I'm still pretty happy with the claim that the Universe does not need to "make sense" or adhere to a strict set of rules. We observe order in the Universe, and scientific models need order, and for scientific models to be useful they need to match with observation of the Universe to a reasonable degree, but that does not imply that the Universe itself requires order.
(that may be the worst sentence I've ever written ... perhaps I need some revolting instant coffee)
So why bother attempting to argue something that culminates in such an ugly sentence? Because the requirement of order is one of the premises behind one of the most common arguments for the necessary existence of a creator. And the old testament God is defined to be such a creator.
The argument goes something like this (cut'n'paste):
- order requires a designer
- the universe requires order
therefore:
- the universe requires a designer
The second premise is often expressed in empirical a posteriori terms as "the universe appears to have order", in which case the first premise should also be expressed in empirical terms as "order appears to require a designer" and would lead to an empirical thesis of "the universe appears to require a designer". This is quite interesting in itself and may even warrant a "Part 3". It falls down quite rapidly, however, since science has shown that lots of the apparent order in the Universe does not appear to require a designer at all and is perfectly well explained by random, un-designed events.
If we take the argument in a priori terms, rather than empirical terms, then the second assumption "the universe requires order" seems fairly arbitrary. Scientific models require order ... almost by definition. I genuinely cannot see why the same definition should apply to the Universe.
26 comments:
Is the second requirement not equally phrased as "the universe demonstrates order" and hence "the universe demonstrates design"?
It's maybe a weaker claim from the theist side, but more slippery to debate. It would shift the argument towards one of demonstrating a fundamental disorder in order to disprove a fundamental design... as long as you take the "order requires design" as true. Scientific models show the order, yet most disorder is ordered if you just look at it on a larger scale.
Design is in and of itself slippery, too, insofar as it can be used synonymously with 'intent' (noun definition 2) by creationists - for example - and then confused with 'form' (noun definition 6) - a shark is designed to kill efficiently. I can only assume that they do this by design.
Just to clarify, as it looks like you've already dismissed this in the previous entry's comments:
1) The universe *requires* order to exist and remain existing - the universe requires a designer
and
2) The universe seems to have order - we might be making it all up with our monkeybrains
were dealt with, but to me that leaves
3) The universe demonstrates order - it may not be ordered all the way through, or even need to be, but the not insignificant chunks we've seen are very well-ordered and describable by ordered mental structures, and those bits at least were designed.
That is, order is not necessary for universe to exist, and let's agree that it does, but the preponderance of order should make the preponderance of doubt in favour of design.
Hume's induction problem *could* be used to cut the last option out, but then it could equally be used to get rid of the rest of scientific knowledge if you put your mind to it. Similarly, he wasn't big on cause and effect, but it's a pretty useful idea when it comes to explaining things.
Still, it's only a problem if order necessarily comes from design.
This is really making my head spin, but it seems to strengthen my own belief that life just *is*. I understand the need for some people to explain why and how the universe and everything in it came to be, but I am content to simply sit back, marvel at how amazing it is and let it exist around me.
I am looking forward to the conclusions you draw from this :)
3) The universe demonstrates order - it may not be ordered all the way through, or even need to be, but the not insignificant chunks we've seen are very well-ordered and describable by ordered mental structures, and those bits at least were designed.
So the point at which we go from disorder to order is where a conscious designer gets involved? Is that the 'demiurge' idea? The designer simply as designer, not as creator. Some intelligence that took the already-existing substance of the Universe and put it "in order".
What about the points where we go from order to disorder? Does the designer die out through entropy? Are these the limits of the designer's influence?
The old testament does not propose this kind of designer. The old testament God created everything and is omnipotent.
I read a good article recently on claiming back the concept of "design" from the proponents of a "designer" ... but I can't remember where it was. Badscience blog link possibly.
Speaking of the misuse of the word "design", it often happens that an evolutionist will apparently imbue evolution with the faculty of forethought. Take this line from the Wikipedia article about Synapsids, for instance:
"Synapsids evolved a temporal fenestra behind each eye orbit on the lateral surface of the skull. It may have evolved to provide new attachment sites for jaw muscles."
"To provide"? How did it know it was going to need new attachment sites for jaw muscles in a few million years time. This is just clumsy language of course, which may be typical of Wikipedia, but you can catch people saying like things on television documentaries. (I'm not making a point about evolution here, but about language. Also if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_earth you will find the words "believe" and "belief" occur no fewer than 9 times.)
