random events and God

[Tumah]

God didn't create laws of logic. The laws of logic are necessary- they cannot be created.

I don't see that at all. G-d created the world in such a way as to require some foundational laws in order to run in the manner He wants it to run, which apparently includes predictability.To the end, he formulated the laws of logic as we experience them, and the resulting natural order that stems from their institution.

The fact that you are willing to consider the possibility that Infinite G-d can squeeze Himself into a finite man (as your religion suggests) already suggests that you believe G-d does impossible things...

 

[brokensymmetry]

I don't see that at all. G-d created the world in such a way as to require some foundational laws in order to run in the manner He wants it to run, which apparently includes predictability.To the end, he formulated the laws of logic as we experience them, and the resulting natural order that stems from their institution.

The fact that you are willing to consider the possibility that Infinite G-d can squeeze Himself into a finite man (as your religion suggests) already suggests that you believe G-d does impossible things...

Willing to consider, I suppose. To be honest I have not in detail analyzed the bare logical possibility of the claim of the incarnation to the this point. Since I only very loosely claim a christian identity, without much believing in it at this point, bringing that into the picture probably isn't a fruitful direction for discussion.

As to the rest, it isn't possible for anyone to have instantiated the laws of logic. These are fundamentally different from the physical rules of the world, or for creating a world that we can make predictions in. Making a predictable world involves induction and informal logic rules. Formal logic rules, on the other hand, are necessary. Any possible world that could be instantiated will operate according to them. A classic example is the request that God create a square triangle. A triangle by definition has 3 sides. A square by definition has 4 sides. These just are conceptual truths. On the other hand, God could have created a completely unpredictable world with no discernible physical rules.

 

[Tumah]

Willing to consider, I suppose. To be honest I have not in detail analyzed the bare logical possibility of the claim of the incarnation to the this point. Since I only very loosely claim a christian identity, without much believing in it at this point, bringing that into the picture probably isn't a fruitful direction for discussion.

As to the rest, it isn't possible for anyone to have instantiated the laws of logic. These are fundamentally different from the physical rules of the world, or for creating a world that we can make predictions in. Making a predictable world involves induction and informal logic rules. Formal logic rules, on the other hand, are necessary. Any possible world that could be instantiated will operate according to them. A classic example is the request that God create a square triangle. A triangle by definition has 3 sides. A square by definition has 4 sides. These just are conceptual truths. On the other hand, God could have created a completely unpredictable world with no discernible physical rules.

I feel like you are thinking of it as though, first there was a universe that had G-d, then within that universe G-d created a solar system or 1497514.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, first there was nothing. Not an empty universe, or a lack of space. There was nothing. Just G-d. Then G-d creates the infrastructure for a universe, then a universe. One of the elements of the infrastructure, is logic. That wasn't there before He came and put it there. G-d pre-exists logic. 2 + 2 = 4 because G-d continuously wills it to do so.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I feel like you are thinking of it as though, first there was a universe that had G-d, then within that universe G-d created a solar system or 1497514.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, first there was nothing. Not an empty universe, or a lack of space. There was nothing. Just G-d. Then G-d creates the infrastructure for a universe, then a universe. One of the elements of the infrastructure, is logic. That wasn't there before He came and put it there. G-d pre-exists logic. 2 + 2 = 4 because G-d continuously wills it to do so.

Logical rules, deductive rules, are not contingent. The universe, the mass energy, the spacetime, the physical rules-- they are all contingent, they could have all been otherwise. But 1+1=2 could not have been 3. It's just not possible. Triangles could not have other than 3 sides (you could name them differently sure, but it would still be what I mean by the word triangle). It could not have been otherwise. In this way God is constrained.

 

[Tumah]

Logical rules, deductive rules, are not contingent. The universe, the mass energy, the spacetime, the physical rules-- they are all contingent, they could have all been otherwise. But 1+1=2 could not have been 3. It's just not possible. Triangles could not have other than 3 sides (you could name them differently sure, but it would still be what I mean by the word triangle). It could not have been otherwise. In this way God is constrained.

