I think the concept of emergence is something religious people have a tough time understanding.

[Humanist_Activist]

First let me explain, emergence is a concept of complexity derived from simplicity. This is very basic, but a few simple rules can exist and as a result, something as complex as a human being can be derived from those simple rules. At its very core, we humans are simply the rules of chemistry applied through homeostasis in cellular structures. This applies to all of biology, and the results are astounding, but still explainable through chemistry(bio-chemistry to be more exact).

This applies to all areas of science, from physics to behavioral sciences, an ant colony is surprisingly complex in its overall behavior, but a single ant is simple by comparison, only following a few pheromone clues and repeated behaviors through instinct. Yet there is no guiding intelligence that is creating this complexity, rather its the ants, working together, and following these clues, that leads to structure and an illusion of design, as Richard Dawkins would put it.

What applies to ants also applies to single cells, working together to build an organism, or to atoms, organized to build a rock. And these, following the rules we discovered through physics, chemistry, biology, etc. leads to the emergence of stars, planets, and life. The rules that exist are very basic, the 4 forces of the universe are basically it, and the constants that follow them.

So where, in all this emergent complexity does a god fit in? I would say in a very small space, if one is necessary at all, at most, and this is being very generous, we can say that a god could have put the forces there, but then again, given the cutting edge in physics, such a being wouldn't have had a choice at all. Space-time, the 4 forces, and the constants that follow them may be a natural by product of the Big Bang, and were inevitable, as an emergent phenomenon themselves.

The existence of a god, therefore, would be similar to a spanner in the works of the universe, rather than a help, a hindrance, by its own definition, such a being would have to violate these simple rules, itself an exception to the universe itself.

[bongbong]

1. Religious nuts

On the theme of your essay, the problem religious nuts have with it is that they think humans are "god-like". They think humans & life as we know it is literally a miracle like science fiction. "Natural processes couldn't have produced such wonders! And any natural process that I can't understand is worthless because I am all-knowing since I am religious and god speaks to me since I am so religious! If I wasn't so religious god wouldn't speak to me, and thus I wouldn't live forever, and thus my faith MUST be the TRUTH!"

Obviously they're wrong. But their faith demands that they jettison any facts & logic that proves them wrong...while vigorously trying to use facts & logic to justify their "truth" on those rare occasions when tortured rhetoric allows them to misuse (carefully selected) facts & logic. In other words, religious types want to have their cake & eat it too.

Religion is SO easily dismissed with logic, that it amazes me how many billions are still in its thrall. But since that thrall is based on emotion & not mind, it happens.

[Thats my opinion]

3. What you obviously know about religion would fill a thimble.

If I want to know about science I will ask a scientist--not someone who is radically anti-science. If I ask the latter I will get a bundle of prejudices, but not much helpful information.

To start off with the term, "religious nuts" reveals a bigotry that precludes any thoughtful dialogue.

So much for "religion" being a safe place for the discussion of ideas without put downs.

[trotsky]

5. In the very same post:

"What you obviously know about religion would fill a thimble."

"So much for 'religion' being a safe place for the discussion of ideas without put downs."

Bet you don't even see the contradiction.

[Thats my opinion]

8. bongbong

was not offering opinions to be discussed. His "religious nuts" should have been challenged and deleted. So Trotsky is back, I hope in a nicer vein.

[cleanhippie]

11. Two posts and two insults, all the while calling for just that to stop.

Your hypocrisy is disgusting.

[napoleon_in_rags]

15. Aw, did somebody step on somebody's right to insult people?

Turn about is fair play. The post in question describes billions of people as completely arrogant and delusional, and then the author demands respect.

[cleanhippie]

18. It's the hypocrisy I object to.

[mr blur]

19. But they are delusional.

and frequently arrogant.

[Goblinmonger]

32. The author didn't demand respect.

TMO demanded that the OP be respectful and while doing so was disrespectful. I think TMO's Christ said something about dealing with the plank in your own eye first and the same Christ disavowed the eye-for-an-eye code and went with turn the other cheek.

But, hey, if "turnabout is fair play" is the new rule on DU3, then I'm game.

[napoleon_in_rags]

39. Turnabout is fair play has always been a good rule.

IT suggests an equality between those in the conversation, it does away with the idea that double standards are acceptable.

