Is GOD In The 'Multi-verse'?

"If y’all don’t mind, I’m gonna simply neglect to engage with y’all on this’n, OKay ?"

I don't blame you. :)

You are either remarkably subtle or simply obtuse. I cannot decide which ...

Regards,

21stCenturion

Thank you so much for keeping me in the loop, dearest sister in Christ!

And hi there, LogicWings, long time no chat!

I apologize for my long absence from this discussion - we are up to our necks in elder-care and have one of the elderly cousins scheduled for an iliac arterial bypass on Friday which the cardiologist wanted to delay for four weeks after her stent last week. But she is at risk for sepsis from a staph infection in her toe, so they moved it up. It'll be risky either way.

So I must just post and run as time permits.

LogicWings: Universe is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists. It Is Not A Thing!

betty boop: It's precisely here, LogicWings, where our "dialog" goes off the rails, every time it seems — in a clash of fundamental worldviews.

I do not believe the universe is merely an abstract concept.

I very strongly agree!

Indeed, the measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation from the 1960's forward agree that the universe is finite and expanding. Or to put it another way, space/time does not pre-exist, it is created as the universe expands - which of course means there was a real beginning of space and time.

Beyond that I should note the obvious, that language terms and symbols are representations and not the thing or event they represent. The encoding and decoding of those terms and symbols in ordinary conversation (Shannon) can result in faulty communication.

Thus when LogicWings states that Universe is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists. It Is Not A Thing! he is not speaking of that which is but the word that represents what he believes is that which is.

And he is wrong on both sides. First, the word "universe" is not the universe. His last sentence would indicate that he understands this but if so then why not finish the sentence, i.e. "The word 'universe' is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists."

Even so he is wrong on the second as well for the "universe" is finite according to the above science which means it is a subset of "all that there is."

For instance, mathematical structures exist outside of space and time (Tegmark). Indeed according to Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe model, things "in" space/time are manifestations of those mathematical structures.

As another example, manifestations of pi exist throughout space/time - but pi is outside space/time. Pi is not "in" the universe or multi-verse and yet it is.

The word "universe" does not represent the sum of all human knowledge about all that exists.

Oxford Dictionary

1. (the universe) all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

2 a particular sphere of activity or experience: the front parlour was the hub of her universe

3 (Logic also universe of discourse)another term for universal set

Of course, if LogicWings meant "universal set" (a mathematical term) then he would need to be even more specific about the system of sets.

God's Name is I AM

"You are either remarkably subtle or simply obtuse. I cannot decide which ..."

See if this helps:)

"....it is much more difficult to do battle with a weak mind than a strong one. You understand their assumptions but they don't understand yours, so you inevitably end up on their level and thus on their home court. Plus, weak thinkers embrace their false ideas in a manner disquietingly similar to religious groups who predict the second coming, or the arrival of space ships, or the Cubs winning the World Series, but who do not modify their beliefs when the event fails to come about. In fact, it is a well-known observation that a few of the disappointed may depart from such a group, while the majority only become more thoroughly entrenched in their belief system, defending it all the more stridently.

In fact, one of the giveaways that we are dealing with motivated stupidity is that the false belief is held onto more fervently than a demonstrably true belief. Someone who thinks something is true is generally more than willing to submit the truth to scrutiny and to allow reality (i.e., the Real, not to be confused merely with the exterior world, the fallacy of scientism) to arbitrate. But when a belief rooted in motivated stupidity is challenged, it raises the psychological hackles of the individual, triggering a cascade of easily observable defense mechanisms....

HERE

Thank you, Kind Sir !

I GOT it !!! Of course, it’s Obtuse !!! You’re practically planar ...

Regards,

21stCenturion

A subtle smile backatcha! :)

Thanks Alamo-Girl for making my task easier. By responding to what I wrote in the way you have you make it easier to clarify. Thus I am responding to you first.

Thus when LogicWings states that Universe is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists. It Is Not A Thing! he is not speaking of that which is but the word that represents what he believes is that which is.

Yes, to a certain degree. I actually intend more than just this, but this is what leads to your objections.

And he is wrong on both sides. First, the word "universe" is not the universe. His last sentence would indicate that he understands this but if so then why not finish the sentence, i.e. "The word 'universe' is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists."

