How many here are atheists?

[ReverendRyan]

If the case is that the only the finite requires such explanation, you still need to first prove what you are questioning is, in fact, finite.

[Caleb]

Dale can choose. He can say that the forms are either finite or infinite. It's his philosophy, so it's his call. His answer will determine the picture that I have in my head of what he is saying.

[dalebert]

They certainly appear to be infinite. I have in the past argued with a particular friend that math, by existing in the abstract, was in fact infinite and true forever and always throughout the universe, and math seems like a great way of understanding platonic forms. My friend argued that we don't know for certain that the laws of math are in fact universal throughout all of existence since we haven't in fact observed all of existence. It seems sensible to me to assume certain axioms without further proof like that 1+1 = 2 and that it's universal without necessarily having observed all of existence to verify that it's true everywhere and for all time. *shrug* Some axioms and assumptions are necessary in order to come to any kind of conclusion about anything, however it is fair to say that if an axiom does turn out to be untrue, then any proofs based on that axiom can then reasonably considered invalid. The example I gave of a sphere appears to be infinite, i.e. in the abstract and perfect form, it's made up of infinite points.

BTW, the laws of thermodynamics don't say that something cannot become more orderly; only that something else in the universe must become less orderly for that to happen, i.e. that the overall chaos level of the universe must go up. Specifically it talks of an isolated system becoming less orderly. The Earth is becoming more orderly due to the sun becoming less orderly. The Earth is not an isolated system and the apparent orderly nature of the development of life does not contradict the second law.

[Vitruvian]

Eppur si muove

[Pat K]

 

[Jacobus]

Linked from lewrockwell.com:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080511_render_unto_darwin_that_which_is_darwins/

[Kat Kanning]

How did this escape from the 'Endless debate' board anyway?

[dalebert]

Hi Caleb. Just wanted to say a couple things quick that I will follow up on later. I'm running late on my toon for today so I can't allow myself to get too distracted but I also kind of just want to drop a marker so to speak so that I don't lose my train of thought (yet again!) and fail to say some things.

First off, I actually meant to apologize. I feel I was a bit harsh describing your points as a drive by. I've been meaning to say that since even before a post or two of yours back but the last post had some questions which I tried to answer so I kind of got side-tracked.

Second, some of your post did make me think about the nature of consciousness and how it fits into my world view. I'll talk about that more later. I don't think it fundamentally changed my views about the possibility of a supreme being, but it definitely presented some interesting things to think about in terms of platonic forms and such.

More soon, I hope. Pray for me to Wish me luck on getting this toon done in time.

[Caleb]

Linked from lewrockwell.com:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080511_render_unto_darwin_that_which_is_darwins/

Yeah, Jacobus, I really like Chris Hedges. Have you read his book, "I don't believe in Atheists"? It's got a cheesy title, which is what attracted me to it in the first place. I picked it up, fully expecting to be treated to some simple-minded Fundy Christian schtick that would give me a good laugh or two, and to my surprise found a brilliant critique of the new Atheist movement (Sam Harris and his ilk.) The book is a bit pessimistic for my taste, but brilliant nonetheless. I think you'd like it. I sat there in the Barnes and Nobles coffeeshop and read the whole book it intrigued me so much.

[Caleb]

First off, I actually meant to apologize. I feel I was a bit harsh describing your points as a drive by. I've been meaning to say that since even before a post or two of yours back but the last post had some questions which I tried to answer so I kind of got side-tracked.

No need to apologize. I wasn't offended by your statements. Lord knows I've been able to offend people here by what I've said, when that wasn't my intent. It's hard to say certain things when you're trying to avoid offending someone, so please don't walk around on eggshells around me. I've got a little annoyed with several of the participants in this thread (not you), but no one has offended me yet.

Second, some of your post did make me think about the nature of consciousness and how it fits into my world view. I'll talk about that more later. I don't think it fundamentally changed my views about the possibility of a supreme being, but it definitely presented some interesting things to think about in terms of platonic forms and such.

I'm more than a little sympathetic to Platonism. A lot of my more flighty ideas pretty much assume some sort of platonic base (my insistence on love as an ideal, for instance). I, for one, think Plato is one of the most underrated philosophers in the history of the world. When others refer to "The Philosopher" meaning Aristotle, I think that term is more aptly applied to Plato.

