucinating all this? Even the most strident materialists will admit it can't be proven. But if you've discovered something everybody else has missed please post it.
Look, I don't want to discourage you but it's quite obvious this is way over your head. None of your comments even apply to it. I mean, come on dude, you don't even know the difference between religion and philosophy.
For me, the bottom line is no one at this time can prove there isn't a Creator, even if they have intelligent reasons for believing there isn't one. A non-believer might laugh and counter than no one can prove there isn't Santa, a flying monster made of spagetti, etc. But this is actually a red-herring, since the person is attempting to win the argument with ridicule, a logical fallacy. To me, it's certain that belief in God is personal, and no one should be required to worship a being in which they don't believe.
Light "appears" to travel as a wave when in reality it's actually in the form of a quantum pulse, which appears as a wave on detectors. There is no "undulation". But even if there were, it would only mean that yes, indeed, space is curved (which it is). But that's a physical property of space. True it's best described with mathematics but it's a tangible, physical property. One result is gravity. That's pretty tangible.
But space may indeed be a medium. Einstein and others talked of the "fabric" of space and the "ether". Don't confuse space with a vacuum. It's not a true vacuum in any sense of the word. To me, the very fact that there is a limit to the speed of light points to space having some kind of resistance.
Particles at the quantum level exibit the characteristics of energy instead of particles, which is in fact, what they are at the most basic level.
LeftSock - I posted in another thread about this. It's very hard if not impossible to prove ANY negative. That doesn't mean the opposite is true by any means. You cannot prove the existence of a supernatural being either. It's a matter of belief. But not a belief based on evidence. Because there is no evidence either way. I doubt it can ever be proven one way or the other. There is just no evidence. Period.
The arguments you cite are not red herrings, they are valid. An invisible spaghetti monster is just as likely as an invisible, supernatural, father-figure in the sky. Or - just as unlikely. Sorry, there' s just no evidence for ANYTHING supernatural. Everyone is of course entitled to their beliefs and people should respect those beliefs. But that's all they are, a belief. One that isn't based on any true evidence, in the scientific sense.
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
There's many variations to Deism. There are no forced tenets that we have to believe. I tend to be a modern spiritual Deist. I don't believe that God set the universe in motion and went away, or that God is a separate being from us. I believe that God did set the universe in motion but is the universe and more. I don't believe in revealed religions or their Bibles. I don't believe that God intervenes but intercedes with us. I don't believe in prayers of supplication, but believe in prayers of affirmations. I believe in meditation. I believe in reincarnation. I believe in separation of Church and State. I believe in nature, science, and reason as demonstrations of a God.I believe much more, but these are the basics if what I believe as a Deist.
Ok, tell me what label you would put on me. In some ways I guess I'm a pantheist. I believe that the Universe has a built in "Life Force". Life is a natural property of the Universe. Given a similar set of molecules and circumstances, life will naturally occur and evolve every time. Because it's a natural property of the Universe to initiate and evolve living things. When you combine hydrogen and oxygen in a certain way, you get water every time. When you combine organic molecules in a certain way, you get life every time. It's the way the Universe works. So in that regard, I guess you might call me a Spinozist.
However unlinke pantheists, I don't attribute "divinity" to the Universe. I don't believe in divinity or holliness.
I also don't believe in an intelligent creator. If there is an entity or force that could be loosely called a god, it is the Universe but I don't believe the Universe is intelligent nor sentient.
I consider myself to be an agnostic, who leans toward atheism, but at the same time I give some credence to pantheism in the manner described above.
So...what kind of label would you put on that?
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
I can't label anyone, but by what you wrote you did a great job at labeling yourself. Agnostic Pantheist.
"Don't confuse space with a vacuum. It's not a true vacuum in any sense of the word."