I don't agree. The reason why it seems impossible is because our universe was created in such a way as to require 1+1 to equal 2. So to us who live in this universe, it has to be that way. But G-d was not constrained to create the universe this way.

 

[Skwim]

I don't agree. The reason why it seems impossible is because our universe was created in such a way as to require 1+1 to equal 2. So to us who live in this universe, it has to be that way. But G-d was not constrained to create the universe this way.

So you're saying that god could create a universe where 1 + 1 ≠ 2? Seems nigh impossible if not irrational. In as much as 1 represents a single entity, in what kind of universe would a single entity and another single entity not amount to two entities? Care to explain?

 

[Tumah]

So you're saying that god could create a universe where 1 + 1 ≠ 2? Seems nigh impossible if not irrational. In as much as 1 represents a single entity, in what kind of universe would a single entity and another single entity not amount to two entities? Care to explain?

I couldn't explain how it could work. Because like you, I live in this universe where things work this way.
But I believe that G-d pre-exists everything and is the creator of everything. Its not like there was a blank sheet and G-d wrote the plans down. There was no paper at all. I would say that to us it seems impossible because 1+1=2 is built into the fabric of the universe and that includes us. If the universe would be built such that 1+1=3 we would have a hard time understanding how anything else could be possible and our universe would reflect that as well.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Thanks for the kind welcome.

I do not think QM supports any sort of 'universal consciousness' or reality as God consciousness. I don't know what it means to say that choices or such are 'Fractal'.

If you Google the two I mentioned, Goswami and John Hagelin, you will see that there is. In fact Goswami would say that quantum mechanics makes it clear that the ground of all being is consciousness.
The idea that everything acts in a Fractal way is because the Nature of God develops in that way. All consciousness, thought, develops from what is before.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I don't agree. The reason why it seems impossible is because our universe was created in such a way as to require 1+1 to equal 2. So to us who live in this universe, it has to be that way. But G-d was not constrained to create the universe this way.

skwim has an important point here. I can conceive of universes in which like charges attract and opposites repel. I can conceive of universes that have multiple spatial dimensions (question about string theory in this one aside!). But, by definition of what I mean by 1, and what I mean by addition, Russell showed that you can from definitions alone show that 1+1 just is 2.

Let me ask you this. Could there be a universe in which a bachelor is a married man?

 

[brokensymmetry]

If you Google the two I mentioned, Goswami and John Hagelin, you will see that there is. In fact Goswami would say that quantum mechanics makes it clear that the ground of all being is consciousness.
The idea that everything acts in a Fractal way is because the Nature of God develops in that way. All consciousness, thought, develops from what is before.

I'm afraid if I went down this route I would need to wash my brain in alcohol. As someone who utilizes QM as a strictly defined scientific theory I find these sorts of abuses unfortunate and nauseating. QM is the most successful theory, arguably, in human history, and here it becomes fodder for new age wishy washy, fuzzy thinking. I understand that even well trained scientists indulge in philosophical speculation from time to time, and while there is nothing wrong with that should be distinguished from what the theory unarguably IS, is what is well established, and what is mere speculation. Nothing personal against you Robert, and I apologize sincerely if it comes across that way. I more wanted to communicate to you why I am hesitant to go down that route.

 

[Tumah]

skwim has an important point here. I can conceive of universes in which like charges attract and opposites repel. I can conceive of universes that have multiple spatial dimensions (question about string theory in this one aside!). But, by definition of what I mean by 1, and what I mean by addition, Russell showed that you can from definitions alone show that 1+1 just is 2.

Let me ask you this. Could there be a universe in which a bachelor is a married man?

It seems to me that the reason why we understand that 1+1=2 and not 3, is because our universe was constructed that way. In our universe 1+1 must equal 2. And by universe I mean to include the brane and the bulk. Our universe was constructed with these fundamental mathematical truths.

