A Growing Problem for Materialists

by Sea Breeze 70 Replies latest social current

• 

  Sea Breeze

  I'm still not sure if we're talking about information in the sense of data, which does not require an intelligent mind or in the sense of communication which does. - TD

  @TD, I think it is irrelevant to this discussion about the narrowing context in which materialism can be embraced. To make an appeal to understand the exact nature of the information before it can be conceptualized is irrelevant. That seems like obfuscation. What seems to be universal in acceptance is what information is not: physical; and therefore outside of a materialist worldview.

  It also seems to me that information needs to be received for it to manifest since it is conceptual by nature. In other words, If there were not a sentient being to recieve/observe it, would it still exist? In a sense, it only exists in the mind of the receiver because only then can it manifest itself.

  Of course, all this is far from a simple, traditional materialist/atheist worldview, which is the point of my post. (Not trying to be personal or hurt anyone's feelings here - Just exercising some thoughts that are better done in a forum rather than all alone.)

  @Cofty : I have read a post from you in the past where you leave open the possibility of aliens seeding our planet just as Dawkins does. Without have to go to the trouble of finding it, can you state right here whether or not you believe if this is a possibility or not. Ya or nay?
• 

  TD

  A bifurcation is a logical fallacy when the dichotomy is false or in some other sense, needless. The distinction here is one you've set up yourself via your initial questions, so the difference between data and thought is important.
  

  I think we're veering off from the original question, which was about the origin of information, but in response, I would say that information still exists regardless of whether there is a sentient being to interpret it. As I pointed out, DNA does its thing in the absences of sentience and even were this not the case, tree rings, ice cores and other naturally occurring records of the past would still exist regardless of whether anyone bothered to decipher them or not.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  I’ve been attending a series of meetings on Zoom discussing the compatibility of science and belief in God. The first meeting was about the origins of the universe and it’s laws. The second meeting was about evolution. The final meeting tonight is about is about consciousness.

  The meetings are conducted by the current moderator of the Church of Scotland and they follow an outline which I think is intended for people who are new to the church to discuss big issues in religion and belief. It’s attended by a range of people, usually members of the church and others with a belief in God, but with a few atheists too. All opinions are heard with respect and there has never been an atmosphere of trying to “beat the other side”.

  Many participants seem to be very familiar with the arguments on both sides of the debate, whether that be fine tuning, the uniqueness of Christianity, the problem of evil, plus “new atheist” favourites such as the “one less God” argument, and “God isn’t an answer, where did he come from?” So there’s no attempt to catch others out with old arguments people have probably heard before. It’s more about sharing ideas and discovering out what other people find convincing or not convincing.
  

  Most of the people I talked to during the meetings believe in God because they find God to be the best explanation for the universe existing as it does, and because they find Christianity compelling. They also believe in evolution and that it adds to the evidence for God. There may be some Creationists in the group, but I didn’t come across any. The Church of Scotland is a fairly liberal group.

  If anyone is interested in coming along tonight, the topic is consciousness and you can get an invitation to the Zoom meeting by email at the following webpage.

  https://www.graspingthenettle.org/events

  Does God Exist? - Exploring The God Question - Session 3 tonight at 7.30pm UK time
• 

  waton

  I would say that information still exists regardless of whether there is a sentient being to interpret it. TD

  or a sentient being created it.
  
  
• 

  stavro

  Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence?” st:

  "with the theory, of everything, that would be at the core of all natural laws, would have to come the power, energy the theatre to enact it.
  In some form, the energy that was used to make the material universe must have carried instruction how ro shape it with it., or at least the limitation" Waton

  The puzzling thing is, there is nothing necessary about the particular laws which govern our world. It is theoretically possible for there to be other universes which have different laws to our own. This leads to the theory that there may be some sort of meta laws which eternally produces universes each of which have their own bylaws. Either that or some sort of selection occurred which chose the specific laws governing our universe.

  What you said reminded me of an article I read by Paul Davis

  'So is that the end of the story? Can the multiverse provide a complete and closed account of all physical existence? Not quite. The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping "meta-laws" that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained – eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god.'

  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/04/stephen-hawking-big-bang-gap

  
  
• 

  waton

  there may be some sort of meta laws which eternally produces universes each of which have their own bylaws. Either that or some sort of selection occurred which chose the specific laws governing our universe. st:

  Yes, a process not unlike The "survival of the fittest" on a cosmic scale.

  It would let the creator off the hook to get involved on a local level, but still have to attest to his genius, to manage to start such a even grander scheme.

  We are lucky then to have born into a universe that had viable laws.

  Penrose dealt with the problem of passing information from universe to universe.

  Pn the meantime it is comforting to live in viable circumstances hopefully extending far along the time ahead.
  
  
• 

  stavro

  I think we're veering off from the original question, which was about the origin of information, but in response, I would say that information still exists regardless of whether there is a sentient being to interpret it. TD

  The fire Stephen Hawking was alluding to, which bring information or laws to life, may in fact turn out to be something to do with observation.

  The narrator of this video concludes "Maybe something is observing the universe into existence, but it does not have to be conscious."

  Although you can't rule it out either.

  https://youtu.be/h75DGO3GrF4
  
• 

  stavro

  "We are lucky then to have born into a universe that had viable laws". Waton

  Many people spend their whole lives trying to win the lottery, without realizing they have already won the greatest of all lotteries, the cosmic lottery. Existence may be a once in eternity event. Hopefully not, but if it is, what a privilege we possess!
  
• 

  cofty

  Sea Breeze - I don't want to distract from TD's point but I also don't want to avoid your direct question.

  Briefly - it is impossible to deny the remote possibility that life on earth was seeded from outside our planet. However I think it is the least likely answer to the origin of life question - second only to 'god-did-it.

  Now please carry on engaging with TD who has pinpointed the fundamental flaw in the argument from 'information'.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Least likely answer seems to me to be the suggestion that:

  This universe containing life arose all by itself, for no reason, and out of nothing.

  If that story about the universe and life is literally the truth, then it should rank as a miracle far greater and more mysterious than what theism has to offer.

  Theism is actually pretty mundane in its rationality compared with that fantastic story. Theism holds that nothing inside the universe or inside time is capable of explaining itself. Theism holds that there is therefore an explanation which is outside the universe and outside of time that accounts for the universe. As Aquinas said, this explanation, or ultimate cause “we call God”. You could argue for an ultimate cause that has no consciousness or personality, but again this seems unlikely because the universe itself is narrowly calibrated to accommodate conscious beings. Could an unconscious cause have somehow designed the deep structure of the universe and its laws in such a way as to result in consciousness which it itself does not posses? We can’t disprove that scenario, I suppose, but again it does seem illogical and far fetched.

  By contrast, theism is a straightforward and rational explanation for the existence of the universe, life and consciousness.