My, my you are picky. You should be picking apart Godwin's assertion that because we don't completely understand the Universe "science has its own set of names for things it does not understand, names such as "big bang," "genetic program," "life," "consciousness," or even "universe" — for what scientist has ever stood athwart and observed this thing called "universe?" that we (or science) have no right to use the concept. (That is what this quote implies to me. How you read it is up to you.) And this is what I was objecting to.

Thus the following is a misunderstanding on your part of what I meant:

Even so he is wrong on the second as well for the "universe" is finite according to the above science which means it is a subset of "all that there is."

Some of this is semantic. I prefer my Webster's unabridged definition of universe, it is more all encompassing.

1) The totality of known and supposed objects and phenomenon; all existing things, including the earth and all its creatures, the heavenly bodies, and all else throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

I find it funny that your formulation above for the "universe" is finite according to the above science which means it is a subset of "all that there is." actually refutes the Godwin's above quote. How can you make such categorically absolute statements about the nature of the Universe if it isn't a valid concept? Thank you.

For instance, mathematical structures exist outside of space and time (Tegmark). Indeed according to Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe model, things "in" space/time are manifestations of those mathematical structures.

As another example, manifestations of pi exist throughout space/time - but pi is outside space/time. Pi is not "in" the universe or multi-verse and yet it is.

As a theoretical construct fine, as a literal one – NOT! A creature bound by the space-time continuum has no means by which to determine that anything exists outside of that space-time continuum except upon a hypothetical basis.

Funny thing, in checking something about Tegmark I found the following:

Are there infinitely many other stars, or does space connect back on itself? Most of my colleagues assume it is infinite and the data supports this, but we don't know yet.

and

For instance, measurements of the cosmic background radiation (the echo left over from the big bang) indicate that the space we live in is infinite and that matter is spread randomly throughout it. Therefore, all possible arrangements of matter must exist out there somewhere—including exact and inexact replicas of our own world and the beings in it.

Oh, and he makes explicitly clear that the Parallel Universe Models are theoretical at this point.

In other words, we have access to no empirical data that tells us that only empirical data exist. There is no knowledge at the level of the senses. Likewise, no rational operation can provide its own content.

Is this a quote, or is this you speaking? And are you asserting this is true?

M-PI: "In other words, we have access to no empirical data that tells us that only empirical data exist. There is no knowledge at the level of the senses. Likewise, no rational operation can provide its own content."

LogicWings:"Is this a quote, or is this you speaking? And are you asserting this is true?"

No, that is not me speaking. Yes, I believe it to be true, and yes it is a quote. I gave you the link to the source in Post #90 above
The source is Robert W.Godwin, Ph.D (a forensic clinical psychologist whose interdisciplinary work has focused on the relationship between contemporary psychoanalysis, chaos theory, and quantum physics).

Here it is again with more context:

Winks, Links, Finks, and Shrinks - ".... because of the nature of UNCONSCIOUS LOGIC...."

[snip]

".....Now, as Jimmy Carter might say, back to our regularly scheduled pogrom.

There are only four sources of knowledge, 1) empirical (through the senses), 2) rational, 3) pure intellection, and 4) revelation. For a metaphysical naif such as Sam Harris, whom we briefly discussed yesterday, there is only empiricism and reason, which is the beginning and end of his startling contribution to philosophy. As if we haven't known for the past couple hundred years that the absurd philosophy of materialism exists. For how absurd is it to employ a faux version of intellection to prove that intellection does not exist?

In other words, we have access to no empirical data that tells us that only empirical data exist. There is no knowledge at the level of the senses. Likewise, no rational operation can provide its own content.

Rather, a person decides the purposes for which he will use his powers of reason. Evidently, it does not go without saying that this personal decision cannot be reduced to reason.

Not only that, but so much is now known about "emotional intelligence," that this alone should suffice to put the kibosh on any form of unalloyed rationalism. Knowing is a deeply personal experience, both in telling us what is important to know and in assimilating the depth of the truth of what is known.

It is possible to be deeply stupid, but in order for that to happen, you generally have to be quite intelligent.

For this is the bottom line: either my spiritual writing is a product of intellection, spontaneously produced on the spot each morning just because I enjoy doing it; or it is a product of delusion. But either way, it is not susceptible to rational refutation. Either you get it or you don't. (I shouldn't even put it that way, because it implies that I'm infallible or something; let us just say that you either enjoy it or you don't -- the ultimate purpose is not to promulgate a dogma but to provide material for the reader's own intellection.) Those who do get it are, like me, either deluded or just enjoy the intellection. It's just a feeling we have. But feeling, like everything else, runs along a vertical continuum. There are feelings and there are feelings, but they are hardly the same thing (another good topic for a future post).