But take all of that away. There is just G-d. Math doesn't exist. Logic doesn't exist. The only existence is G-d and even that can't be said to be an existence because G-d's being doesn't remotely compare to our state of being. Only, there is no other word to describe it. Just G-d, there are no principles no nothing. G-d isn't within the bulk. There is no bulk. There are no principles with which to constrain G-d. There is no one and two and three. There is just G-d being. Now G-d wants to create a universe. So He creates principles and laws that will provide the basis for the universe. He creates a concept calls numbers and formulates the principles they work under. He creates the concept called "one". Then He creates the concept of multiples "ones". Then the ability to combine multiple ones in various formulas including additive. Then He creates the concept of two. And attached it to any time a one and a one are added together. You see what I'm saying. Building from scratch the principles.

Did He have to build it this way? No. He could have made 1+1=3. How would that work? I have no idea, because I don't live in such a world and my mind is not constructed in such a way as to be able to understand concepts that don't conform to the logic of the universe I live in. But had G-d created the universe that way, it would make perfect sense to me and I would have difficulty understanding how it could possibly equal anything else.

So along those lines, theoretically yes, G-d could have constructed the universe in such a way that a bachelor would mean someone who is married. How would that work? I don't know because that doesn't conform to the logical rules of this universe. But if I lived in that one, it would make complete sense.

I'm trying to illustrate the idea that before the universe, multi-verse etc. there was no logic. There was only G-d and He created the logic.

 

[brokensymmetry]

It seems to me that the reason why we understand that 1+1=2 and not 3, is because our universe was constructed that way. In our universe 1+1 must equal 2. And by universe I mean to include the brane and the bulk. Our universe was constructed with these fundamental mathematical truths.

But take all of that away. There is just G-d. Math doesn't exist. Logic doesn't exist. The only existence is G-d and even that can't be said to be an existence because G-d's being doesn't remotely compare to our state of being. Only, there is no other word to describe it. Just G-d, there are no principles no nothing. G-d isn't within the bulk. There is no bulk. There are no principles with which to constrain G-d. There is no one and two and three. There is just G-d being. Now G-d wants to create a universe. So He creates principles and laws that will provide the basis for the universe. He creates a concept calls numbers and formulates the principles they work under. He creates the concept called "one". Then He creates the concept of multiples "ones". Then the ability to combine multiple ones in various formulas including additive. Then He creates the concept of two. And attached it to any time a one and a one are added together. You see what I'm saying. Building from scratch the principles.

Did He have to build it this way? No. He could have made 1+1=3. How would that work? I have no idea, because I don't live in such a world and my mind is not constructed in such a way as to be able to understand concepts that don't conform to the logic of the universe I live in. But had G-d created the universe that way, it would make perfect sense to me and I would have difficulty understanding how it could possibly equal anything else.

So along those lines, theoretically yes, G-d could have constructed the universe in such a way that a bachelor would mean someone who is married. How would that work? I don't know because that doesn't conform to the logical rules of this universe. But if I lived in that one, it would make complete sense.

I'm trying to illustrate the idea that before the universe, multi-verse etc. there was no logic. There was only G-d and He created the logic.

I don't know how to make sense of any concept without first presupposing some basic logical relations, and that includes the concept of God,the concept of being at all, nothing makes sense, can be approached, can be discussed without first assuming some basic rules. A bachelor is an unmarried man, in no possible universe could he be a married man and be a bachelor still. Such a thing could not exist... certainly I can't talk about it, make sense of it in any way. I don't see how a tautology could be questioned and we could still talk about anything meaningful, especially not God.

 

[Tumah]

I don't know how to make sense of any concept without first presupposing some basic logical relations, and that includes the concept of God,the concept of being at all, nothing makes sense, can be approached, can be discussed without first assuming some basic rules. A bachelor is an unmarried man, in no possible universe could he be a married man and be a bachelor still. Such a thing could not exist... certainly I can't talk about it, make sense of it in any way. I don't see how a tautology could be questioned and we could still talk about anything meaningful, especially not God.

