At 10:04 AM 09/28/2000, you wrote:
>Chris,
>CC: While I have some respect for your thesis because it protects science
>from meddling by people who are theists first and scientists perhaps not
>at all, I disagree with it.
>
>HVT: You need not, of course, agree with it. But I see it as far more than
>a rhetorical means of protecting science from the "meddling ignorami."
>
>CC: I don't think that the "giftedness" of the Universe requires that
>kind of explanation. If it did, then surely the creator of it would *also*
>require that kind of explanation: How is it that there just *happens* to
>be a God who can create universes, etc.? Why is there a God rather than
>nothing at all? Surely this can't be chance, can it? The need to regress
>to yet *another* creator to create creator is obvious.
>
>HVT: Try this: The attribute of self-existence, or aseity, has
>traditionally been reserved for deity. To ascribe that attribute to the
>physical universe, then, is to ascribe a God-like attribute to the
>universe. The worldview that you then have is more like pantheism than
>atheism. By the way, I don't mind admitting that there is more Mystery
>here than the human mind can fully comprehend.
Chris
Self-existence is simply a fact that must apply to *something*. Why not
whatever the Universe is made of, or the medium it is formed in (if
ordinary matter is, say, nothing more than wave-like "somethings" in
something).
>CC: At some point, something must simply *be*, and must simply have the
>basic properties needed to produce the next level closer to where *we*
>are. I see no reason nor value in going beyond some sort of basic, dumb
>"stuff" that has one or two basic attributes that allow it, from time to
>time, at least, to form at least one "universe" that can, somewhere within
>itself, support the evolution of life.
>HVT: Chris, surely your choice of the phrase "one or two basic
>attributes" for those qualities that a universe must have in order to make
>humans from quarks would win the gold medal for understatement in any
>Olympic competition. Think about it. I don't say that as a put-down, just
>as something that I think needs to be appreciated.
Chris
You misunderstand me. I was thinking along the lines of a type of particle,
or particle-like thing. If it had the feature of being such that two of
them could be combined in two different ways, then it would not take many
to form a very richly complex universe indeed. Think in terms of computer
bits, for a real-world analog. Each bit has two possible states. Ten bits
has 1024 possible states. The number of possible states goes up
exponentially as the length of the string used as a power of 2. We can, in
principle, represent *anything*, no matter how complex, in terms of bits,
if we have enough of them.
My suggestion is that there may be a basic "particle-thingy" such that the
number of possible ways of putting them together may actually increase
*faster* than powers of two as the number of them is increased, because
they would not necessarily be limited to being joined in only one
dimension. If Existence is packed absolutely solid with these "particles,"
then it may be that ordinary matter is the expression of an
energetically-induced restructuring in a given location, such that, for
example, several of them no longer have their original orientation to each
other.
I don't know. This is mostly speculation and hypothesis. The point is only
that any degree of complexity would be possible if such a basic particle
were to exist. I did *not* mean that the *Universe* as a whole might have
only one or two simple properties, but that the "particles" that give rise
to or allow it might be such that each of *them* had only a few simple
properties.
>(skip paragraph)
>
>CC: In short, although we just don't know, we don't really gain anything
>by positing further-removed causes that themselves would then need even
>more remarkable explanatory causes.
>
>HVT: If our only or chief concern were to give some sort of account for
>the universe's formational history, perhaps Occam's razor strategy would
>be attractive to me. However, I seek a way to do that as a secondary
>issue, the primary issue being the search for a way to find meaning in the
>whole of the human life experience.
Chris
I see the "meaning" of life as deriving from our nature as living beings
whose existence and happiness are conditional upon satisfying various
needs, some directly biological (food, etc.) and some indirectly biological
(our need for knowledge, our need for logical thought, our need for
rationally formed concepts, our emotional needs, etc.). In fact, no appeal
to something outside of objective human needs can work, because it is still
*our* needs that we must satisfy, or else. Yes, it would be nice to find
that there was some God-like being with whom we could have a meaningful
relationship, but even that would only be possible *given* that doing so
would help to satisfy some human need(s). Thus, even if God existed, He
would not be able to *give* meaning to our lives; He could only make it
easier to achieve it on our own.
Put another way; our nature as a being whose happiness is conditional
requires that we act according to certain principles. Those principles
apply to many situations and produce accordingly different concrete results
and side-effects. If God existed, He would be an important factor in the
"situation" of our lives, but would not be able to change the principles of
rational living without changing our nature and needs. Presumably, He could
easily do that, but then the rational principles, and the meaning of life
(if any) for that changed being would be determined by *its* nature and needs.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 02:29:13 EDT