Yes I made that exact point in the OP as you can see from the quotes below:
"what we call "nothingness" is not an empty void 'without property'"
and
"'nothingness' is not nothing"
"Space" is just the relationship between two or more points. And points are nothing more than dimensionless mathematical concepts which define location in a continuum. That is space (and time which is just an event marked by the change in the relationship between those points) is the continuum. And continuums can take several forms. They can curve outward forever or they can close in on themselves. Or they can be "flat". Which form they take depends on the axioms upon which they are based. And axioms are merely the rules that govern them. They have no apparent physicality in and of themselves. They appear to be just mathematical constructs. And because the continuum is derived from these rules it follows they may be nothing more than mathematical constructs too (or else you would have a non sequitur).
Just saying there may be some undiscovered "physical" in spite of the evidence of the Michealson Morley experiment is no different from a Theist saying there is some omnipotent omniscient creator God. It is nothing more than a circular argument.
So the example still applies. There is just no evidence supporting materialism and the evidence we do have seems to contradict it. But I will ask one more time. Do you have any, any at all, evidence to the contrary? If you do please post it.
Never said there was evidence for a deity. Again, it's a matter of belief no one can currently disprove, even if she or he thinks it's BS.
One point of mine was that no one should be forced to believe in a deity for whom there is no concrete evidence. I never did say, however, that God is supernatural. Many deists do not believe this.
(I myself am an independent freethinker, loosely self-labled "agnostic theist" for the time being. I don't think labels mean much, though, since one can put a whole milk label on skim milk, for example. Argument and conviction speak more strongly.)
If you're wondering what I think the deity is like, the label "agnostic theist" should imply that I believe such speculation is fruitless or simply imaginative (at least on my part).
Happy birthday to Thomas Paine.
"And points are nothing more than dimensionless mathematical concepts which define location in a continuum."
But space has tangible, physical properties. Mathematical concepts are just that, concepts. It's the language we use to describe reality, it's not reality itself.
Leftsock - How could anyone be "forced" to believe anything? People might be forced to go to a certain church or forced to say they believe something when they really don't but you can never be forced to actually believe something you don't. Unless maybe some kind of drug or brainwashing technique is used....
Christians often say, "You should believe in Christianity - just in case. Why take a chance on going to hell? If there's even the slightest chance it's true then you should believe" (or something similar). How can someone just suddenly stop believeing what they believe and start believing something ridiculous? It's a pretty dumb argument in my view.
But I think I get what you mean. Christians in America try to force their beliefs on everyone else. They see it as their duty to "save" everybody whether the want to be saved or not. They use their influence to get laws passed that reflect their values and in that sense they're forcing their beliefs on everybody else.
"I can't label anyone, but by what you wrote you did a great job at labeling yourself. Agnostic Pantheist."
Hmm...maybe. But I think more like - Agnostic, semi-Monistic, Spinozal Non-Divinity Pantheist.
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Rand
Space would look and act the same whether it is "physical" or not so saying it has tangible physical properties proves nothing. And given the fact the continuum was discovered by Einstein mathematically first and only subsequently confirmed by the 1919 eclipse favors the view it is fundamentally mathematical in nature because it demonstrates space behaves mathematically. As I pointed out previously just saying it appears to be "physical" therefore it is "physical" (that is it has an objective existence) is really just a circular argument.
Uni wrote: "But I think I get what you mean. Christians in America try to force their beliefs on everyone else. They see it as their duty to "save" everybody whether the want to be saved or not. They use their influence to get laws passed that reflect their values and in that sense they're forcing their beliefs on everybody else."
By Nietzsche's moustache, you're right. That's what I meant by "force."
May James Randi smile approvingly upon your rational faculties.
Mathematics - n. The study of the measurement, relationships, and properties of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.
Mathematics is a language. A system of measurements, invented by PEOPLE. It's used to "measure" reality. It is NOT reality itself. Mathematical concepts are used to describe reality. ALL of reality can be described mathematically. That doesn't mean there's any mysterious, supernatural nature to reality. Sorry, but that doesn't sound much better than Christian mumbo jumbo to me.
The continuum was discovered by Einstein??? I thought the first protozoa that realized it could move around in the slime discovered it....
But this is just a red herring. It has no relevance nor meaning. Once again, it's like the "If a tree falls in the forest" argument. Totally meaningless and irrelevant. A pseudointellectial play on words.
