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

Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

prospectmagazine.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 376 posts

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#271

Post by jychang »

BreakfastB0b wrote: post #270
torstenvl wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is GotG. GotG arguments rely on gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence of the existence of the numinous. This argument isn't about gaps in scientific knowledge. It's about gaps in scientific knowability. The argument is Godelian in nature. The set of natural laws is a logical axiomatic system. It cannot be both consistent and complete. Therefore, either the scientific method is fundamentally unre…

Godel has nothing to do with it. Godel’s Incompleteness is just the math version of the Halting Problem, which is just a fancy version of the classic paradox “This statement is false”. Godel showed that even if you outlaw self referential definitions e.g. “ This statement is false”, math is rich enough in complexity to simulate itself and thus end up with self referential paradoxes anyway. It’s not this mystical thin…

Undecidability is not tied to only self referential definitions, though.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#272

Post by layer8 »

jonnybgood wrote: post #39
Barrin92 wrote: post #9

>For one thing, it manages to create a profound metaphysical intimacy with God without denying His transcendence. this kind of thinking which I often see when people express pantheistic views is exactly what turns me away from it. It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. I guess you can think that the universe is in some vague sense conscious, although I d…

> To me pantheism just seems like a misapplied psychological need. People have a (understandable) revulsion against seeing the universe as mechanic, or random, or 'cold' or what have you, and pantheism not unlike Gaia type theories are comforting. Pantheism is nothing more than seeing the universe, or nature, as god. What you’re reading is one particular flavor of pantheism. A pantheist can also view god, or universe…

If god is the same as the (scientific) universe, calling it "god" doesn’t add anything. To make calling it "god" meaningful, something has to be added. The GP (I believe) opposes whatever is being added.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#273

Post by libertine »

pqs wrote: post #263
wrzuteczka wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whose understanding of Christianity? Modern day American tech workers? Because that is the traditional understanding. It sure was how Christianity was understood by st. Augustine, st. Thomas Aquinas and st. Anzelm. And how Christian philosophers still understand it today.

I don't understand the down voting. I also believe that the idea of the Christian god that most (non-Christian) people have is quite naive and distinct to the idea of God in the great Christian thinkers, such those mentioned by the comment.

>people have is quite naive and distinct to the idea of God in the great Christian thinkers, such those mentioned by the comment.

But that would mean people would need to drop their condescending sense of superiority over others... come on, don't take that away from people for in their eyes it's an easy win.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#274

Post by st-keller »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #59

I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…

What if the total energy of the whole universe amounts to zero? If - what we call „everything“ - and that what we call „nothing“ is essentially the same? Structurally they clearly are: Both are „unbounded“ - „borderless“. What if a „void“ isn’t the only form „nothing“ is allowed to take?

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#275

Post by layer8 »

dsign wrote: post #267
amai wrote: post #252

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." Carl Sagan

So God is only confusing notation we are better off without.

The tension is that many people are actually better off with a notion of god in their inner life for their psychological wellbeing, but to avoid cognitive dissonance they also want everyone else to subscribe to the same notion, a conflict which makes society/culture worse off. I don’t think this can be fully resolved.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#276

Post by 3pt14159 »

kmmlng wrote: post #243
unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #59

I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…

Interestingly, this line of thought seems compatible with the description of God in the bible to me. If you put aside all your preconceived notions of some dude in the sky and simply read the bible for what it is, you'll find things like "I am what I am", "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end", etc. The Cristian God is called the Father. And what is a father but a source? The first link in a causal…

I generally don't like discussing religion on HN, so apologies if I decline to respond to a reply, but the description of God in the Bible doesn't really fit with Spinoza's God for the mere fact that evil is wholly set apart. It exists within demons and humans but it does not exist within God. The logic of an entity with infinite attributes being God is true, but just as the natural numbers are infinite but do not contain negative integers so does the existence of an infinite Divine not contain all attributes.

Besides, some attributes cannot be co-existent anyway, at least not without breaking logic and mathematics. A man cannot turn 20 years old and 120 years old at the same time, for example.

That said, I'm not fully sure because there are some escape valves. Matthew 19:26 or Romans 8:28, for example.

But one of the reasons I don't like talking about religion on HN is that I've found a computer science centric way of thinking about some sub branches of philosophy and theology is a dead end. We're used to dealing with such pedantry and strict logic that I find we over use them in places where they're not nearly as useful as they seem.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#277

Post by mpfundstein »

GreenWatermelon wrote: post #233
mpfundstein wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

where is time created IN? and where is logic created IN? and how can logic even be created? Is the pysical world that Allay somehow transencds contained in something or not? If not, where can Allah transcend to? Is your Allah living completely alone in eternal loneliness or are there other beings that they can converse with? I don't know. Just because you do some word trickery and somehow relate it to maths, the esse…

Loneliness isn't something that can be attributed to God. Loneliness stems from the lack and desire for contact with others, but God is complete. He doesn't lack and doesn't need. God isn't constrained by space nor time because he created both. As for your first two questions, I can't comprehend them enough to think about them.

you realize that your first to sentences sound like stuff some weird sect leader would preach, right? it doesnt make any sense.

also, why does god have a gender? why do you assume they are male?

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#278

Post by BreakfastB0b »

jychang wrote: post #271
BreakfastB0b wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Godel has nothing to do with it. Godel’s Incompleteness is just the math version of the Halting Problem, which is just a fancy version of the classic paradox “This statement is false”. Godel showed that even if you outlaw self referential definitions e.g. “ This statement is false”, math is rich enough in complexity to simulate itself and thus end up with self referential paradoxes anyway. It’s not this mystical thin…

Undecidability is not tied to only self referential definitions, though.

The only ones I’m aware of are. Can you link me some examples? I’d like to read up on it.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#279

Post by technothrasher »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #59

I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…

"It's pretty neutral and sensible to call "everything" the creator, as Spinoza apparently did, cuz "nothing" sure didn't make the universe. And as a matter of definition, that would be God."

There are only two choices, either something always existed or something came from nothing. Either way, reality cannot have been created. Perhaps there was an external cause of the universe as we currently know it, but that would have to be shown, not just asserted. While that would be useful to know, it would not solve the problem of first cause, but simply push it back one level. Further, calling this unestablished cause a "creator" and/or a "God" is smuggling in a lot of baggage about intentionality that dovetails into all kinds of other religious beliefs. This is confounding at best, and disingenuous at worst.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#280

Post by mensetmanusman »

burkaman wrote: post #22
mynameisash wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it This seems like quite a leap. Parts of the earth are conscious, so is the earth conscious? Parts of the universe are alive, so is the universe alive? Every member of my family is conscious*, but I wouldn't say that "my family" is conscious. *Solipsism notwithstanding

I've never heard this before but I think it's reasonable. Imagine if you were simulating the universe in a computer and a creature within your simulation achieved consciousness. I think it would be fair to say your simulation had achieved consciousness, even if 99.999...% of the processing power was spent simulating the rest of the universe "unrelated" to the conscious part.

The interesting thing is everything is required as it happened for the universe to become conscious in the form of humans. E.g. supernova that generated the right heavy metals to stabilize the protein complexes that let our brain function.
Post reply on HN