Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities

[Dad_Scaper]

As a person with no training in mathematics beyond high school, I don't see how the concept of infinity "breaks" anything. On the contrary, it seems absolutely necessary to explain some simple concepts, such as waves, or the concept of parallel lines. It's even important, as Ollie notes, to counting numbers.

It's a tool in the toolbox of concepts. Can we go on about it in a way that makes it sound mystical? Sure. But we could do a similar exercise for the concept of zero, or for lots of other things, too.

There's nothing wrong with finding something mystical about a thing or about a concept. I think a lot of what we think of as art comes from an artist finding and expressing something mystical about a thing, or an idea, that need not be approached in that way.

[Placeholder for really good quote from Umberto Eco's magnum opus Foucault's Pendulum. I hope I can find the quote later.]

[ollie]

I think there's a real disagreement (but I agree that we're certainly not pursuing the main thrust of the thread here): I think that "circular objects" and "infinite objects" are equally real/unreal (although I'm not staking out a position on which) whereas you, if I understand you correctly, think that one is real and one is not.


[If we're disagreeing about whether we're disagreeing or not, that's a sure sign a religion thread is on the right track. ]

[ollie]

Digression on a digression. What I'm sitting and working on between bouts of messing around on this thread are the final stages of a paper that introduces an infinite version of well-studied finite objects. The finite objects are a lot like sudoku puzzles, so if you imagine trying to design infinite sudokus then that's a fair sense (even if not technically accurate) of what I'm up to.

This should actually do the opposite of qualify me to chunter on about infinity. I usually work with the finite stuff and took on this project with a talented undergrad (now a talented grad) a few years ago. We got stuck until a new colleague who is superbly qualified to talk about infinity came along and unstuck us to the point where we can now see the finish line.

Perhaps I should cite this thread in the acknowledgements. Or the anti-acknowledgements given that I'm typing here rather than working.

[superfrog]

@ollie

I've always thought you'd be a fan of @ollie (on twitter)'s weekly Riddler that he publishes on FiveThirtyEight.

In fact, now and again I've wondered if you're the same person. But a lack of HeroScape in his work tends to make me think otherwise.

[ollie]

Not me. I do read and enjoy it though.

[Tornado]

Riffing off from Dysole's reality comments, does anyone consider the 'we are all in a computer simulation' theory?
Then our deities would be the programmers.

Are we the Sims?

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Joseph Sweeney

I believe it is possible for a rational person to not believe compelling evidence, yes. But I expect them to have some sort of reasonable response, or else have been mislead.

A rational person, I do not think, can reject a claim outright if it is rational. It at least gives them pause.

Not responding to this thread in a timely manner leaves me feeling as if I am letting the other respondents down and potentially giving the impression that I do not hold them in the esteem in which I do, in fact, hold them. So I hope everyone will allow for my lateness.

I am going to work from the quote above as meaning that you agree that two reasonable people could look at the same piece of evidence and disagree upon what that evidence portrays. Which is entirely reasonable to me, as it is what I observe in the world around me. Either the subset of people that comprises the number of rational people in the world is very small, or there are a lot of rational people who don't agree no matter how much evidence might be presented by one side or the other.

The implication is that the same piece of evidence means different things to different rational people. Those rational people are choosing what to believe based on the evidence, and their choices are different from one another. The evidence itself does not compel a certain understanding of it. It is merely evidence.

If I went to a couple and demanded that they provide me with evidence that they loved one another, I wonder what they might provide to me. Let's expand that. The world of rational people will have evidence provided to them by a couple of their love... how many will find that evidence compelling? Surely some will be convinced by this piece of evidence and others convinced by that, while some will be completely unconvinced.

Can you imagine any sort of proof they could possibly provide which would convince the entire rational world of their love? And let's face it, this one's easy, right? The rest of the world has no stakes involved. Now imagine that the couple had to provide proof that they loved one another more that any other couple loved their partner. Even if they did, in fact, love one another more than all other couples in the world, how many of those other couples would automatically reject the proof?