Philosophy is rigorous. But I love it. It's a lot of hard work, and then when you're done (if you can ever be done) you don't even have any certainty, all you have is possibility and probability. So it's a bit anti-climactic, which is why I suppose so many of the scientific types don't really like philosophy. Science is far more "concrete." But the more I study philosophy, the more humility it forces upon me. I know, I know, the irony of talking about having humility. But I don't mean it in an absolute sense, just that the more you study philosophy, the more certain you become that your ideas are not, and cannot be, final truth. It's just one possibility, among others, that you happen to believe because some intuition tells you to assign greater probability to this than to that. It's the reason that I'm reluctant to ever use Occam's razor to philosophical ideas. I wrote a whole rebuttal to your use of Occam's razor, and tried to show that it applied better to my position. Then I deleted it and never posted it. Because the whole idea of trying to use occam's razor only works where we can be certain that each idea fits all the facts, which I have come to conclude is not possible with metaphysical questions.

More soon, I hope. Pray for me to Wish me luck on getting this toon done in time.

May the Rotini Monster be with you, and speed you on your way. 

[Caleb]

BTW, the laws of thermodynamics don't say that something cannot become more orderly; only that something else in the universe must become less orderly for that to happen, i.e. that the overall chaos level of the universe must go up. Specifically it talks of an isolated system becoming less orderly. The Earth is becoming more orderly due to the sun becoming less orderly. The Earth is not an isolated system and the apparent orderly nature of the development of life does not contradict the second law.

Oh yeah, I wanted to comment on this. I think I wasn't really all that clear when I wrote the first little piece. I know that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't preclude order; fairly obvious, when you think about it, because otherwise there couldn't be any order. But it does suggest that such order has to go against the grain. I was trying to clarify the reasons why you propose forms in the first place, which is to explain order, with the obvious question being, "why is order necessary to explain?"  One of the things you look at when you look at, say electricity, is that a voltage difference will induce a current because of the tendency of natural things to seek equilibrium. So any order seems opposed to that, which requires an explanation.

[dalebert]

But it does suggest that such order has to go against the grain.

It does go against the grain. Look at how little order there is in a vast universe. I guess we're defining order as life which makes sense, because life propagates itself and is therefore not chaotic. It is its own explanation. In a vast universe of unlimited time, if something that has a tendency to persist and propagate itself comes into existence, then it will tend to continue while disorderly things cease. When it continues, other things that are possible based on the laws of physics will also emerge in time, i.e. evolution. It seems logical to me that the ideal means of persistence and propagation will be selected over time because when they happen randomly, those things persist. This is how I see forms playing into it. The ideal is discovered in time and I see consciousness as something more ideal than something cruder that just replicates or responds instinctively because consciousness is so adaptive to different problems posed against persistence (survival). It's quite remarkable but it also makes perfect sense.

Once a little bit of order forms, it consumes disorder due to the 2nd law, again because order by it's very definition persists and thrives while disorder ceases. This then raises the odds that it will become more orderly and this is an exponential type of growth. Thought is superior to instinct for survival. It makes sense that as creatures better capable of thought begin to appear, they will survive better than less thinking creatures and once again increase the odds of the next stage. Eyes are practically meant to be because they are so useful for survival. It's that "meant to be" that I'm talking about with platonic forms. If it's possible to do and it's useful, then it will eventually be discovered by life. We might skip some steps along the way but always the ideal survival is pursued in a forward manner by natural selection. I don't think of math as an invention, but a discovery. It's just so intrinsic to the nature of the universe.

So there is a kind of purpose to it all, almost a guidance, but the abstract (where God would have to exist) is static. The abstract sphere represented mathematically with infinite points doesn't act on our world but it's the basis for every spherical thing in the universe. It defines what's possible. A soap bubble or a planet is an imperfect physical manifestation that happens because it's made possible by mathematic and physical laws, but they are imperfect and finite. Every living thing is a finite limited thing, a single attempt amongst trillions at achieving perfect order- persistence in a disorderly universe. Of course it's not possible for a finite being to persist forever due to thermodynamics, but in the process of trying to, and assuming we don't die off before we adapt, we'll eventually become a form of life that can persist very effectively in a chaotic universe and live a very very long time. It's meant to be.