**** Now, this is not always true of my political writing. Obviously there are some areas "at the margins" that are subject to a purely rational approach; for example, raising the minimum wage either causes inflation and unemployment or it doesn't. That's an empirical question. Likewise, either the models used to predict catastrophic weather changes are accurate or ridiculously flawed.

But even with politics, I would say that the majority of my stances are a result of intellection, not reason. For example, my understanding of the spiritual primacy of liberty leads me to reject the left, which always erodes liberty. My opposition to "affirmative action," or government enforced discrimination, is rooted in principle. This is not something I can be "talked out of." Likewise, my belief in low taxes and a small federal government is a reflection of my principled belief that this arrangement produces better human beings and is vital to our collective spiritual evolution; or my belief that competition will produce a better educational system, or that capital punishment for murderers is a deeply moral act of cosmic and divine justice. (Perhaps I should add, when it is carried out by civilized people, not barbarians -- which gets into a whole different set of issues. For example, I am open to the idea that Muslims should not carry out the death penalty until they can comprehend the sacredness of life -- in short, unless or until they develop Judeo-Christian values, for the identical act of punishment can be a result of justice, or mercy [for the victim but also the perpetrator if he is able to understand that wishing to be put to death is the only way he can even begin to show atonement for his crime], or sadism, or scapegoating; once again, it is the "link" that is most important, and nowhere in the Islamic world is there the regard for life that those of us who are beneficiaries of the Judeo-Christian tradition take for granted.)"

LogicWings to AlamoGirl:"You should be picking apart Godwin's assertion that because we don't completely understand the Universe "science has its own set of names for things it does not understand, names such as "big bang," "genetic program," "life," "consciousness," or even "universe" — for what scientist has ever stood athwart and observed this thing called "universe?" ~Godwin ---that we (or science) have no right to use the concept. (That is what this quote implies to me. How you read it is up to you.) And this is what I was objecting to."

Oh, I can't wait to see what THIS implies to you. :)

"..."It is only in human understanding that the cosmos becomes a universe in the full sense."

"The really strange thing, as Aquinas observed, is that "the perfection of the entire universe can exist in one of its parts."

"That would be us.

"It is only in human understanding that the cosmos becomes a universe in the full sense." In other words, the "end" of the causal chain cannot be found in the endless horizontal iterations of abstract matter, but in our concrete vertical understanding. Which is another way of saying in truth, specifically, the truth of being.

"... it is only our understanding of the cosmos that makes it possible. For if we couldn't understand it, surely we wouldn't be here. The ultimate cause of the cosmos is its truth, a truth we may know and renew in the timeless ground of the intellect. So when I say that "I caused the universe," I am not really making any special claim for myself. Now and again I do it all the timeless. "

I Created the Cosmos! I Caused the Universe.

Thank you for your response. I have been dreading it because I knew I was going to take a beating. You were kinder than I expected.

I'm glad I didn't fulfill your expectations then. : )

Please don't associate the others with me.

Ok.

A problem I have with the rigidity of your approach to life is its inability (To me at least. Perhaps you can dispel that for me.) to accommodate values and subjective judgements. You can say, "If you do A the likely outcome is B but if you do X the likely outcome will be Y." However, that can't tell you whether B or Y will be good or bad or even satisfying.

You have to ask, what is value? What is the context? What is of more value to a starving man lost in the wilderness? Finding a gold coin or wandering upon an apple tree? How do you arrive at that answer? What is of more value next? Finding a shack with a cot from which seek shelter from the elements or a top of the line Rolls Royce that is out of gas?

The utility to the individual for that given purpose is what establishes the value, for that person. When a person has all his or her needs met then the hierarchy of values changes. Finding a mate, learning a career, all takes place in individual context, according to the 'subjective judgment' of that individual. Each individual evaluates what he or she deems of more value and makes choices.

How does logic determine the appreciation of music, art, poetry, etc.? Is that something beyond the senses or is simply primal reaction? If primal, what accounts for differences in taste. If something else, what?