Sam: I think you're still mis-stating my case a little bit, or maybe missing the point. I'm not so much saying that order "requires" a designer so much as that any ordered system must emerge from a simpler ordered system, or be self-referential such that it can emerge from itself. Furthermore that this "metasystem", by virtue of being logical and self-referencing fits my understanding of the definition of consciousness.
The only alternative to that is an ordered system emerging from no system at all - and I don't believe in Random, as I think I've made clear. Apart from there being no evidence for that, or use for such a hypothesis as far as I can make out, the argument in favour seems a little flawed, as it seems to consider only the order that is observable in a specific configuration of matter at any particular instant, whereas any order that does emerge from such disorder only does so in the presence of the order of the Universe. Crystals don't form, and life does not evolve, in the absence of the consistent rules that govern the interactions of molecules and atoms.
Furthermore, it seems a distinctly odd conclusion to come to. It is not necessarily so, you say, that the Universe is ordered, and if it isn't then there's no need to ask the question why it is. But what if it is? You can't just dismiss a question on the tiniest outside chance that it might not have an answer, without any actual reason to think it doesn't or any explanation as to how that could be so. And there is no reason. How can there be a reason for things not to need reasons? And where would we stop with this principle? Does gravity necessarily exist? Maybe we don't need to explain that either. There might not be a reason why massive vector particles exist, but they nevertheless hypothesise such things as Higgs Bosons to explain it. Ultimately you only end up with solipsism. And then you'd know what God must feel like.
As for the last point, coincidentally I was only thinking about the nature of substance on my way home from the supermarket. It gets tied up in clumsy language again, but there seems to be some sort of built-in prejudice in the human mind towards the idea that the matter in the Universe has absolute existence of its own, that it "just is", and that such is self-evident. It's a difficult thing to overcome, and I remember thinking it myself at one point. Further to this is the idea that such substance not only exists of itself, but also carries with it the rules of its own interaction. This seems to me to be analogous to the idea that you could take a few cells out of Conway's Game of Life and they would be able reproduce on your dining room table. Obviously they only exist within the confines of the rules that define them, within the domain where the rules are actually applied. It's not just a case of "first cause". Even our concept of matter is a model. The Universe is not made of the "substance", since the substance is only defined by the Universe. The Universe IS the order, and it is not simply a case of arranging the substance in a certain way.
To say otherwise is to say the works of Shakespeare are arrangements of paper and ink.
Sam: I think you're still mis-stating my case a little bit
I'm not attempting to state your specific case, I am paraphrasing the general teleological argument that order requires design and design requires a designer. (The blog posts are a monologue rather than a discussion.)
Furthermore that this "metasystem", by virtue of being logical and self-referencing fits my understanding of the definition of consciousness.
I don't know what this means.
It is not necessarily so, you say, that the Universe is ordered, and if it isn't then there's no need to ask the question why it is.
I haven't said this. I've simply disputed the second premise of the argument: "the universe requires order". I'm not making any statement about whether the Universe can be explained or whether we should attempt to explain it. I've already said (several times) that I believe science can model anything.
there seems to be some sort of built-in prejudice in the human mind towards the idea that the matter in the Universe has absolute existence of its own, that it "just is", and that such is self-evident.
The Universe just is. Anything else is instant coffee and I'm not drinking it.
Well, the argument could be made (in as passive a voice as possible) that you combine the evidence of order with the second law of thermodynamics (a favourite of some wings of religion) that order is of God and the void is chaos.
In any case, the argument that the inital state is not nothing, but chaos, has a pretty respectable pedigree. "Without form, and void" applies equally to chaos or vacuum. See the notes here for a glimpse of primeval chaos.
Chaos was apparently the ancient Greek for Space, and almost all other major religions I can think of talk of the universe arising from chaos rather than nothingness. Maybe that's because zero is quite a difficult abstract concept.
Now, if the meaning is that God is a post-big bang orderer of (hence creator from) chaos, that puts him under quite a different proof of existence than the creator of the big bang. You're still left with the question "who ordered God out of the chaos", of course. But you can dispense with a lot of the wilder end of speculation about whether He is in or outside or all of the Universe.
