Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 203 posts

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#121

Post by joshuamcginnis »

Vecr wrote: post #116
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #115

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. This cause is uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. 5. To create the universe, this cause must possess intentionality and decision-making capabilities. 6. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a personal, immaterial being: God.

Well, if you accept the argument it only gets you to an infinite or at least very large number of objects that meet the stated requirements. Not one object in particular. And here "object" is quite vague, I would assume almost all of the specifications would be unrecognizable as such to a human.

Here is the argument for a singular cause vs a plurality of causes:

1. Occam's Razor favors explanations with the fewest entities.

2. A single cause requires fewer assumptions than multiple causes.

3. Therefore, a singular cause is more parsimonious than a plural cause.

4. A singular cause ensures consistent intentionality and unified purpose.

5. Multiple causes would necessitate coordination and could result in conflicting intentions.

6. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be singular.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#122

Post by saulpw »

grishka wrote: post #78

Who said that consciousness is "private property"? What if it's actually shared between people, like a field of some sort or another dimension, but everyone somehow gets their very own part of it? We know nothing about the nature of consciousness, so let's not assume anything about it. It might arise from the physical processes in the brain and be bounded by our known physics, sure, but it might just as well be somet…

What if awareness is a field instead of a process? Like a moving magnet induces electric current in a coil of wire, decoherence in microtubules could induce qualia in the awareness field. See also: Alan Watts.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#123

Post by joshuamcginnis »

Vecr wrote: post #120
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more than willing to volley these ideas with you but I'm not following. I didn't once use the word "object" so I don't follow your refutation here. Could you elaborate? Are you saying that my conclusion collapses to a single "cause" (which I'm calling God and you're calling an object?)

No, by the Principle of Multiple Explanations, every "object" that satisfies your conditions is equally viable, everything being equal. You can slap a hypercomputational simplicity prior on that if you want, but that probably militates against the object being God, because I wouldn't expect God to be "simple" under that definition.

It's possible there are multiple explanations, I give you that. No one can know for certain. The argument against it; however, is more logically coherent and parsimonious than the multiple theory. Happy to dig into why that is if you want to go deeper.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#124

Post by jhickok »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #115

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. This cause is uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. 5. To create the universe, this cause must possess intentionality and decision-making capabilities. 6. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a personal, immaterial being: God.

Both P1 and P2 of Craig's argument are problematic, although I admittedly have a hard time following the transfinite gymnastics one way or the other for P2. But for P1 it's not clear to me that there is a logical problem with something coming into existence uncaused, and we unfortunately have nearly 0 experience with something coming into existence to provide enough empirical support.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#125

Post by Vecr »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #121
Vecr wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you accept the argument it only gets you to an infinite or at least very large number of objects that meet the stated requirements. Not one object in particular. And here "object" is quite vague, I would assume almost all of the specifications would be unrecognizable as such to a human.

Here is the argument for a singular cause vs a plurality of causes: 1. Occam's Razor favors explanations with the fewest entities. 2. A single cause requires fewer assumptions than multiple causes. 3. Therefore, a singular cause is more parsimonious than a plural cause. 4. A singular cause ensures consistent intentionality and unified purpose. 5. Multiple causes would necessitate coordination and could result in conf…

Okay, accepting these new criteria (actually somewhat reasonable, if you accept the universe has a creator), intentionality restricts the objects that are acceptable, but if you accept extended Occam's priors that have the capability to contain God [0], then every "object" that meets the requirements and is simpler than God is a better explanation.

[0]: Not the same as the previously mentioned simplicity priors, as you brought up Occam's you must think God fits into logic.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#126

Post by joshuamcginnis »

jhickok wrote: post #124
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #115

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. This cause is uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. 5. To create the universe, this cause must possess intentionality and decision-making capabilities. 6. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a personal, immaterial being: God.

Both P1 and P2 of Craig's argument are problematic, although I admittedly have a hard time following the transfinite gymnastics one way or the other for P2. But for P1 it's not clear to me that there is a logical problem with something coming into existence uncaused, and we unfortunately have nearly 0 experience with something coming into existence to provide enough empirical support.