Interesting question. Logic concerns thought. Music, art, poetry and other esthetic considerations are of other kind. Music is non verbal, so other than the thought required to build instruments, learn to read notes, proper tuning, etc., logic doesn't enter into it. Unless someone is attempting to achieve a specific symbolic goal, such as sad music or celebrating exultation, then some thought as to whether one is fulfilling one's purpose or not. Purpose implies thought.

To some degree what accounts for differences is cultural. Note the difference between the Big Band era, Rock and Roll and hip hop. To a certain degree this is a herd phenomenon.

In my early twenties I had a friend who was an English teacher at a University. He was questioning me about my thoughts about the world, and I was expounding and he laughed and said, “That is delightful, everything you say is sheer poetry.” I said, “What do you mean?” He replied, “You say whatever you want to.” Why some people find poetry appealing is up to them, what they choose to value.

Do you run a quick pretest before you think or say something? Can you parse your thoughts before you think them? How do you account for engrained knowledge from your early life which may be subjective instead of objective?

No, I don't need to do that. I have spent a lot of time studying and thinking these things through. I have studied nearly every school of philosophy and religion worldwide. Along the way I discovered logic, quite by accident and began studying that, much of I hadn't understood before that began to fall into place. The contradictions between the different schools of thought and the commonalities. I had to look at what I 'believed' and evaluate that in light of my experiences and what I could verify for myself. Eventually I came to, what is to me, a coherent philosophy, one that is congruent with reality as I experience it. At this point one doesn't need to pretest or parse anything.

I think we often make assumptions which we don't recognize as such. I assume (Yes I said It) you think you have overcome that by intuiting the truth of everything.

There is a distinction to be made between assumption, assertion and axiom. The only thing I can really take as an axiom is that I exist. Descarte's dictum, flawed though it is, is close enough to the truth. And since the rules of reality are such as they are, I have to take that as a given as well. (Everyone else does to no matter what they say. The only exceptions to this are the people who intentionally kill themselves. But no one, no matter what they say about reality being amenable to human thought, intentionally steps in front of a semi-truck racing down the highway. They understand and acknowledge the laws of reality quite well thank you.)

Whether something is a true proposition is dependent upon knowing the truth. Being outside the realm of our senses does not negate its truthfulness. It could easily be a truth we have yet to discover. It may not lead to a logical syllogism but it could be truth nonetheless. Is E+MC2 a valid syllogism? What do our senses say about that?

Whether a proposition is a 'true proposition' depends upon the definition of the terms that make up the proposition. Now you are getting to the crux of the matter. A proposition is made up of terms, which are words, which represent concepts. The process of identifying and defining those concepts is dependent upon logic. A perception is experienced enough times to establish a class, or set, for which a symbol then represents that experience. In language words, in other forms of thought, such as math or calculus, other symbols, but all are arrived at logically in the same manner.

Let me clarify what I mean. When we were driving across country my sister was about 1 year old or so, just beginning to talk. As we drove across country every animal with a head, 4 legs, and tail was a “dog.” She had the perceptual ability to note the shape of the animal but not the experience of separating differing sets of similar looking elements.

So when you say, “knowing the truth” what you actually mean is that the proposition's definitions are congruent with reality. Thus saying, “a horse is a reptile” is not while “a horse is a mammal is” by definition.

Being outside the realm of our senses does not negate its truthfulness. means being unable to determine whether the definition is congruent with reality, thus its truthfullness. Now, people get all hung up at this point because abstracts are not subject to the 'realm of the senses' but as definitions that contain multiple elements they have logical validity. For example there is no “mammal” because it is an abstraction that subsumes a whole plethora of species. What often happens is that an abstract can contain a number of other abstractions and people lose track of the fact that the abstract is ultimately grounded in concrete experience.

This leads to your next question. The terms in E=MC2 are all abstractions. This is not a syllogism but was arrived at by a whole series of syllogisms where the conclusion of one syllogism forms the premise of another syllogism, and that of another, and so on, (termed a Sorites). Now Einstien's equation is based upon mathematical logic so isn't strictly dependent upon the syllogisms of formal logic (although I could make an argument that it ultimately is) but the initial definitions that those terms represent are.

What is your thought about conjecture? Is it a valid way of thinking or a waste of time? Don't the quantum sciences do a lot of that? Aren't many problems solved that way? To you, how is conjecture different from imagination?

