Plato'S Demiurge

[Chris Smith]

Your analogy again communicates no real content, because it has no apparent purchase on reality. I might likewise say "Imagine a square circle."

Does "purchase on reality" refer to practical consequences, or explanatory power? I think those who actually espouse these models, such as theoretical physicists, would say they do have "purchase on reality," in both senses. I'm curious why you think they don't.

Nevertheless, the putative unity of the constituents of the universe is, to me, a literal absurdity. It's binity or bust.

Well, generally monists start by deriving a basic binity from the unity. The first step in Plato's system, for instance, is that Being implies Non-Being. But not all systems that posit a common "Ground of Being" regard that ground as a monad in the Platonic sense. In classical Christianity, for instance, it's a person.

[Log]

Chris,

Your analogy breaks at every detail when I attempt to apply it to the real world. It is a mystery to me, in fact, at what point you believe your analogy illuminates any aspect of observable reality. However, I am all ears to hear how the notion of the universe-as-computer-material-existence-as-program produces testable claims and results which are best explained by that hypothesis versus any other.

As I haven't the appetite for logic-chopping and subdividing propositions ad infinitum, I am bowing out.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Log

[Chris Smith]

Your analogy breaks at every detail when I attempt to apply it to the real world. It is a mystery to me, in fact, at what point you believe your analogy illuminates any aspect of observable reality. However, I am all ears to hear how the notion of the universe-as-computer-material-existence-as-program produces testable claims and results which are best explained by that hypothesis versus any other.

I'm not saying the universe is a computer program. I'm just using that to explain the principle of "giving rise" to matter. But to extend the analogy, I suppose that if you could figure out the rules of the software, you could find bugs and exploits for manipulating reality. That's sort of what theoretical physicists are trying to do with theories like string theory, actually. See here for an example of the kind of prediction that a holographic universe can generate, and here and here for the kind of explanatory power it could have. I'm not a theoretical physicist, so this stuff is pretty meaningless to me except as a mind-opening thought experiment. But apparently when you start doing the math on fundamental forces and exotic sub-atomic particles, you can get a lot of mileage out of theories like this. And if you can find the right theory, then you can predictively model particle behavior.

As I haven't the appetite for logic-chopping and subdividing propositions ad infinitum, I am bowing out.

Sheesh. Whatever, bro.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Chris Smith

[inquiringmind]

Chris,

...I am all ears to hear how the notion of the universe-as-computer-material-existence-as-program produces testable claims and results which are best explained by that hypothesis versus any other...

Chris,

Doesn't quantum physics produce testable claims and results (in particle accelerators, etc) that would fit the hypothesis of matter being more like a hologram projection than concrete "stuff" having real substance?

Edited April 1, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Chris Smith]

Doesn't quantum physics produce testable claims and results (in particle accelerators, etc) that would fit the hypothesis of matter being more like a hologram projection than concrete "stuff" having real substance?

Yeah, see my post above.

[inquiringmind]

Yeah, see my post above.

Thank you Chris.

And if you can find the right theory, then you can predictively model particle behavior.

Like particles popping in and out of existence in particle accelerators, right?

Are you LDS?

Do you believe there's room for an ontological ground of all being in LDS theology?

Does quantum physics suggest a model of the universe that looks more like a great thought than a great machine, and does that suggest that the underlying ground of it's being may be best conceived of as some kind of mind (or intelligence)?

And even though I don't the Big Bang Theory was being mocked at General Conference today, doesn't Elder Richard G. Scott asking his audience "if an explosion in a print shop could produce a dictionary" kinda suggest that he personally sees the need for some kind of ground of all being?

And (while I don't think he was mocking the theory of evolution per sey), would you agree that he was mocking any theory of a wholly undirected, and purposeless process of evolution?

Edited April 1, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Chris Smith]

Like particles popping in and out of existence in particle accelerators, right?

Yep.

Are you LDS?

Nope.

Do you believe there's room for an ontological ground of all being in LDS theology?

Yep. The LDS God is a contingent, material entity subject to natural laws, and I don't see anything in LDS theology to indicate whether there is anything ontologically "behind" God, or what that might be.

In fact, HF could easily be an evolved entity. I can't remember if it's the BoA or a sermon of Joseph Smith that says God "found himself" among the intelligences, but whichever it was, this almost implies that God didn't know his own origin.