You're right. I think that's why we (me?) say G-d is completely unknowable. The most we can say about G-d is that He is (not that He exists, because existence and a state of being are not concepts that apply to Him). And that He is One (to the most extreme that view can possibly take you). Everything else is apophatic. It is completely impossible for us to approach anything about G-d. That is the purpose of the Torah (in the Jewish sense, not the Christian). It creates a bridge that our finite, logical selves, can use to commune with something that can probably best be described as our antithesis. I think it is also why the Rabbis teach that one of the reasons why Genesis starts with the Hebrew letters "B" is because its shape teaches that we can't comprehend anything before the creation of the universe.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm afraid if I went down this route I would need to wash my brain in alcohol. As someone who utilizes QM as a strictly defined scientific theory I find these sorts of abuses unfortunate and nauseating. QM is the most successful theory, arguably, in human history, and here it becomes fodder for new age wishy washy, fuzzy thinking. I understand that even well trained scientists indulge in philosophical speculation from time to time, and while there is nothing wrong with that should be distinguished from what the theory unarguably IS, is what is well established, and what is mere speculation. Nothing personal against you Robert, and I apologize sincerely if it comes across that way. I more wanted to communicate to you why I am hesitant to go down that route.

Ok, point taken. But if God created everything, then why should not everything work ok? If so, then why not QM. For me and others like Goswami, Hagelin, Hoffman, Lanza, all of which are scientists, it fits well. As I see God working in a Fractal way, this is what I would expect, and this is what I get. This means to be that it is right. It has good explanatory power, and I see that at work. I think I said, and if not, I'll say it now, that it is "theory" and not taken by mainstream science. Of course those who believe it will say that is because we need a 'paradigm change'. My personal opinion is, if you do not except these things, you limit your own scope for further development in understanding the Nature of God, and therefore everything. Spiritual discernment is just that; it does not have to have physical evidence to back it up in a way that is normally perceived

 

[brokensymmetry]

You're right. I think that's why we (me?) say G-d is completely unknowable. The most we can say about G-d is that He is (not that He exists, because existence and a state of being are not concepts that apply to Him). And that He is One (to the most extreme that view can possibly take you). Everything else is apophatic. It is completely impossible for us to approach anything about G-d. That is the purpose of the Torah (in the Jewish sense, not the Christian). It creates a bridge that our finite, logical selves, can use to commune with something that can probably best be described as our antithesis. I think it is also why the Rabbis teach that one of the reasons why Genesis starts with the Hebrew letters "B" is because its shape teaches that we can't comprehend anything before the creation of the universe.

It's hard to know what to say to that. The only thing I can think is, can anyone really believe in something they can have no grasp of? That is interesting. I'm assuming this is the majority view in Jewish theological thought? I admit I'm a little at a loss that I had a very different view of what was taught via the Torah, but I suppose that happens with a hodge podge type of exposure to any topic.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Ok, point taken. But if God created everything, then why should not everything work ok? If so, then why not QM. For me and others like Goswami, Hagelin, Hoffman, Lanza, all of which are scientists, it fits well. As I see God working in a Fractal way, this is what I would expect, and this is what I get. This means to be that it is right. It has good explanatory power, and I see that at work. I think I said, and if not, I'll say it now, that it is "theory" and not taken by mainstream science. Of course those who believe it will say that is because we need a 'paradigm change'. My personal opinion is, if you do not except these things, you limit your own scope for further development in understanding the Nature of God, and therefore everything. Spiritual discernment is just that; it does not have to have physical evidence to back it up in a way that is normally perceived

I don't know what it means for God to act in a fractal way and I don't think QM suggests the existence of any kind of consciousness. I don't think that is a fruitful way to approach science, or theological thought for that matter. What explanatory power does it have to think that QM involves a universal consciousness vs a view that doesn't have that? The predictive equations would be precisely the same, the difference is one model involves a mystical element and the other doesn't.