So I thought about the possibility of God as a platonic form of consciousness. Are we soap bubbles? You could certainly think of it that way, but that just takes me back to defining away the meaning of God. That definition of God would be static and unable to act on our world. It would merely define what is possible for us to achieve. If anything, it encourages me all the more to follow my nature which is to survive as long as possible and to explore and seek answers. In fact, to go to my grave peacefully feeling that the answers wait for me after death and God is going to care for me would deny my nature as a conscious being. It would be to choose chaos over order. It would place me among those many lifeforms that were closer to ceasing than living, inferior and therefore not selected for survival. It would be to take the very nature of consciousness that makes it so special in a universe consisting of such disorder and discard it as meaningless.

I still haven't gotten into what this means for finite individuals and death. I know that's a big part of the desire for God to exist and it should be addressed. I could go into it now but this has gotten quite long. I'll post more about that soon.

[dalebert]

This isn't an answer to anything or particularly enlightening, but I just happened across it recently and it made me think of this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNsXi-mZ4CQ

[Caleb]

Ah! Now I see. 

I have been trying to formulate order in my mind. I'm not sure we can define it. What is order? I know it when I see it, but what is it?  My mind starts out saying, 'Ok, we know which way entropy goes, toward more disorder. So going back to the big bang, the start of the finite, we ought to see .... what? Maximum order? But we don't.'

Or do we?

It's kind of like this, for me. Order isn't just life. No. Life is ordered, sure. But it's not just life. The planets, the stars, the galaxies, the clusters of galaxies, this is all order too. I even see order in the laws of nature. The thought used to be that the laws of nature were what they are because of necessity, now they are seen as more random, which makes them being what they are even more spectacular. More order.

I think I need to reread Kant. I struggled with him before, but I think there's something there that helps to make sense of this. At any rate, it seems impossible to say that the finite universe began at maximum order. Because then how could any order develop that would be of a higher order? But if the finite universe didn't begin at maximum order, then that also seems impossible. Because we are progressing toward greater entropy. Which means that each moment is somewhat more disordered than the last. Follow it back in time, and you find the reverse, right? Each moment would be more ordered than the one that comes after it, until you reach the big bang with maximum order. But that isn't what we find experimentally.   

So there might be an unseen realm that is in equilibrium with our reality. As our universe becomes more disordered, the alternate becomes more ordered, so that the net is zero? Purely hypothetical, and way off topic. They would have to be interconnected, though, sharing the same fundamental laws.

Ok, back to our universe.  I don't think life is the only bit of order in the universe, or even the primary bit. (well, maybe more on that later.) But life is certainly an interesting part. I don't see it as inevitable as you do. Probably because I don't see it as possible given the premises. Let's phrase the question this way:

What caused the first unfeeling bit of matter to have subjective awareness?

If I sit and scream at a box of rocks, I'm not going to hurt its feelings. Same as if I throw a rock against a wall. Neither the rock nor the wall are injured, are they? The rock and the wall don't have subjective awareness. They don't feel anything. But even at the smallest level, a cell is different. It responds to stimuli. It's not going to write a book report anytime soon. But that's a function of intelligence, not consciousness. A cell is aware at a basic level. What causes that? You can take the chemical foundations of a cell, it's membrane and cell organelles. Are they aware at the same level? It doesn't seem so. Those little bits of matter have no more feeling than a rock, right? They are just bits of matter. What is the magic point that the unfeeling, unaware bits of tiny cellular meat come together to form a feeling cell? At what point does it become "alive" and have subjective awareness? I don't see that as inevitable given the premises. On the contrary, it seems inexplicable.

[Tunga]

BTW, the laws of thermodynamics don't say that something cannot become more orderly; only that something else in the universe must become less orderly for that to happen,

Tunga's experience has shown that violating the laws of thermodynamics is a victimless crime.

Can you rebut that claim?

Just wondering.

That is to say one side of Tungas brain is aware that there is another side.
Though not in that order exactly.