Does quantum physics suggest a model of the universe that looks more like a great thought than a great machine, and does that suggest that the underlying ground of it's being may be best conceived of as some kind of mind (or intelligence)?

No, I don't think so.

Quantum physics basically says that the universe exists as a probability function, which is "indeterminate" until an act of "observation", at which point it appears to "collapse" into a particular determinate state. A lot of folks in the humanities have made a big deal out of this concept because they suppose it grants some metaphysical status to "minds" and "observers". But there are a lot of questions surrounding this phenomenon. First of all, there's the question of whether the probability function really collapses into a single state or merely appears to. In the Copenhagen interpretation, observation causes indeterminacy to be actually replaced by determinacy. This does seem to grant a sort of magical power to observation, but even in this view there is the question of whether the observer has to be a mind or can simply be a particle colliding with another particle. Anyway, the more elegant interpretation, in my opinion, is the Many Worlds Interpretation. In this view, all the different probabilities of the wavefunction exist simultaneously as parallel universes, and the act of observation merely answers the question of which universe the observer is in. Other observers in other universes are observing different outcomes. So in this view, indeterminacy isn't actually affected by the act of observation, and therefore no special metaphysical status for observers is implied.

Even if observing minds do turn out to be somehow special, the picture physics gives us of the universe is still overwhelmingly mechanistic and mathematical. So if the Ground of Being is a mind, that mind apparently works far more mechanistically than ours do.

And even though I don't the Big Bang Theory was being mocked at General Conference today, doesn't Elder Richard G. Scott asking his audience "if an explosion in a print shop could produce a dictionary" kinda suggest that he personally sees the need for some kind of ground of all being?

Well, I didn't watch conference and I don't really know anything about Elder Scott. But one of the appealing features of the Many Worlds Interpretation is that it essentially allows for a potentially infinite number of parallel print shop explosions, one of which is bound to produce a dictionary. In other words, the multiplicity of universes explains how a universe could have emerged with the rather unlikely set of characteristics necessary to produce life.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Chris Smith

[inquiringmind]

...the more elegant interpretation, in my opinion, is the Many Worlds Interpretation. In this view, all the different probabilities of the wavefunction exist simultaneously as parallel universes, and the act of observation merely answers the question of which universe the observer is in.

So every possible universe would exist, and anything that could possibly happen would happen in some universe.

But not everything would be possible, and not everything possible would be possible in every universe (so the theory would leave a lot of questions unanswered, wouldn't it?)

The theory wouldn't explain why some things were possible, and other things weren't, why some things were possible in one universe and not in another, why there are any laws of physics anywhere, what consciousness is or why it arose, or why anything is possible anywhere (would it?)

Edited April 2, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Log]

Yep. With the unlimited probabilistic resources posited by MWI, absolutely anything can be explained by an appeal to chance. So you buy a God-free existence at the cost of statistical rationality.

Carry on.

[inquiringmind]

Yep. With the unlimited probabilistic resources posited by MWI, absolutely anything can be explained by an appeal to chance. So you buy a God-free existence at the cost of statistical rationality.

Carry on.

I don't buy the Multiple Worlds Interpretation.

I believe Intelligence creates, and is the ground of all being.

[Chris Smith]

The theory wouldn't explain why some things were possible, and other things weren't, why some things were possible in one universe and not in another, why there are any laws of physics anywhere, what consciousness is or why it arose, or why anything is possible anywhere (would it?)

The MWI itself doesn't suffice to explain all of that, but presumably one could account for it through a theory of what the wave function is and how it operates. I'm not a physicist, so I can't comment on how all this relates mathematically to string theory or other models of the universe. But I assume efforts have been made to integrate these concepts and come up with some kind of combined model.

With the unlimited probabilistic resources posited by MWI, absolutely anything can be explained by an appeal to chance. So you buy a God-free existence at the cost of statistical rationality.

God-free if God is defined according to classical theism, but not necessarily God-free when God is defined according to the finitist theology of the LDS Church.

[Chris Smith]

I don't buy the Multiple Worlds Interpretation.

I believe Intelligence creates, and is the ground of all being.

If the wave function exists within a divine mind, the MWI could still be true.