What do I mean by double standards? Well...

I think TMO's Christ said something about dealing with the plank in your own eye first and the same Christ disavowed the eye-for-an-eye code and went with turn the other cheek.

Right, so the question then becomes for you: Do these ideas have merit? You should be able to answer that "yes" or "no". If they have merit, you should be seeking to adhere to them, having some respect for this Jesus guy. If they don't have merit, you shouldn't be demanding TMO follow them, now should you? I mean what is that, demanding consistency to an idea you think is bad over the embrace of an idea you think is good? That's no way to illuminate the person your arguing with, awarding brownie points for being consistently wrong by your own standards. Shouldn't you be awarding brownie points for being right, and DISREGARDING Jesus's words on this matter? Hmm?

[Goblinmonger]

42. Interesting take.

But my point, as a former debater and debate coach, is that people need to be held to the standards that they set up. TMO should follow that which he preaches. It matters not what I think. He is free to have his ideals (of which, I can criticize of course or argue are bad) but if he has them, then he should probably be following them or re-evaluate them. If he is going to preach at someone for being disrespectful, he should not be disrespectful in the process. If he is, then he needs to re-evaluate his standard and either live by it himself or change the standard. It is not my place to tell him what he should be believing--as most theists in this forum seem to what to be think. But I can certainly point out hypocrisy of the standards that they do hold.

Interesting conversation.

[napoleon_in_rags]

49. My take...

Is that I think the sky is blue. If a guy disagrees and says its red, then later in the conversation says its blue, my take is that he was right 50% of the time. If he consistently said the sky was red, I would say he was right 0% of the time. So the inconsistent was preferable to the consistent.

Now when we are talking about the ideals of Christian kindness, if we nail a person from deviating from them while bashing those same ideals, we are in effect saying that when that person is disrespectful and rude to us, he is agreeing with us. That to me seems a poor position to take. I think it would be more powerful to show some respect to those ideals that we agree are good, demonstrating them ourselves, and zoom in on the exact fundamental loonyness that we know is destructive, even if it means acknowledging that some christian ideals are positive.

[trotsky]

23. Oh, I don't think you'll ever believe I'm nice.

Because I don't uncritically accept your ivory-tower pronouncements of what religion "really" is. Coupled with hypocritical behavior, you are indeed a fun one to engage.

[Thats my opinion]

28. Ah, shucks! nt

[napoleon_in_rags]

16. In the very same post:

"And any natural process that I can't understand is worthless because I am all-knowing since I am religious and god speaks to me since I am so religious!"

"it amazes me how many billions are still in its thrall."

So you've criticized billions of people as being not just deluded morons, but intellectually arrogant, thinking they alone have all the answers.

Bet you don't even see the irony.

[trotsky]

22. Um, do you have me confused with someone else perhaps? n/t

[napoleon_in_rags]

36. Just substitute "ustedes" for "you" and it will work fine.

Damn English, no second person plural except "y'all". Maybe that's something we can learn from the south.

[Goblinmonger]

33. Do all atheists look alike to you? n/t

[napoleon_in_rags]

38. Well, I guess I should just come out and say it: YES.

I can't tell any of you damned atheists apart, you all look the same to me. Sometimes I wish you would all go back to atheististan.

[Goblinmonger]

43. ......

[Deep13]

54. And how does one learn about religion...

...without it becoming a big circular argument? What is the evidence? Historians study writing from the relevant time. Psychologists study the mind. Astronomers the stars. Literary critics study literature. What do theologists study except the opinions of other theologists? What are their sources?

[Thats my opinion]

2. Or maybe God

is the energy under the whole thing that gives it life and meaning. If I define something as either non-existent or non-critical, then by that very definition I have closed the circle and there can be no further discussion.

[deacon_sephiroth]

4. Then why call it god?

The picture you paint is a pantheistic one.

If this nebulous energy diety does exist, I can't see what meaning it would give to anything, nor why it requires personification, prayer, worship, etc. What you suggest would be tantimount to just another process of life the universe and everything.

Unless I'm missing something in your possibly over-simplified suggestion, such a "diety" would be no more powerful or personal than gravity.

Is it neccisary? Absolutely!
Does it operate virtually everywhere, and act upon everything though sometimes too small to notice? Indeed.
Is it critical to life, and possibly even creditable for it's part in life's creation? yes
Do we pray to it, worship it, legislate it, personify it? no, why would we?