Conjecture is fine as long as it is stated as conjecture and not attempted to be smuggled in as fact. It has its use in thought exercises and hypothesis. To use a recent AGism, conjecture would be a sub-set of imagination.

I see strict logic as useful in much of our lives but not in its entirety. To adhere rigidly to formal logic is very sterile and anti-creative.

Strict logic? I'm not sure what that means. My point is that if it concerns thought, the only tool is logic. These discussions are mostly philosophical and thus, subject to the rigors of logic. In everyday life you use logic implicitly, (without consciously realizing you are doing so – it is called common sense) far more than you probably realize. What I object to is when people try to pass off arguments, make assertions in discussions such as these, that clearly violate the laws of logic.

And, for example, there is a whole school of political philosophy that holds that liberalism is only possible via fallacious thinking. There is a whole realm of economic philosophy that maintains the same thing, for different reasons. The two are related and cross paths frequently. In these applications formal logic is extremely creative. So I think your view of logic isn't all that accurate but that's ok too. I was once a liberal Democrat, as my parents were. We all learn along the way.

Thank you for your reply, dear LogicWings!

Yes, I am picky and I am speaking to your assertions, not Godwin's.

If it were possible, I would speak in mathematics because that is the most precise language known to me. And I prefer the Oxford Dictionary for definitions.

There, the word "universe" is first defined in the context of science, e.g. astrophysics and physical cosmology. If we were speaking in math terms we would say "universal set" not just "universe" and we would specify the system.

But of course the word "universe" is also used in casual conversation - Oxford's second definition - there it may entail considerably more or less than either science or math.

I suspect that is context for the use of term in philosophy and theology but in that case the boundaries of scientific investigation, methodological naturalism, would not apply anyway.

A creature bound by the space-time continuum has no means by which to determine that anything exists outside of that space-time continuum except upon a hypothetical basis.

That statement equates the universal set of knowables to the subset of knowables by empiricism. That is illogical.

Also, your quotes from Tegmark sound as if he is speaking of Everett's many worlds cosmology. Do you have a link?

Thanks.

Without objects there is nothing to be known, and without subjects there is no way to know it. But in the end, both flow from the same prior unity, i.e, Truth as such.... the Truth of Being....

Thank you so much, dear Matchett-PI, for the outstanding link!

RE: LogicWing's reading that Dr. Godwin is saying that "we (or science) have no right to use the concept [universe]." I don't hear him saying that at all. Obviously scientists do use such terms as "universe," "big bang," "genetic program," "life." All "Gagdad Bob" is saying is that they really don't understand what these concepts mean. Or to put it another way, they see the "what," but not the "why."

I think Godwin is right: "the 'end' [i.e., purpose, goal, or limit which, in Aristotelian terms is final cause — the mere mention of which gives many scientists fits these days] of the causal chain cannot be found in the endless horizontal iterations of abstract matter, but in our concrete vertical understanding." If one denies the existence of the vertical extension, as materialists usually do, then understanding actually becomes impossible. For it seems to me that the vertical extension is the province of the subject, or self; the horizontal the province of material objects that are accessible to direct observation (and subsequent reflection) by the thinking subject, who lives in the vertical extension.

It is fascinating to me that Aquinas anticipated a currently raging "debate" in science regarding the relations of parts and wholes in organic systems: "'The really strange thing,' as Aquinas observed, is that 'the perfection of the entire universe can exist in one of its parts.'" What on earth could he mean by this?

In classical (i.e., Newtonian) physics, organic — living — systems are essentially viewed as mechanisms. As whole systems they can be understood, like any other machine, as a simple sum of their parts.

The only problem with that is, as Bohr discovered, "a scientific analysis of parts cannot disclose the actual character of a living organism because that organism exists only in relation to the whole of biological life."

What [Bohr] did not anticipate, however, is that the whole that is a living organism appears to exist in some sense within the parts, and that more complex life forms evolved in a process in which synergy and cooperation between parts (organisms) resulted in new wholes (more complex organisms) with emergent properties that did not exist in the collection of parts. More remarkable, this new understanding of the relation between part and whole in biology seems very analogous to that disclosed by the discovery of nonlocality in physics. — Menas Kafatos/Robert Nadeau, The Non-local Universe, p. 107

There seems to be a challenge to Darwin's theory in these remarks. As Kafatos/Nadeau note, "Darwin's understanding of the relations between part and whole was essentially classical and mechanistic." As Darwin put it in The Origin of Species,

There must be in every case a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life." [I.e., the environment]

Which of course does not explain cases where the relationship between individual organisms ("parts") "is often characterized by continual cooperation, strong interaction, and mutual dependence."

