6 ms·

I like your question. No answers. Just some thoughts: For point no2: What created those mathematical laws? Why do they exist? (I realize this isn't your questi

I like your question. No answers. Just some thoughts: For point no2: What created those mathematical laws? Why do they exist? (I realize this isn't your question. I'm just posing it for myself) And if those laws were to describe all probabilities, and so necessarily capture the point the universe came to exist. Can we also say this explanation is not meaningful because it is equally describing every other probability? For point no1: I think any argument that explains even its axioms just based on its own axioms would have to feel tautalogical (Which I think is your concern mentioned with point no1). But equally I'm not sure that it is possible to explain the fundamental WHY of the universe just from our experience of the universe. Either we push the unexplained element elsewhere, or we must sound tautalogical Is that correct? Eastern beliefs can escape these two points by saying the universe creates itself in a loop. Which still sounds tautalogical I try to breifly pose some alternatives here [0] that others have had. But I am very simplistic and directly give an opinion, so apologies for that in advance!! [0] https://tse.gratis/Creative_Snails https://tse.gratis/Creative_Snails

photon_lines 7y ago
Nice answer and your response pretty much summarizes my theory: "Eastern beliefs can escape these two points by saying the universe creates itself in a loop. Which still sounds tautalogical" The universe in my opinion is a self-causal mathematical loop. If you believe in God - he escapes causality, which to me ... doesn't really meet the truth and beauty equations I'm trying to complete. The other scientific hypothesis is in the same boat: they formulate a theory based on an accidental beginning which forms according to a wave function which 'tries out all possible laws' - and the same theory comes to a stop when trying to answer the question: what is it that created the wave function? I want to see other viewpoints to try to see if anyone else is as curious about this as I am - so I hope I'm shedding a light on what it is I'm asking for.
- tsegratis 7y ago
  And I think the God of the bible explicitly agrees with you on both causality and that he doesn't balance those equations (Sorry for long quote on escaping understanding) “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise ... Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him ... God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him -- And I think its fair to say there are many quotes that would also agree with you on 'escaping causality' and God being outside of what we can judge Which I would agree is not an equation giving us space to understand/evaluate or even really act upon!! So I support your search for an alternative to things as described The ray of light providing a twist on viewpoint no1 (in my opinion) is that God is also quoted at as saying he reveals himself, explains himself, and even makes himself accountable and submits to the decisions of people who seek him I.e. Then the LORD passed in front of Moses and called out: “Yahweh, the LORD God, is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in loving devotion and faithfulness, maintaining loving devotion to a thousand generations This and other quotes I hope are suggestive that God gives himself causality and interacts in a way we can evaluate? Which if so, I think provides an alternative viewpoint
  - photon_lines 7y ago
    Or: sorry if I offend you: A human wrote those words and passed them on as being God? In which case (and once again - no offense): they gave their best thoughts as to what they perceived God was at the time, but didn't really understand much about what we currently are, nor what the real laws of the universe are. I tend to be open minded, but when people mention the process of creation to me and fail to account for Quantum Electrodynamics nor the design and laws of the universe - I don't tend to take them very seriously. You seem to be in the camp of attributing God to being beyond causality: beyond physical or mathematical laws. I disagree with your viewpoint: although I do respect your opinion and I'm glad that you chimed in, I think there's a way to explain existence with having causality, information, and logic tied in and no 'magic' happening behind the scenes. This is the central point I'm trying to bring across in this thread. If I'm confusing the living hell out of you, that's a good thing. This point I make is meant to be very confusing. I'm hoping that you sit down and think about what it is that I'm saying...
    - tsegratis 7y ago
      Thanks :) Your reply made me happy Redefining the universe as a loop is neat. It answers where the universe came from at each single point But if we redefine the universe, I think it is then reasonable to redefine the question: from "Why the universe?", to "Why the loop?" For instance we can define the chicken in terms of the egg, and the egg in terms of the chicken. This _does_ answer a lot of questions. And we can even attempt to throw away the base of that recursion maybe by using a continuum, a loop, or maybe even infinity(?) Which would be very neat. If I were to ask why that whole loop exists; we could say there is a loop of loops, or even an ad infinitium loop of loops of loops. But at each stage we can generalize to say we are answering the question X with "Because f(X)". You (in my opinion) have made f very small. Which is good. But if we ever truly remove f, then we are left with "Why X? Because X." Which is an unhelpful truism. "Why the chicken? Because the chicken." So I guess that every argument needs to be based on un-proven axioms. I.e. mathematics is based on a small set of axioms. You can choose which axioms. But I've never seen someone manage to remove all axioms So why is viewpoint no1 different (in my opinion)? In a sense I agree with you that it isn't To loosely quote Einstein (according to the internet): "We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them" I think the bible makes this same point on several occasions -- that the universe does not define God, and values based on this universe do not contain him So any answer needs to step up. For instance: "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." Jesus uses several analogies at that point (John3) including the famous one of being born again. Since that is similar to the chicken and egg or universe loop, let me include an excerpt: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’" > Or: sorry if I offend you: A human wrote those words and passed them on as being God? Nice. You are very polite. If you offended I think the implication is I am reacting to a hole being poked in my beliefs. In which case I appreciate you poking more Like mathematics I can move my axioms such as onto personal experience, logical evidence, the bible, or direct revelation The standard Christian view point is, as you say, that humans _did_ write those words, pass them off as being from God, and gave their best as to what they percieved God was They call it divine inspiration. I can understand the incredule response. But I think to engage with viewpoint no1, it is necessary to allow the bible, since from the axiom of the bible it is trivial to explain why the universe exists, and from the axiom of God creating the universe it is not a stretch to reach the bible But I would agree with you that I am entering the same chicken and egg issue here. I have simply proved one in terms of the other, and there are still unanswered questions as to the whole But maybe I am missing something?