[Thats my opinion]

7. Pantheism is the perspective that all is God and God is all.

Panentheism is the perspective that God is the energy in all. There is a significant difference. I will probably be moved to define this more carefully in an upcoming post. I'll try to get to the rest of your questions at that time. I gather that you are really interested and not just trolling.

[deacon_sephiroth]

9. well I like to think that I rarely troll

but I suppsoe trolling can be in the eye of the reader, either way I thought I made a valid enough question.

[Thats my opinion]

12. Good enough, deacon.

But if I go into this I will certainly hear from some our our colleagues how I have gone to teaching. Will you be at my back?

[deacon_sephiroth]

13. it may not be neccesary

I went and looked up Panentheism as soon as you corrected the term. I was previously unfamiliar with it, though I would still say my question applies. If you'd like to have a shot at the question, then I'll certainly defend the discourse.

[edhopper]

27. But that is an unnecessary concept

to overlay on top of the functioning Universe. Which works quite well without this undetectable, unknowable "energy"

[Thats my opinion]

29. without energy, it doesn'r work at all. nt

[edhopper]

30. You seem to be talking about an energy

beyond the three of four fundamental forces. We can measure the energy that the Universe works by, and there isn't a Life-Force or Cosmic Consciousness or what ever you wish to call it. It works very well without the energy you believe in.

[tama]

44. Besides what can be measured

the current set of equations don't work without supposing huge amount of dark matter, of which measurable matter is just a tiny fraction, and which dark matter is just tiny fraction of dark energy. They are called "dark" because they cannot be directly measured, only deduced theory-dependently.

Also, self-evidently, in participatory universe energy measured is not "outside" and independent of the act of measurement, which is also energy.

Hence also the energy of vacuum fluctuations cannot be directly measured or defined, as Uncertainty Principle is involved.

All these remain more or less open questions in standard physics. Which you claim - against the scientific understanding - "works fine". If it already did so, there would be no theoretical search for the GUT and TOE.

As for "Cosmic Consciousness or what ever", consciousness involves self-reference. What kind of energy is that and how do you measure it?

[edhopper]

45. You seem to keep writing post

which indicate that the Universe and reality are created by, and are changed by how we think.
If I am wrong about this, I would like to ask that you give a simpler, non-jargon laden response.

[tama]

46. In a participatory universe

our thoughts (including scientific theories) are also part of universe, and as they change of course the universe also changes. To what extent and how exactly are open questions.

There is also a philosophical position called epiphenomalism and/or eliminative materialism that is fully deterministic based on classical physics alone. I'm not a supporter of that school of thought. And sorry for the jargon, which is basically shorts for ideas instead of discussing them more fully. When facing jargon that is strange to me I usually check the wikipedia and other sources, sometimes it helps, sometimes not.

[edhopper]

47. Thanks

The trouble with checking Wikipedia (which I did) is that often people do not use the terms in the same way. Hence I asked you for specifics.
You may be talking about an active Sheldrakian model, or a more subjective Lacanian view.

[tama]

48. Hmm

Not very familiar with Lacan, and I see subjectivism and objectivism cultural and language dependent dialectical (codependent) oppositions. A local philosopher I'm more familiar with rejects both subjectivism and objectivism and uses term a-subjective (cf. a-theism) for the state where division of world into subjects and objects has not taken over.

I'm not sure what you mean be "active Sheldrakian model", but I know he is a biologist and active experimentalist. The previous discussion has been more on the level of philosophy, logic and theoretical physics. But I'm aware of a theory of mathematical physics that aims to explain Sheldrakes approach in those terms.

[edhopper]

50. The difference I put forth are

one would be that thinking about something actually changes reality and the other is that our perception of reality changes by how we think.

[tama]

51. Ah,

I see no real contradiction there, at least mutually exclusive contradiction. More like two sides of the same coin, and in both cases both change.

Of course a definer can define 'reality' as narrowly as he wants, even exclude thoughts and acts of defining reality from his 'reality', and still claim logical consistency. But my answer to such a definer would be more in the lines of "bollocks" and "you are fucking insane".

[FarCenter]

52. The world was actually on the back of a giant turtle back when people believed it to be so?

That actually works if the universe is a computer simulation in which human minds are cellular components actively synthesizing reality.