A chimera like the hermit crab — a composite, "whole" creature involving "parts" from three different phyla — seems not to be a good candidate for standard Darwinian explication....

...the atomized individual organisms in Darwin's biological machine resemble classical atoms and ... the force that drives the interactions of the atomized parts, the "struggle for life," resembles Newton's force of universal gravity. Although Darwin parted company with classical determinism in the claim that changes, or mutations, within organisms occurred randomly, his view of the relationship between part and whole was essentially mechanistic. [Ibid., p. 109)

As Kafatos/Nadeau summarize the implications:

What is more interesting for our purposes is the prospect that the whole of biological life is, in some sense, present in all the parts. For example, the old view of evolution as a linear progression from lower atomized organisms to more complex atomized organisms no longer seems appropriate. The more appropriate view could be that all organisms (parts) are emergent aspects of the self-organizing process of life (whole), and that the proper way to understand the parts is to examine their embedded relations to the whole. — Ibid.]

But of course, St. Thomas Aquinas was saying much more than that. He was evidently referring to a particular "part," Man, in his observation that "the perfection of the entire universe can exist in one of its parts." Indeed, that very "part" which was created Imago Dei. But to "go there" would probably take us beyond the scope of the present discussion....

So, to wrap up for now: It seems to me (FWIW) that Darwinian evolutionary–biological "mechanics" cannot be a full, complete, truthful explication of the evolution of species, let alone of the universal phenomenon of Life. The reason being that it confines its scope to a linear, time-irreversible ("horizontal") sequence of cause-and-effect relations which, by the way, have no beginning in time, thus no possible foreseeable end, nor any intelligible "in-between." That is, in this worldview, there is no First nor Final Cause — apperceptions of which are only accessible along the "vertical extension" of self-reflective consciousness.

Thank you so very much, dear Matchett-PI, for your outstanding post!

Of course, if LogicWings meant "universal set" (a mathematical term) then he would need to be even more specific about the system of sets.

Indeed. I am particularly wondering about that because, a few posts ago, in reply to my observation that faith and reason are not mutually-exclusive terms, LogicWings refuted me by claiming that "faith" and "reason" are merely names for different sets which have no common members whatsoever.

Somehow, I do not feel "refuted" by this claim. If LogicWings can give me three examples of what a "member" of the "set of faith" looks like, and give me three examples of what a "member" of the "set of reason" looks like, maybe we could get somewhere with this line of investigation.

Otherwise, I suppose we will just all be spinning our wheels....

The thought has struck me that "set modeling" is not the best way to approach such problems.... But I'm keeping an open mind, pending LogicWings' "feedback."

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your outstanding essay/post!

As a personal idiosyncrasy, I happen to believe the scene in Daniel --the hand writing on the wall-- is an eyewitness account related through the ages in Jewish scriptures. I am immediately drawn to presume the body to which the hand was attached, though not visible to the folks in Belshazzar's palace party central, exists in a spacetime not readily available to our sensing due to the way God made us for the present spacetime we inhabit. BUT, the fact that one in the 'other' spcaetime can reach into our spacetime and write on the palace wall tells me there is some 'convergence', some shared dimensional variability. In brane theory, higher dimensional branes (more complex, if you will) can 'project' onto lower dimensional branes, and I suspect something akin to that occurred in Babylon long ago.

So, let us also state that in whatever spacetime the body stood, that spacetime would also be a part of OUR UNIVERSE else there would be no convergence, no intersection without catastrophe. THE Universe is indeed more odd than we have yet to imagine, much less 'parallel' universes of only imaginary existence.

I agree that set modeling is not a good approach to explore the issues at hand.

It might however be useful as an argument to illustrate an error in logic.

Thank you so much for this and your previous insightful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

So, let us also state that in whatever spacetime the body stood, that spacetime would also be a part of OUR UNIVERSE else there would be no convergence, no intersection without catastrophe. THE Universe is indeed more odd than we have yet to imagine, much less 'parallel' universes of only imaginary existence.