photon_lines 7y ago

Nice answer and your response pretty much summarizes my theory: "Eastern beliefs can escape these two points by saying the universe creates itself in a loop. Which still sounds tautalogical" The universe in my opinion is a self-causal mathematical loop. If you believe in God - he escapes causality, which to me ... doesn't really meet the truth and beauty equations I'm trying to complete. The other scientific hypothesis is in the same boat: they formulate a theory based on an accidental beginning which forms according to a wave function which 'tries out all possible laws' - and the same theory comes to a stop when trying to answer the question: what is it that created the wave function? I want to see other viewpoints to try to see if anyone else is as curious about this as I am - so I hope I'm shedding a light on what it is I'm asking for.

tsegratis 7y ago
And I think the God of the bible explicitly agrees with you on both causality and that he doesn't balance those equations (Sorry for long quote on escaping understanding) “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise ... Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him ... God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him -- And I think its fair to say there are many quotes that would also agree with you on 'escaping causality' and God being outside of what we can judge Which I would agree is not an equation giving us space to understand/evaluate or even really act upon!! So I support your search for an alternative to things as described The ray of light providing a twist on viewpoint no1 (in my opinion) is that God is also quoted at as saying he reveals himself, explains himself, and even makes himself accountable and submits to the decisions of people who seek him I.e. Then the LORD passed in front of Moses and called out: “Yahweh, the LORD God, is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in loving devotion and faithfulness, maintaining loving devotion to a thousand generations This and other quotes I hope are suggestive that God gives himself causality and interacts in a way we can evaluate? Which if so, I think provides an alternative viewpoint
- photon_lines 7y ago
  Or: sorry if I offend you: A human wrote those words and passed them on as being God? In which case (and once again - no offense): they gave their best thoughts as to what they perceived God was at the time, but didn't really understand much about what we currently are, nor what the real laws of the universe are. I tend to be open minded, but when people mention the process of creation to me and fail to account for Quantum Electrodynamics nor the design and laws of the universe - I don't tend to take them very seriously. You seem to be in the camp of attributing God to being beyond causality: beyond physical or mathematical laws. I disagree with your viewpoint: although I do respect your opinion and I'm glad that you chimed in, I think there's a way to explain existence with having causality, information, and logic tied in and no 'magic' happening behind the scenes. This is the central point I'm trying to bring across in this thread. If I'm confusing the living hell out of you, that's a good thing. This point I make is meant to be very confusing. I'm hoping that you sit down and think about what it is that I'm saying...
  - tsegratis 7y ago
    Thanks :) Your reply made me happy Redefining the universe as a loop is neat. It answers where the universe came from at each single point But if we redefine the universe, I think it is then reasonable to redefine the question: from "Why the universe?", to "Why the loop?" For instance we can define the chicken in terms of the egg, and the egg in terms of the chicken. This _does_ answer a lot of questions. And we can even attempt to throw away the base of that recursion maybe by using a continuum, a loop, or maybe even infinity(?) Which would be very neat. If I were to ask why that whole loop exists; we could say there is a loop of loops, or even an ad infinitium loop of loops of loops. But at each stage we can generalize to say we are answering the question X with "Because f(X)". You (in my opinion) have made f very small. Which is good. But if we ever truly remove f, then we are left with "Why X? Because X." Which is an unhelpful truism. "Why the chicken? Because the chicken." So I guess that every argument needs to be based on un-proven axioms. I.e. mathematics is based on a small set of axioms. You can choose which axioms. But I've never seen someone manage to remove all axioms So why is viewpoint no1 different (in my opinion)? In a sense I agree with you that it isn't To loosely quote Einstein (according to the internet): "We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them" I think the bible makes this same point on several occasions -- that the universe does not define God, and values based on this universe do not contain him So any answer needs to step up. For instance: "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." Jesus uses several analogies at that point (John3) including the famous one of being born again. Since that is similar to the chicken and egg or universe loop, let me include an excerpt: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’" > Or: sorry if I offend you: A human wrote those words and passed them on as being God? Nice. You are very polite. If you offended I think the implication is I am reacting to a hole being poked in my beliefs. In which case I appreciate you poking more Like mathematics I can move my axioms such as onto personal experience, logical evidence, the bible, or direct revelation The standard Christian view point is, as you say, that humans _did_ write those words, pass them off as being from God, and gave their best as to what they percieved God was They call it divine inspiration. I can understand the incredule response. But I think to engage with viewpoint no1, it is necessary to allow the bible, since from the axiom of the bible it is trivial to explain why the universe exists, and from the axiom of God creating the universe it is not a stretch to reach the bible But I would agree with you that I am entering the same chicken and egg issue here. I have simply proved one in terms of the other, and there are still unanswered questions as to the whole But maybe I am missing something?