[tama]

53. Entertaining idea

I just came by: assuming multiverse, simulated universe is the most likely case, as universes with capability of simulating universes can create simulated universes that can create simulated universes etc - and turtles upon turtles... (and also the simulators in a simulated universe being level up "gods" of the level down simulated universe.)

Some say that such idea might be testable - and hence a 'theory' - assuming no full theory of all behind the simulations and hence observable program glitches (e.g. constants being variables of the simulation program and changing values during the simulation etc). But Chalmers makes a strong case that Matrix simulations and "envatments" are not really separable from theories of physics, as both are based on math, number theory and computability. (http://consc.net/papers/matrix.html)

Also there is strong support for the idea that digital computers would not be enough to do the trick, but quantum computers might be. Strongest support is IMHO the very fact that we have developed/found quantum theory and and quantum computation, and that theory is quite testable, when we manage to build quantum computers complex enough.

[Igel]

6. Emergent properties are really common..

However, not just any structure provides useful emergent properties.

You can get complex arithmetic results from multiple layers (with recursion) of surprisingly simple logic gates.

You get wildly complex phonologies emerging from non-conscious analysis and grouping of speech tokens.

If you tweak the possible gates, if you tweak the structures that they're in, you usually get trash.

The idea of phonology being an emergent property resulting from speech-token analysis is useful. Not only does it trash the idea of teaching "phonemic awareness," but it gives us possible clues as to how language is structured and how humans perform non-conscious linguistic analysis.

The result isn't to say that there is no complexity. It's danged hard to plan emergent properties because the structure, the complexity, is distributed over more than just the initial organization of elements. It's a very elegant system, one that makes for the possibility of a lot of diversity (which means that it's very evolution-compatible), one that can be very robust, but one that is both flexible but also very difficult to design ex nihilo.

I don't see this as a death blow to either side. And, yes, creationists sometimes do "get" the idea of emergent properties. It's just that many of them quote both old-time creationists as well as old-time evolutionists. It's rather like historical linguistics--what's "cutting edge" might be an idea resurrected from the 1880s.

[Boojatta]

10. A few things

At its very core, we humans are simply the rules of chemistry applied through homeostasis in cellular structures.

Don't ideas and ideologies play a role in human thinking? Are you merely hoping to persuade us that something caused you to write the Original Post? Alternatively, are you trying to explain some idea, and persuade us that the idea is correct?

Yet there is no guiding intelligence that is creating this complexity, rather its the ants, working together, and following these clues, that leads to structure and an illusion of design, as Richard Dawkins would put it.

What applies to ants also applies to single cells, working together to build an organism

Once built, an organism might do some thinking. Is there no intelligence that is guiding the organism's thinking?

Space-time, the 4 forces, and the constants that follow them may be a natural by product of the Big Bang, and were inevitable

In what sense do the constants "follow them"? I had the impression that there are fundamental constants of physics that are found via observation and that haven't been explained via theory.

[napoleon_in_rags]

17. Great post. Who can define "intelligence".

The great paradox the OP makes me think about is that in the framework of the basic unfolding physical forces, I have no justification of claiming I have a mind, or free will, or anything like that at all... Its all dictated by these unfolding forces within my brain. Yet that which I experience most directly is my own mind, it is the lens I see all phenomenon, including the physical world through.

[tama]

20. Constants

according to current understanding are 'free parameters' with no theory to fix them with mathematical necessity, and cosmologists can play with them and see what kinds of universes various tunings produce. Obviously the tuning we observe has something to do with observer participation.

[Humanist_Activist]

25. Thinking, consciousness, are an emergent property of complex brains...

Don't ideas and ideologies play a role in human thinking? Are you merely hoping to persuade us that something caused you to write the Original Post? Alternatively, are you trying to explain some idea, and persuade us that the idea is correct?

Nothing "caused" me to write what I did except the electro-chemical processes in my brain that make me, me.

Once built, an organism might do some thinking. Is there no intelligence that is guiding the organism's thinking?

Of course there is, the intelligence is an emergent property of the organisms brain, not something outside of the organism.

In what sense do the constants "follow them"? I had the impression that there are fundamental constants of physics that are found via observation and that haven't been explained via theory.