Indeed. Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

Thanks you for your response, minus the "sophistry" part:^)

Reason, as I applied the term, is an orderly, disciplined and purposeful exercise of the conscious human mind intended to integrate whatever we have observed or experienced into useful methods for dealing with the World / Universe we inhabit to further our survival or improve the quality or quantity of our lives.

That's an interesting definition of reason. I notice that in your definition you again presuppose the existence of those things to which I referred, and asked you to account for or justify in a materialistic, constantly changing universe, not subject to the control of a personal God, namely abstract, universal, invariant entities:

"order"
"discipline"
"purpose"
"useful"
"to further"
"improve"
"quality"

Are the above materialistic entities?
Are they universal in nature, or are they merely sociological conventions?
Do they change, or do they remain the same?

Any time or effort expended in pursuit of such an ‘imagined’ FEATURE of the World / Universe would be pointless and certainly NOT a demonstration of ‘reason’ in action. In fact, ANY exercise of the mind which requires the admission of ‘unreal’ or ‘supernatural’ or other components that are not subject to any ‘rules of evidence’ or any other connection to actual experience or observation, while potentially entertaining or amusing, CANNOT be considered within the so-called ‘realm of reason’.

If I were to ask you how you would go about proving that statement itself, how would you do so? Have you experienced or observed every instance of the "rules of evidence" and every empirical observation or experience?

If you say that the statement is true by the rules of evidence or reason, then you are just engaging in circular reasoning, simply assuming what must be proved. Please note that my point is NOT to say that you don[t have any commitment to rules of evidence or reason, but simply to observe that your preclusion of anything supernatural from being part of the explanation from the outset is just a pre-commitment or a presupposition. It is not something that you has proven by empirical observation or reason, but rather it is that by which you proceeds to prove everything else.

Since this is a strawman of your own conception, NOT mine, I don’t see any purpose in figuring out whatever that gobbledy-gook is supposed to mean — it certainly means nothing to me.

The existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities has certainly been a subject of philosophical discussion for centuries, if not millennia, That you are unaware of this history is indicative only of your lack of knowledge of this particular subject, and why you have apparently have not even begun to comprehend the problem. You are an engineer. Try looking at the problem as an engineer. If you were examining an engineering problem wouldn't you at least want to familiarize yourself with the history of the problem?

I don’t require certain knowledge of “Why does the Universe exist, as it is, and what is MY part in the overall grand scheme of the Universe or the purpose of its supposed Creator ?” in order to live a completely satisfying, meaningful, purposeful and moral existence. All that other ‘stuff’ is well above MY pay-grade ...

That's fine with me. I don't have any problem with that.

But, then, I really don’t expect you to grasp, let alone AGREE with what that actually means, to ME ... You might try examining the concepts of modesty and humility for starters.

You seem to know a lot about what the blind, impersonal, accidental evolutionary process wants us to do.

How do you derive abstract, universal, invariant values of modesty and humility from a presupposition of blind, impersonal, omnipotent matter in motion?

Cordially,

Well, I clarified some of this with your dear friend AG but I will reiterate anyway. I have the time right now and I, as well, immensely enjoy our little tete a tete.

I do not believe the universe is merely an abstract concept. In philosophy, that sort of belief is called Idealism. (Kant is usually sorted into that school. I hope you're enjoying his company.)

Sometimes I wonder if you actively strive to misunderstand me. I was not asserting that the Universe is “merely an abstract concept” but was 'merely' objecting to Godwin's complaint the 'science' uses the term without 'understanding' what it is. I consider this an amateur complaint.

I would think that you know me well enough by now to know I am not that limited. And considering all of the posts I have made deriding Kant's sophistry I would think you would know better than to lump me in with him in any fashion.

But I am a philosophical Realist who recognizes that the substantial reality of the living universe is not dependent on me noticing it.

The “living Universe” - now that's an interesting turn of a phrase.

In other words, my answer to the question: If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? is: YES.

Ahh, definitions again. Depends how you define sound. Is it just vibrations through the air, or is it the perception of vibrations through the air? My Webster's has the latter as the first connotation and the former as the second. In Zen, from whence this Koan arises, it would be the first, without a hearer there is no sound.

From my perspective, the universe pre-exists (and post-exists) me; and because I notice it as something independently real apart from myself, I can engage with it and think about it. IOW, It is something real without any help from me at all. And I am a part and participant in it. And so are you

Agreed.