In essence, you are asking God to provide something that doesn't exist. Evidence which can not be dismissed by a rational person. And yet we see that rational people as a whole simply do not work that way. Especially if they have some sort of investment in the answer.

~Aldin, agreeably

[Joseph Sweeney]

Speaking for myself, the fact that you don't respond for a day doesn't bother me or feel like a let down at all. I assume you are busy with family and work or whatever else life throws at you, and I am thankful that you can find the time and interest to entertain this conversation. So regardless of how long it takes you to respond, I appreciate the time you put in.

The implication is that the same piece of evidence means different things to different rational people.

I agree whole-heartedly. And while one is inevitably incorrect, it likely stems from some sort of misunderstanding, or past experience and acquired knowledge (more on this later).

That said, your example of the couple demonstrating their love for each other towards the world is a false analogy. And I'll demonstrate why.

People show love in different ways. Some people do it by buying gifts for each other, or through sex, or words, or a combination of things. Now, this hypothetical couple has a way of communicating their love, some of which appeals to other people, and some of which doesn't. Naturally, all will not be convinced.

The issue arises, however, in God's omniscience, and omnipotence. God knows what it will take to convince us each individually, for some it may be visions, others it may be some sort of mathematical or philosophical proof, etc. but regardless, God knows what will convince us. Additionally, because God is all powerful, he can accomplish whatever it takes to convince us.

Hence, unlike the married couple, God has the knowledge of what will convince everyone, and the means to do so.

And to be fair, I'm not suggesting God need prove his love, I am suggesting he prove his existence. If we played with your analogy a bit, how hard would it be for one individual in the scenario to prove that he/she exists to every rational individual? I should think that would be easy enough, especially if we granted that person an omniscient and omnipresent nature.

Finally, I must insist that belief is not a choice. I think my example earlier with Santa Clause and your family adequately demonstrates this. Even looking at the same piece of evidence and coming to different conclusions is based off of some preconceived notion of how things function, so the difference in beliefs is not due to choice, but to a difference in experience and what one understand to be true. In essence, then, the two rational people in question are adding in past experiences and pieces of evidence that are not the same, and then using those past events to comprehend only a few common pieces of evidence, rendering two separate conclusions possible for two different people.

~JS, who, if he recalls correctly, left Aldin hanging on the last conversation they had

[ollie]

Originally Posted by Tornado

Riffing off from Dysole's reality comments, does anyone consider the 'we are all in a computer simulation' theory?
Then our deities would be the programmers.

Are we the Sims?

This is not too far from how I look at it all. I don't believe in an interventionist god*, but the difference between a non-interventionist god, no god, and whatever outside-the-system entities you want to posit is irrelevant to our lives within the system.

Originally Posted by ollie

...imagine trying to design infinite sudokus...

I've been musing on this since posting it off the cuff yesterday and think that I have a good definition. Whether that leads to interesting questions or not, I don't know, but I'm planning to write it up for some future student to mess with and maybe I'll post it here too.


* But I know, darling, that you do....

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by ollie

This is not too far from how I look at it all. I don't believe in an interventionist god*, but the difference between a non-interventionist god, no god, and whatever outside-the-system entities you want to posit is irrelevant to our lives within the system.

Quoth a philosophy grad student to me, when I was a freshman taking intro philosophy course, "I believe if there is a god, He doesn't care what I eat."

edit: Of course belief is a choice. There are lots of kinds of choices, and many of them are informed by our personal experiences of the world, but they are our choices.

[Dr.Goomonkey]

While we're on the subject of being late to reply to things, here I am! I think the last response directly to me ties in pretty well with the current conversation, anyway (other than the infinite circles stuff. Spoiler alert: I'm not enough of a doctor to chime in seriously there).

Originally Posted by Aldin

When it gets to the "decisions are made by the machinery of our brain" thing, that's where I find nihilism creeping in. If we are nothing but observers with all events preordained by physics, chemistry and quantum mechanics simply interacting and all choice and action merely byproducts of those interactions with a seeming veneer of belonging to us whilst we are truly, again, only observers, then none of this has any value. Answering a thread on Scapers and watching paint dry are equally valuable and equally deterministic in their occasion of time marching forward.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Of course belief is a choice. There are lots of kinds of choices, and many of them are informed by our personal experiences of the world, but they are our choices.