 

[Tumah]

It's hard to know what to say to that. The only thing I can think is, can anyone really believe in something they can have no grasp of? That is interesting. I'm assuming this is the majority view in Jewish theological thought? I admit I'm a little at a loss that I had a very different view of what was taught via the Torah, but I suppose that happens with a hodge podge type of exposure to any topic.

I don't know what other denominations think, so I can't say if it is the majority view. It is definitely my best understanding to date of the Ramcha"l and its served me well so far.

I don't really understand what the difficulty in believe in G-d has to do with our ability to understand Him. I don't understand how you think, but I still believe you exist.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I don't know what other denominations think, so I can't say if it is the majority view. It is definitely my best understanding to date of the Ramcha"l and its served me well so far.

I don't really understand what the difficulty in believe in G-d has to do with our ability to understand Him. I don't understand how you think, but I still believe you exist.

The issue is this. You do understand how I think much more than you don't. For instance, you can be sure I can't conceive of a married bachelor or a square triangle. Not only are we talking about a being who conceives such things with perfect harmony, but can will them into existence. This is by definition absurd and I can't make sense of it. I think it is akin to scrambling together random words and asking me if I can believe that the result is possible ('purple sits tree coffee fifty'). I can only meaningfully assent to believe in what I can comprehend and I can only comprehend things which aren't technically absurd, and by absurd here I mean logically impossible.

 

[Tumah]

The issue is this. You do understand how I think much more than you don't. For instance, you can be sure I can't conceive of a married bachelor or a square triangle. Not only are we talking about a being who conceives such things with perfect harmony, but can will them into existence. This is by definition absurd and I can't make sense of it. I think it is akin to scrambling together random words and asking me if I can believe that the result is possible ('purple sits tree coffee fifty'). I can only meaningfully assent to believe in what I can comprehend and I can only comprehend things which aren't technically absurd, and by absurd here I mean logically impossible.

So you are saying, because we are both human, we both have more similar thinking patters than say one of us and G-d. I don't think I could fathom whatever basic though process an ant might have. Does that mean they exist?

I am saying, these are two separate things. Understanding and existing. I believe G-d exists because He revealed His [something] to my forefathers at Mt. Sinai. When they were standing there looking at G-d's [something], they didn't question whether G-d exists, because they were experiencing the Divine Revelation with their own eyes. That doesn't mean they had any comprehension of what G-d is.

It sounds like what you are saying is that you can't believe that G-d could be logically impossible because that would be logically impossible.

 

[brokensymmetry]

So you are saying, because we are both human, we both have more similar thinking patters than say one of us and G-d. I don't think I could fathom whatever basic though process an ant might have. Does that mean they exist?

I am saying, these are two separate things. Understanding and existing. I believe G-d exists because He revealed His [something] to my forefathers at Mt. Sinai. When they were standing there looking at G-d's [something], they didn't question whether G-d exists, because they were experiencing the Divine Revelation with their own eyes. That doesn't mean they had any comprehension of what G-d is.

It sounds like what you are saying is that you can't believe that G-d could be logically impossible because that would be logically impossible.

Ah, would it be logically impossible for me to believe in something logically impossible? If I understand you correctly that is an interesting challenge. I suppose what I'd say is that at the very least such a belief seems very strange. Can I believe in something I can't comprehend, or define at all? Something I can't assign any properties to? If I can, what am I really asserting belief in? It seems challenging at least.

But take the Israelites at Sinai. They were there and saw things comprehensible to their senses, demonstrations of power over nature, and so on. They could take away some properties about God, in this case, God has great power. God cares to communicate to them might be another. If those things are true, then those are comprehensible things about God. So if that is the case, were they genuinely understanding something about God's *intrinsic* properties?