[Log]

Sure, there might be an infinite number of universes where a finitistic deity exists. However, the necessity to invoke the actual existence of any such deity to explain any phenomenon whatsoever is nil since you've got unlimited probabilistic resources.

[Chris Smith]

Sure, there might be an infinite number of universes where a finitistic deity exists. However, the necessity to invoke the actual existence of any such deity to explain any phenomenon whatsoever is nil since you've got unlimited probabilistic resources.

No, the unlimited probabilistic resources would only explain why the universe improbably had the constants necessary to produce life. Events within the universe, such as your testimony experience, would still have to be explained by appeal to finite causes. In other words, MWI eliminates the design argument, but not the testimony argument, which is what's supposed to be the basis of LDS faith anyway.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Log]

Chris,

You can't be that naive.

Literally any state of affairs possible to occur, including a universe which has, as its sole existing object, a brain in a vat, occurs, and occurs infinitely often.

That's MWI.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Log

[Chris Smith]

You can't be that naive.

Literally any state of affairs possible to occur, including a universe which has, as its sole existing object, a brain in a vat, occurs, and occurs infinitely often.

That's MWI.

No, it isn't.

[Log]

The implications of unlimited probabilistic resources do not end with the instantiation of the laws of physics within a universe.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Log

[Chris Smith]

The implications of unlimited probabilistic resources do not end with the instantiation of the laws of physics within a universe. Any possible state of affairs occurs infinitely often.

You're assuming that the wave function does not operate according to any rules. The constancy of our universe would appear to belie that assumption. Certainly within our universe, at the very least, the wave function follows a set of rules. Therefore, finite events must still be explained by finite causes.

[Log]

I'm making no such assumptions - I'm following the implications of unlimited probabilistic resources which is implied by MWI. Any event, or chain of events, of non-zero probability occurs infinitely often, given MWI. Finiteness/infinitness of these events is utterly irrelevant.

However, I'm gratified to see you reject this reasoning on empirical grounds.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Log

[Chris Smith]

I'm making no such assumptions - I'm following the implications of unlimited probabilistic resources which is implied by MWI. Any event, or chain of events, of non-zero probability occurs infinitely often, given MWI. Finity/infinity of these events is utterly irrelevant.

"Of non-zero probability" is the critical qualifier here. Presumably, a universe which is simply a brain in a vat would be zero probability.

As for finite low-probability events, just because these do occur in some universes doesn't mean they can be expected to occur in our universe. The very definition of a very-low-probability event is that it's very unlikely to occur, and therefore finite events generally cannot just be dismissed through appeal to the probabilistic resources of MWI.

The only reason MWI works as an explanation for intelligent life is that intelligent life would only exist to observe how unlikely it is that it has emerged in one of those unlikely universes that are "fine-tuned" for it. In other words, it's not a coincidence that we happen to be in a universe that's fine-tuned for life. That's the only kind of universe that could produce us. (This is called the anthropic principle.) Our being here doesn't have the same logical connection to other kinds of low-probability events, so we can generally assume that the events we observe require higher-probability explanations.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Log]

Presumably, a universe which is simply a brain in a vat would be zero probability.

There is no basis for that presumption.

As for finite low-probability events, just because these do occur in some universes doesn't mean they can be expected to occur in our universe. The very definition of a very-low-probability event is that it's very unlikely to occur, and therefore finite events generally cannot just be dismissed through appeal to the probabilistic resources of MWI.

Hmm. This sounds vaguely familiar.

Anyways, you buy unlimited probabilistic resources at the cost of statistical rationality.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Log

[Chris Smith]

Anyways, you buy unlimited probabilistic resources at the cost of statistical rationality.

Maybe if you keep saying that and clicking your heels together...

[Log]

Well, if you keep denying the obvious, maybe it too shall pass.

[inquiringmind]

If the wave function exists within a divine mind, the MWI could still be true.

That's interesting (or might be, if I understood what you were saying here--could you help me a little?)

[Chris Smith]

That's interesting (or might be, if I understood what you were saying here--could you help me a little?)

The Many Worlds are simply outcomes of a probability function. So if the probability function is a dream of the Divine Mind (as opposed to, say, a property of "strings"), then the Many Worlds would be part of the dream.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Chris Smith