Of course, real Genesis literalism calls for an awful lot more water. :P
Every time I post a comment I get a notification to my gmail account and you should see the amount of new age barking bunkum that gets advertised in the sponsored links. Breathtaking.
I may have a meander into the "plasticine model-maker" God at some point ... but I should probably have a bit more of a go at my original definition first.
What it means, or at least what I mean, essentially, is God IS Order. And I don't mean that just in a trivial re-definition sense, I mean a very specific and singular Root of All Order which, by virtue of its emergence from itself, can be considered self-aware. We imperfectly mirror this process ourselves with our own thinking. (c.f. John 1:1 "Logos", Genesis 3:14 "Ehyeh asher ehyeh")
What you said was "the Universe does not necessarily make any sort of sense at all. There is no necessity for an answer so there is no necessity for an entity asking the question." As much as you've said there is order in the world, and that science can model anything, I'm a bit confused as to how this statement fits in. Especially when you then come out with such a dogmatic appeal to self-evidence as "the Universe just is".
I can see why you're reluctant to drink of the instant coffee, and to be honest, it's a breath of fresh air to me for someone not to end up actually denying the existence of objective reality, as the relativistic idealists do. It strikes me as odd how they can accept the independent existence of some six billion minds but struggle to deal with the existence of only one. I think it really comes down to exactly the same mental block - instead of matter being "just is", they take themselves as the "just is" things instead. There's no such thing as "just is" as far as I'm concerned. Ok I do drink instant coffee, but it's Douwe Egberts mind you, none of that Nescafe stuff.
I very much believe that science CAN model anything, at least if you are prepared to extend science to include metaphysics, and, interestingly enough, that's precisely what I intend to do. The Wikipedia article on the Church Turing Thesis compares the Universe to a Hypercomputer, which is essentially a generalisation of a Turing Machine which works with real numbers rather than integers. It should be possible to construct a corresponding version of Conway's Game of Life in the form of a differential equation - an analogue automata, if you will. This I intend to do over the next few weeks (although obviously I'll be solving the equations numerically so it will only be an approximation).
The initial state of the Universe absolutely wasn't nothing. We know that anyway. Conservation of energy and all that. Asking what happened before that is akin to asking what is North of the North Pole, but when it comes to God we're not really talking about a before.
As far as chaos goes (and the formless and waste in Genesis has definite Sumerian roots) I was actually thinking about that only this morning as well. That is, the "conceptual chaos" of lacking any rule to choose true from false (as opposed to a physical chaos which does have a definite, albeit irregular, form). Such chaos is the axiomatic system whereby you just pack in every possible axiom without regard to consistency. Any sort of order is clearly a subset of it. You start with the law of non-contradiction, because that's the axiom you can substitute for G in Goedel's Theorem without, err, self-contradicting. If you substitute in any other axiom, it just gets proved true by self-contradiction, which in turn means it can't be an axiom. But if you do that with the law of non-contradiction, you'd have to use itself in its own proof, which isn't a valid proof, so you're ok. So now you've got your true statement that you can't prove, and you can pick any other statement you like that doesn't contradict itself or what you've already got and define it as an axiom. You get some choice, of course, because you can always choose its negation instead. If you don't choose them in such a way that Goedel's Theorem results then obviously you've got a problem because then the law of non-contradiction ceases to "bootstrap". I don't know what happens after that point, because there appear to be an uncountably infinite number of combinations. But what if you add the axiom "there aren't any more axioms"?
Sorry, Exodus 3:14, not Genesis.
Blimey, I'm writing a lot. Spacefish says I ought to get my own blog.
I mean a very specific and singular Root of All Order which, by virtue of its emergence from itself, can be considered self-aware.
I still don't understand this, I'm afraid. What is emerging from what and why does this emergence equate to self-awareness? And where does the requirement for a "root of all order" come from?
The statement "the universe does not necessarily make sense" is not dogmatic. The two opposing statements "the universe does make sense" and "the universe does not make sense" are dogmatic and, as far as I can see, unprovable. The other statement is simply a rejection of either statement as a premise or axiom on the grounds that they're unprovable.
I think you're possibly overstating the Church-Turing thing. My understanding is that it addresses the equivalence of two types of logic (or model) and not that it somehow fuses together reality and model. Unless you're arguing that the universe is one of these types of logic (calculable, presumably)? My understanding is that of an ex-pure mathematician turned software engineer though so is quite possibly too narrow.