In short, you evidently regard the universe as an immaterial abstraction, a figment of thought, so to speak, and nothing more. And I do not. No wonder we have such difficulty understanding one another!

No, as I have explained, I do not regard the Universe as an immaterial abstraction. It appears to me that you are so intent in proving everything I write wrong that it all is extrapolated in extremis, thus you end up construing meaning I did not intend. I do make a distinction between the object under discussion that the concept that represents it. There is a way of looking at this that was illuminated in a dictum by philosopher/scientist Alfred Korzybski, “The map is not the territory.”

The Universe is what it is and what we are building in the concept “universe' is the map of what we have learned about it. This is the abstraction and Godwin's comment, to me, conflated the two. His objection that we (science) doesn't 'understand' the Universe I thought was unfounded. As I said before , if we already knew everything about the Universe and 'understood' it, there would be no need to study it. So we aren't supposed to have a concept 'universe' because we don't understand “Universe?” That was my point, not that all we have is the abstract concept but we do have a working model or map, in fact must have a working model or map, in which to place what we learn about it into a coherent context.

Well, at least you admit that science is somehow about gathering knowledge "about reality." But it seems according to your method, "reality" may be only a "reification" of your own. And, from your own statements, I gather you do not trust reifications. So, where does that leave you?

Have I sufficiently explained this to you that you understand that this is not the case? This not an accurate assessment of my position?

One might say that science, as it is currently understood and practiced, is excessively devoted to abstractions, in a sort of process of "reification" in reverse. But reification of what? Anomie? Mindlessness??? If science is not permitted — by its own method — to understand what it knows, then what is the point of science?

Well, I think abstractions are unavoidable, and since science is so mathematically based in this day and age it must needs be abstract. Abstractions are ubiquitous and unavoidable, even in ordinary language, so it isn't surprising to me that science consists of mostly higher level abstractions. And, I don't know what 'science is not permitted' means. Scientists 'understand' what science 'knows' but a formal discipline (for lack of a better identifier) cannot 'know' anything.

I won't repost your Rosen quote but I quite agree, since I see abstractions as more prevalent than most people.

Fortunately for us, the greatest scientific minds of all time did not follow your definition of science (above, bolds). I'm speaking of (for example) Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, oh so many others. Not even Charles Darwin followed your definition!

As I have explained, you have misinterpreted my definition. I hope I've cleared this up.

What all these world-class thinkers had in common was: They practiced intuition-led science. They were not what I call "bean counters."

From which, a trial conclusion: Were it not for "intuition-led science," science could not advance at all.

I do tire of arguing these points that are merely opinion, cannot be proven and thus are, yes, Begging the Question. Even if the men you quoted all believed they were following an intuition-led discovery I do not accept the idea that the formulations themselves were not rooted in the sum total of their sensory experience as a working background for their 'intuition.' Neither do I accept your aforementioned conclusion. We will just have to agree to disagree on this point. (BTW – I consider the comparison to 'bean counters' a typical 'Straw Man' fallacy. Setting them up as diametrically opposed to this in order to prove, unsuccessfully, they are that.)

I was perplexed by your question: "I guess psychology doesn't exist then?"

I was being facetious. You had written:

Of course, the problem for the scientific method is this Self is immaterial, intangible, immeasurable, and thus unisolatable as a datum of scientific observation and experiment.

And since psychology is the study of this “immaterial, intangible, immeasurable, and thus unisolatable” self then it would follow psychology is attempting something it cannot do. But then you say:

Some people have actually empirically isolated it — e.g., William James — but will not give it a name. (James — perhaps the greatest American psychologist who ever lived, a rigorous experimentalist with — arguably — positivist leanings — just referred to it as "Thought" — with a capital "T".)

And a little later say:

Then you argue that Self itself is something that I must prove to you. But that would be like asking me to prove that you exist: But I cannot even conceive of you absent the idea of a unique Self. So what do you want me to prove?

So why didn't you just refer me to James, if he 'empirically isolated' it? I didn't ask you to prove it exists, I was asking if it is,' immaterial, intangible, immeasurable, and thus unisolatable' then how do you know it exists? Yet you say James did empirically isolate it. So which is it?

Especially in light of the fact that, for me, other than the problem of Life itself, the problem of Mind (psyche) is the single most important question in the world.

Let me ask you, do you make a distinction between psyche and consciousness?

Catch you on the flip side.