What you say is true, and frankly I don't know how the constants came about, I'm afraid we don't have an explanation yet, but as we as a species understand more, we will get closer to the answer. I'm not afraid of saying "I don't know", I prefer that to making up an answer then stop trying to find it.

[tama]

40. Self-referentiality

As you said about string and M theories not being theories, the reductionistic dogma of emergentism you present as given, is much less a theory. The dogma or presupposition you believe in has no mathematical description of self-referentiality, to begin with, and as such emergentism remains just word salad - with a bad taste. Not a scientific theory by any generally accepted criteria. I hope that you can apply rational skepticism also towards emergentism and entertain other ideas with more scientific and philosophical merit.

And as it happens, there's just been a major breakthrough in the field of mathematical self-referentiality. You heard it first here:
http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2012/03/quantum-mathematics.html#comments

[napoleon_in_rags]

14. What if God is the emergent outcome of civilization?

Single celled lifeforms follow different simple rules than those that come together collaboratively to make multi-cellular organisms. So we can assume that some structures, some simple instructions coming from a place we cannot understand, are necessary to make us able to work together. Instructions like "thou shall not kill", that allow us to see the value in the diversified cell - weak in itself, but strong in its right place in a collective more powerful than the sum of its parts.

I remember going to the planetarium as a kid: They had this show of a story, going all through time into the future, showing all the human attempts to reverse entropy. At the end of the universe, nobody had mastered it, so the stars burnt out. There last hope was a supercomputer in hyperspace, which ticked away at the problem for countless eons, until at last, after all humanity was dead, it found it, and set out to reverse entropy, saying "let there be light!". I liked that story.

[2ndAmForComputers]

24. That is "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov.

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

[napoleon_in_rags]

37. Oh wow, thanks. I knew is was a scifi story by somebody, but now I know. nt

[tama]

21. Emergence of physical complexity

in terms of Big Bang singularity (hot hot hot!!!) follows from cooling: 3D space, 4 (or 3 if we go with the electroweak theory) basic forces, etc etc. String and M theories combine all four into one, but then the math allows complexity of about 10 to exp 500 different low energy universes. These multiverses, and all other theories, emerge and exist primarily as mental objects, as does the notion of complexity.

Multiverses of all possible worlds are funny from theological point of view in the way that they allow and predict both atheistic and all kinds of theistic universes.

[Humanist_Activist]

26. First, String and M "theories" are actually hypothesis...

neither has actually been supported substantially by evidence enough to be considered out and out theories just yet(in a scientific sense). Same goes for multiverses, however I don't see how either hypothesis supports "theistic" universes in a multiverse.

[tama]

34. You may have a point

as string theories have been criticized for being "not even wrong" (see e.g. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4447), and there are better GUTs and TOEs around.

[Boojatta]

31. Where ...

So where, in all this emergent complexity does a god fit in?

Where do infinitely many prime numbers fit in?

In a universe that is unbounded, but finite, there doesn't seem to be room for infinitely many things of any kind.

Are people who are looking for new axioms of number theory wasting their time?

[Humanist_Activist]

35. The problem is in defining gods, in a classical sense...

gods either are logically inconsistent internally(the classical Christian god, for example). A self contradiction, as it were.

And/or they are beings that in some way can violate known laws of the universe, performing miracles and such. Most gods of classical antiquity to today fit this mold, including monotheistic gods.

[tama]

41. Boojatta

asks a deep question (which involves physics as generalized number theory), but instead of even trying to think, you evade into beating your favourite theological strawman.

The theology of Brahman=Atman is not self-contradictory, but the consistent math and physics of number theoretical self-referentiality. "Quantum math" of Hilbert spaces at each point of Hilbert space (and then some) seems to be also the mathematical form of Indra's net.

Here's the link again, in case Boojatta misses my previous post above:
http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2012/03/quantum-mathematics.html#comments

[mmonk]

55. But where did the rules come from?

[Humanist_Activist]

56. We don't know.

[mmonk]

57. Which means ultimately we cannot describe the unknowable.

Any reality rather than terminology of god could mean something different than described.

[tama]

58. 42. One, Two, Three

Tao gives birth to One.

One gives birth to Two.

Two gives birth to Three.

Three gives birth to everything...

http://taotechingdecoded.com/chapter42.aspx