That's definitely enough material for a blog of its own.
Order emerges from order. That is, order itself emerges from order itself. The only two alternatives are that it emerges from nothing, which I regard as absurd, or that there is an infinite regression of emerging, which is somewhat unsatisfactory as an answer. Think of it as a set that contains itself. By the axiom of choice you can always choose a set that contains any set you've already got. You've already got the empty set, so now you need a set that contains that, say, S. Now S needs a set to contain it. You could go on to define T, U, V etc... or you could just write S={S,0} and it's all tied up. That's an analogy rather than a proof, by the way.
Why I say that it relates to consciousness is that we, as conscious beings, do likewise. We form a model of ourselves. The distinction between human intelligence and animal reactions is the ability to imagine oneself in a hypothetical situation.
The statement I was accusing of being "dogmatic" is the "the Universe just is" one. That seems pretty much equivalent to "there is no sense to the existence of the Universe". I don't think you can really come to an understanding of God without accepting the idea that the Universe might not "just be" and actually does exist for some higher reason, and if you can't understand it I think it's unfair to dismiss it. Particularly in front of someone who does have an understanding of it.
Such overstatement of Church Turing is not my own. I was just echoing the sentiment on the Wikipedia article. But it does seem to make sense to me. The Universe does seem to "calculate" real-valued variables in continuous space-time, so it fits the definition. Anyway I think you're also overstating the overstatement by saying it "fuses reality and model". Rather, it provides another model for understanding the nature of the thing we're actually modelling (as opposed to only its behaviour). Which I think is very useful, especially since if a Turing Machine can emulate itself, a Hypercomputer presumably can as well, but without being limited to finitely calculable results. But yes, I am arguing that the Universe is one of these "types" of logic, and it is an idea that is not uniquely mine, or uniquely theistic.
Oh, and axioms are NEVER provable. That's part of the definition of an axiom.
I don't see how regression and recursion are different in your analogy.
S = {0,S}
S1 ⊆ S2 ⊆ S3 ⊆ etc.
Interesting and distinct in pure mathematics, but I really don't see how either of them are any more or less absurd as an analogy for the universe than
S = S
If you are arguing from a premise that the Universe is order and that order emerges from order then are you not simply arguing that the Universe is God?
In any case, this is precisely the reason why I explicitly outlawed any modern re-invention of 'God' in the early posts to the blog.
(point taken about axiom vs premise ... early morning thinking ... too little douwe egberts)
With regression you end up with an infinite number of distinct sets. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't so, although it's a commonly cited reason NOT to believe in God (i.e. who created Him?), and it doesn't result in a "fixpoint".
The statement "S=S" is not absurd. It is a tautology. It is absurd to say that it actually defines S in any way. You could substitute any set at all for S.
I'm not claiming God is the Universe. That would be pantheism. God is Order itself, whereas the Universe is "the order [of the Universe]". It's a subset, specifically, the bit that isn't recursive (as in, by analogy, the X in S={S,X}). You can't perfectly simulate the entire Universe inside of it, but that's not a restriction on ordered systems in general. This is more like Panentheism. You could define the Universe to be God instead, but that would just be the same sort of silliness the other way round.
As much as you wanted to stick to traditional definitions of God, I don't think that excludes modern thinking about that definition, and I don't think any of this contradicts it in any way. Especially considering John 1:1, which I'll quote for the benefit of readers.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Now the Greek word translated here as "word" is "logos". It's traditionally rendered word in most English translations to this day, but really only so because it was rendered as "scriptum" in the Latin Vulgate. If the intended meaning was to convey a written word, the Greek word "lexis" would have been used.
From Wikipedia:
"The primary meaning of logos is: something said; by implication a subject, topic of discourse or reasoning. Secondary meanings such as logic, reasoning, etc. derive from the fact that if one is capable of λέγειν (infinitive) i.e. speech, then intelligence and reason are assumed. Its semantic field extends beyond "word" to notions such as "thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard", or "logic". In English, the word is the root of "logic," and of the "-ology" suffix (e.g., geology)."
The "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" at Exodus 3:14 - typically rendered "I am that I am" - also seems to imply self-reference as well as an eternal nature.