I think my response to the first post here should start by saying that I agree with Dad_Scaper's post. I believe we do make our choices, and at a certain level that includes what we believe. However, I also think that on a physical level all of that is predetermined. That doesn't deny that the decisions are being made, though.

I have a question about decisions: can you choose what you choose? Maybe I'm weird, but when I'm sitting near an open window in a tall building, or leaning on the railing of a ferry boat, or driving down a two lane road with a high speed limit, I sometimes have thoughts along the lines on, "I could throw my phone out this window" or "I could jump off this boat" or "I could ram that guy head-on, and we would probably both die." Now, I'm pretty sure I would never do these things. In fact, I am so certain that I wouldn't do any of these things that I don't think they are actually a choice at all.

From these extreme examples I think we can stretch the conclusion to apply to all choices. When I go to a restaurant I look at all the options, and generally a few of them sound superior to the others. At this point I have to really make a decision, and normally this is done through some impulse deep within my belly (or a d20 roll...). Could I have chosen the omelet instead of the scramble? Sure, but I didn't. And because I didn't it would have been impossible for me to have. When I rolled a 1 for initiative 4 times in an online HeroScape game somewhat recently, could I have rolled something else? Well, no. That's what it was, so even if it is truly random (like a real die, which is totally 100% random ) it would still be predetermined from a perspective outside of time.

Does this kind of determinism (whether it is simulated or if "reality" follows rules similarly to a computer) mean nihilism? I don't think so. Does nihilism mean pessimism? I also don't think so. I do think a certain amount of nihilism is essential for optimism, in fact. If this world is important to the rest of existence, we should be very worried (unless it is essential for it to be in as painful a state as it is, but if that's the case I'd still be concerned). If this world doesn't impact all that much, or nothing at all, that's pretty relieving. Nihilism, in that case, makes it possible to live a life with as little worry as possible. Does nihilism mean that you shouldn't do anything to make things better? Probably to a lot of people, but I don't think so at all. Even if "nothing matters" you still should be kind to people, and try to help humanity in some way, and probably live happily and healthfully so that you can see as much as you can in this lifetime. Why? I dunno. 'Cause it's fun, I guess; and in my estimation your individual life will be better (and no matter how deep into nihilism someone goes, they still want to be happy themself, right?).

Us being observers doesn't make anything more or less valuable, and doesn't change the elements of the thing we are observing. Getting a seat as a simultaneous observer and performer sounds like the best seat, to me.

~Dr.G, having his metaphysical cake and eating it, too.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Dr.Goomonkey

Maybe I'm weird, but when I'm sitting near an open window in a tall building, or leaning on the railing of a ferry boat, or driving down a two lane road with a high speed limit, I sometimes have thoughts along the lines on, "I could throw my phone out this window" or "I could jump off this boat" or "I could ram that guy head-on, and we would probably both die." Now, I'm pretty sure I would never do these things. In fact, I am so certain that I wouldn't do any of these things that I don't think they are actually a choice at all.

Nope! You're not weird. You're just like the rest of us. You experience intrusive thoughts, and you don't act on them.

Some people, like those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, can really get crushed by the persistent and volcanic nature of their own intrusive thoughts. But all that's really happening is that your brain is constantly flicking through all the different things that could happen, and sometimes it stumbles across a particularly bizarre thing, and it sends that one up the flagpole because it's bizarre. Of course you choose not to do it. But your brain, because it's functioning normally, recognizes the thing as something that would be bizarre for some reason, so for a flashing fraction of a flashing second the thought percolated to your conscious brain.

It's all about choice. Including not acting on your intrusive thoughts.

As I hinted earlier, there is magic in the real world. If you think long enough about the concept of infinity, or intrusive thoughts, or the idea of zero, or any one of a number of other things, you might discover something special. But that doesn't mean the thing isn't also part of the natural world, functioning within boundaries we understand.