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
You're confusing the scribblings we use to represent mathematics with mathematics itself. In other words you're using an ambiguous definition. It's like confusing a map of a road with the road itself.
No if the world wasn't mathematical in nature we should have no expectation mathematics could describe anything. That it does so and does it so well is powerful evidence the world is mathematical.
I could recommend several books on the philosophy of mathematics if you like.
BTW as I have repeatedly pointed out this form of Deism REJECTS a supernatural omniscient allpowerful creator God. Just repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.
I realize Deism rejects a supernatural etc. God. But you keep implying that there is something mysterious about the Universe. That it's somehow, not real in some ways and parts only exists as mathematical concepts. To me that sounds like you're invoking the supernatural. I keep thinking I'm going to hear spooky music ooooweeeeoooo.
Maybe I'm misreading your posts but that's the impression I got.
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
"I realize Deism rejects a supernatural etc. God. But you keep implying
that there is something mysterious about the Universe. That it's
somehow, not real in some ways and parts only exists as mathematical
concepts. To me that sounds like you're invoking the supernatural. I
keep thinking I'm going to hear spooky music ooooweeeeoooo."
I imply no such thing and never have. In fact the very first paragraph of the OP clearly rejects such a notiion:
"If the world is logical it must have a logical reason for being. If it
does not have a logical reason for being it is not fundamentally
logical and we should have no expectation that it would behave
logically. As science suggests the world does appear to behave
logically (which is why it has been so successful in describing it) must be assumed it is logical. And if it is logical it can be
explained."
Where in that do I even come anywhere close to implying there is something "mysterious" about anything?
You stated: "Therefore since that is what the macroscopic world is made of it, again, follows that the world may be nothing more than a mathematical concept. And as concepts must be observed there must be an observer."
You keep harping on this. Now again, maybe I'm misreading your meaning (wouldn't surprise me) and if that's the case then I apologize. But it sounds like you're implying that certain things in the Universe, if not the Universe itself, would not exist without an observer. Again, to me this puts the "observer" or "intelligent beings", e.g. the human race, in a "special" position in the Universe. Which to me leads to the conclusion that we were "created" special and that we occupy a special place in that nothing would exist if we didn't observer it. In my view, that anthropocentrism. That whole line of thinking is ridiculous to me. But again, maybe I'm totally misreading what you were trying to say.
It also sounds like you were trying to say that some elements of the Universe, exist solely as mathematical concepts. Sorry, I simply don't agree. The Universe is logical and has physical characteristics that can bee seen and measured. No need to invoke some mystical attribute by saying it doesn't exist in reality but only as a mathematical concept. To me (sorry) this is just pseudointellectualistic mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with reality.
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
There is nothing in that which implies anything is "mysterious". And I do not say that there are "elements" of the universe that are mathematical. I say the whole thing is. It's called idealism and it is an old philosophy that can be traced back to Plato and beyond. Nor does it give any "special" place to any observer "in" the world. It says the world may be a side effect of a Prime Observer. And there is nothing mysterious about It either. In fact It is very clearly defined. This is a very simple and coherent model that says everything can be explained but it is obviously over your head. And I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. Think whatever you like. I can pretty guess it will still be wrong.
So...when you said: ""Therefore since that is what the macroscopic world is made of it, again, follows that the world may be nothing more than a mathematical concept. And as concepts must be observed there must be an observer."
That wasn't what you meant??? " the world may be nothing more than a mathematical concept."?? I would say it's a great deal more than a mathematical concept. Go jump off a building. A mathematical concept won't kill you, gravity will.
I agree that everything in the Universe can be explained, eventually. What I don't agree with is the Prime Observer part. Sorry, but that sounds like a supernatural being to me. Maybe you don't mean it that way but that's what it sounds like.
And yes, I'll think what I like but you are not qualified to judge whether it's right or wrong.
No amout of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
Everything in your "example" can be explained mathematically. In fact it is the mathematics of the structure of the body vs the mathematics of the structure of the ground that kills you when you fall a great distance. Isaac Newton proved it with the formula F=MA.
And when you make erroneous statements about something I wrote I most certainly am qualified to say you are wrong.