English translations really don't do the Bible justice. You miss all the puns, for one thing.
The statement "S=S" is not absurd. It is a tautology. It is absurd to say that it actually defines S in any way. You could substitute any set at all for S.
Quite. And neither do the recursive or regressive statements about S. They are all equally inapplicable as analogies for the universe or its origins.
The statement S = {S,X} is puzzling. In axiomatic set theory a set cannot contain itself, so presumably the analogy is from naive set theory. In which case, unless I've completely missed the point of your analogy, either X=S (the universe is order) or X={} (there is no order) or X⊂S (order is a part of the universe) or, interpreting the notation slightly differently, S contains strictly two elements, one of which is S itself and one of which is X.
I don't see how any of these relate to the statement "God is the order itself". That statement seems an entirely arbitrary assertion.
I have learned one thing though ... the html escape code for ∈ is "isin" ... which is quite lovely.
The recursive statement does uniquely define S. Such a simple definition of S={S,0} might not be very informative in itself but, as I said, it's an analogy, not a proof. See also Goedel's Diagonal Lemma.
I'm not aware of any formal restriction on a set's membership of itself. Unless you're getting confused with Russel's Paradox (essentially a self-contradictory set definition), or between elements and subsets. If it's the latter it may be my fault.
X∈S. S is "order" or "God", while X is the "universe". The Universe is part of order.
The identification between God and Order comes from the fact that the existence of the Universe derives from it, and that by its self-referential nature it can model itself, as we do.
I'm not aware of any formal restriction on a set's membership of itself.
It's one of the axioms of formal set theory. The wiki article is a bit wiki-ish. There's a pdf doc here that's less wiki-ish. 1.9: Axiom of Foundation.
I still don't follow what it is that you're arguing here or how it relates to the original point about the universe not requiring order. I think spacefish is right about you starting your own blog.
I feel left behind. Is X∈S an axiom, or a derivation based on what one finds absurd?
X∈S means "X is an element of set S". It's a statement that derives from S={S,X}. Candidates for X include {S} and {X}, which both make X a subset of S, as well as an element!
Anyway... Wikipedia does mention the Axiom of Foundation, looking at it again. It seems a little unnecessary, and I don't much like it. But...
Non-well-founded set theory
And "logical modelling of non-terminating computational processes" is pretty much what I'm thinking about. I actually wrote a Quine last night as well. In AMOS Basic, on the Amiga, of all things.
Ok yes, maybe I have tangentialised a bit. Sometimes I think so laterally I trip over.
The Universe "requires order", err, by the definition of "order". "Necessity is a necessity" is a tautology, and order is "that which necessarily is", as opposed to just being so arbitrarily. If something is neither provably true or false, it can't really have any effect on anything and is therefore unobservable. Also see "Reverse Mathematics", which seems to be a version of maths that goes in the same direction as science (i.e. starting with theorems and working out which axioms you need, rather than defining axioms and proving theorems. Substitute "observation" for "theorem" to see what I mean.)
The trouble with non-axiomatic set theory is that it is intuitive but a bit woolly. If you are looking for a justification or demonstration of the order of the universe, then something "intuitive but woolly" doesn't really cut the mustard.
By the way ... trippingoverlateralthinking.blogspot.com is available ... just saying.
Non-well-founded Set Theory IS axiomatic, it just has one of its axioms different from the standard "ZFC" version. It's not "naive".
I'll start some kind of website with a message board rather than a blog, I think, so that I can have several subjects going on at once.
http://churchofanalysis.blogspot.com/
Ha! Nobody can resist the pull of the blog.
I just thought of something this morning, you have yet to define "the Universe". I know it's something the istant coffee drinkers do, insist that you define every single word even when everybody knows what it means, but I think this one is important. Here goes.
"The Universe is the sum total of all things that can be observed."
And something can only be observed if it causes an effect in the observer. If a thought appears in an observer's mind without external cause, we call that a figment of their imagination. Therefore there is necessarily, by definition, at least some causality - and hence order - in the Universe.
(new post on my blog BTW)
I was going to do "what is the universe" somewhere under "omniscience" which was going to come after "omnipotence" which I was going to write this week until I got distracted by somebody mentioning set theory.
Incidentally, I still think there's a problem with your set theory stuff but it's gone on such a tangent that I'll maybe put it in an email or something.
Post a Comment