It works. What else you suggest?

If you say God of the gaps, what gaps, aren't there reasonable solutions?

I think that the universe simply popped into existence. Talking about what was before the universe is then meaningless and an object can only exist within the universe and the universe is all there is and will be.

But then again, how it simply popped into existence is a mystery. But I am inclined more towards this spontaneous coming into existence of the universe than towards an intelligent creator.

did you pop into existence?

Certainly not, I was born through what is now a well understood mechanism. However it unreasonable to expect that since the contents of the universe cannot pop into existence, the universe cannot too. In other words, it is unreasonable to expect that the universe had a cause just because all its contents have a cause.

Thank for your reply Stars! Before we get too far along, I want to make sure you didn't overlook my questions to you from the previous post. Do you think you can speak to the following, where I asked you:

Ultimately, maybe then, this simple judgement rears its ugly head again here: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false? Is that statement an axiom for scientific discovery? Why should you care to explore its tenants? Why are we even discussing it? Why are you wondering about it?

I think that the universe simply popped into existence. Talking about what was before the universe is then meaningless and an object can only exist within the universe and the universe is all there is and will be. — StarsFromMemory

I must add that this is something I have not given much thought, but if you were to ask me to, I would go for the sudden popping into existence.

It is this thought.

all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false? Is that statement an axiom for scientific discovery? Why should you care to explore its tenants? Why are we even discussing it? Why are you wondering about it? — 3017amen

I don't understand those questions fully. Would you care to frame them differently perhaps??

They are straight forward questions, no? I mean, what is perplexing you about them?

all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false? — 3017amen

I think that the statement would be true for all that exists in the universe. All events occuring in the universe must have a cause, but the universe itself need not have a cause. Hence, the existence of the first fundamental particle that marked the beginning of the universe need not have a cause but everything occuring ever since, must have a cause.

Why are we even discussing it? Why are you wondering about it? — 3017amen

It was certainly not my intention to end up discussing such things. All I noticed what a weak argument about a existence of a creator that relied on strangeness and was supported by a slightly misinformed knowledge of evolution.

My point here is was simply that neither the existence of strange objects, nor that of mathematical abilties indicates presence of an external being.

Ok great. If you're thinking it is true, why does mathematical abstracts exist when they are not needed to survive in the jungle?

Or in making it perhaps more lucid, what event caused mathematical truths to come into existence through consciousness?

Regarding your inability to answer the other one's, of course you had no intention of exploring those questions because they are questions about Being. And so you are telling me that you don't know why you have a sense of wonderment, correct?

why does mathematical abstracts exist when they are not needed to survive in the jungle? — 3017amen

I don't know why you are reverting to the same old concept of natural selection being the sole mechanism for evolution.

See, I think we both can agree that evolution of intelligence is certainly advantegeous.

I argued that evolution of maths as part of the evolution of intelligence was certainly advantegeous as well.

Then I said that the development of maths naturally followed even when it gave no advantage. All that was needed was intelligence and basic math concept and the rest developed on its own, fuelled by lets just say curiosity?

Hence, even if abstract math offers no advantage, it evolved. It evolved as a inevitable consequence of the other traits that did offer an advantage.

Or to making perhaps more lucid, what event caused mathematical truths to come into existence through consciousness? — 3017amen

The need to express reality in precise and predictable terms led humans to derive the entireity of maths

And so you are telling me that you don't know why you have a sense of wonderment, correct? — 3017amen

True, I don't know why I have a sense of wonderment. However, that only indicates the limit of my intelligence and knowledge.

There is mystery to it. But it's an applicable subject if we delve deeper; per se, the past is a mystery that cannot be unravelled exactly.

Joke: Mystery would be finding the starlight valley of the universe.

There is mystery to it. — Qwex

Mystery to what?

Existence.

For example, it's like the back of something which is mysterious to us. Something created it and left. I think what you argue is more becoming.

The need to express reality in precise and predictable terms led humans to derive the entireity of maths — StarsFromMemory

Ok, but if I am trying to survive by dodging falling objects, should I use space relationships of perception, or hurry up and run calculations?

If your answer is the former, then there is no need, as you are suggesting, no?

True, I don't know why I have a sense of wonderment. However, that only indicates the limit of my intelligence and knowledge. — StarsFromMemory

Then you really can't explain the nature of that metaphysical feature of conscious existence, correct?

Certainly. I am not contesting that view. For all I know, there could be a creator. However, my only objection is that we are not using the right argument here. Mere existeence of maths, art, music cannot lead us to the conclusion that a creator exists.

Then I said that the development of maths naturally followed even when it gave no advantage. All that was needed was intelligence and basic math concept and the rest developed on its own, fuelled by lets just say curiosity? — StarsFromMemory

I'm just a bit confused. How did abstract's (math) evolve?

f your answer is the former, then there is no need, as you are suggesting, no? — 3017amen

Yes, there is no need for abstract maths. I have mentioned that countless times. But need alone is not the mechansim for evolution.

Then you really can't explain the nature of that metaphysical feature of conscious existence, correct? — 3017amen

You are assumng there is metaphysical feature.

I simply cannot explain conscious existence in complete physical terms, YET.

Ok, I see you can't answer those basic existential features of our consciousness.

Let's turn then to metaphysics. Does that exist?

Ok, I see you can't answer those basic existential features of our consciousness.

Let's turn then to metaphysics. Does that exist? — 3017amen

Again, what do you mean by basic features of consciousness. We have mapped the location of consciousness in animal brain. Does that count as a basic feature?

Also, what metaphysical feature of consciousness are you talking about? Assuming there exists one,ofcourse.

Will get back to this discussion later on, enough time spent today. Didn't expect to come this far along.

what metaphysical feature of consciousness are you talking about? — StarsFromMemory

Abstract's such as music, art, mathematics. Then, the cognitive sciences that deal with the Will, wonderment, love, hate, and other emotive phenomena that are important to human's yet confer no fundamental survival or biological advantages ( i.e., you can procreate without love). And kind of like what we are doing now, discussing philosophy, which has no survival value.

Accordingly, this may help:

Does your theory then consider an eternal Creator existing outside of time (eternity), be one in the same energy source as a self contained universe that has neither beginning nor end, similar to Spinoza's pantheism? — 3017amen

Yes. Since the Big Bang theory indicates that our universe is not eternal, there must be "something" outside of space-time with the power to create new worlds. Materialists simply assume "turtles all the way down" with their Multiverse hypothesis, for which there is no empirical evidence. But, based on the ubiquity of Information --- the "substance" of energy, matter, & mind --- in every aspect of the real world, I assume that the hypothetical Source or Creator must be an Enformer, in the sense of possessing the potential for converting Platonic Forms (ideas, concepts, designs) into real, material, objects. The "energy source" is what I call EnFormAction. I won't go into more detail here, but the notion of Intelligent Evolution (guided by Information and motivated by EnFormAction) has been explored in my blog for several years.

My Enformationism worldview is indeed similar to Spinoza's Pandeism, but has included evidence that he was not aware of in the 17th century : e.g. Big Bang, Information Theory, Quantum Physics. Spinoza's "Universal Substance" is what I call "Enformation" or "EnFormAction". Since he believed the universe was eternal, his Pandeistic God was also eternal. But, now we must postulate something else that is self-existent : either multiplying Multiverses or eternal Enformer. And since this hypothetical World Maker must exist prior to the emergence of space-time in the BB, we can assume that it exists "without beginning or end". :nerd:


Information : Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

The Enformer : AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it "G*D".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html