Regarding P2, there is ample cosmological evidence in the form of scientific theories like the Big Bang that provide strong support for the universe having a finite beginning.

There is nothing that comes into existence without a cause. From your innermost creative thoughts to a spot of mold on bread, to a new leaf on a tree, to the seemingly random emergence of a rain storm - all have a beginning and all have a cause.

Have you experienced something different?

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#127

Post by copypasterepeat »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #121
Vecr wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you accept the argument it only gets you to an infinite or at least very large number of objects that meet the stated requirements. Not one object in particular. And here "object" is quite vague, I would assume almost all of the specifications would be unrecognizable as such to a human.

Here is the argument for a singular cause vs a plurality of causes: 1. Occam's Razor favors explanations with the fewest entities. 2. A single cause requires fewer assumptions than multiple causes. 3. Therefore, a singular cause is more parsimonious than a plural cause. 4. A singular cause ensures consistent intentionality and unified purpose. 5. Multiple causes would necessitate coordination and could result in conf…

But wait a minute, by that logic wouldn't the fewest assumptions be that there was no cause that created the universe and that universe is a timeless, cause-less entity. Isn't that fewer assumptions than positing another entity that has those attributes.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#128

Post by Vecr »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #126
jhickok wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both P1 and P2 of Craig's argument are problematic, although I admittedly have a hard time following the transfinite gymnastics one way or the other for P2. But for P1 it's not clear to me that there is a logical problem with something coming into existence uncaused, and we unfortunately have nearly 0 experience with something coming into existence to provide enough empirical support.

Regarding P2, there is ample cosmological evidence in the form of scientific theories like the Big Bang that provide strong support for the universe having a finite beginning. There is nothing that comes into existence without a cause. From your innermost creative thoughts to a spot of mold on bread, to a new leaf on a tree, to the seemingly random emergence of a rain storm - all have a beginning and all have a cause…

Only if you don't think there's there's a singularity (or singularity-replacement) in the future. Maybe against Wheeler? I can't remember.

But anyway, if there's a singularity (or suitable singularity-replacement) in both the future and the past you might be able to use something like Hawking's No-Boundary Condition theory to claim P2 is false.

Not that I do, but P2 is not rock-solid from a logic standpoint.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#129

Post by jhickok »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #126
jhickok wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both P1 and P2 of Craig's argument are problematic, although I admittedly have a hard time following the transfinite gymnastics one way or the other for P2. But for P1 it's not clear to me that there is a logical problem with something coming into existence uncaused, and we unfortunately have nearly 0 experience with something coming into existence to provide enough empirical support.

Regarding P2, there is ample cosmological evidence in the form of scientific theories like the Big Bang that provide strong support for the universe having a finite beginning. There is nothing that comes into existence without a cause. From your innermost creative thoughts to a spot of mold on bread, to a new leaf on a tree, to the seemingly random emergence of a rain storm - all have a beginning and all have a cause…

I understand that many people believe that, but I don't take it that there is broad consensus-- or any consensus-- that the Big Bang represents the beginning of anything save our the beginning of what we can reasonably infer and observe. I think most self-respecting astrophysicists would respond to the question "Was there anything prior to the Big Bang?" with an "I don't know".

Regardless, P1 is still required to make Craig's KCA work, because P2 is compatible with the universe just happening.

Editing to account for your later comments:

>There is nothing that comes into existence without a cause. From your innermost creative thoughts to a spot of mold on bread, to a new leaf on a tree, to the seemingly random emergence of a rain storm - all have a beginning and all have a cause.

That isn't quite the same scenario. The sort of causation we observe (which is actually compatible with no causation, a la Hume) is more like shuffling around of existing matter and does not translate to direct evidence for or against the hypothesis that something can come into existence uncaused.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#130

Post by esperent »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #115

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. This cause is uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. 5. To create the universe, this cause must possess intentionality and decision-making capabilities. 6. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a personal, immaterial being: God.

If you start with the conclusion (therefore God exists), you'll always be able to find a logical chain that seems to prove it true.
Post reply on HN