I think everything can actually be known. Why not? — Hillary

How could we ever determine the nature of the "bottom layer" of reality? Even if a model were developed (something like the standard model of particle physics), we could never know that there isn't something even more fundamental.

Quantum mechanics is weird - had we not been able to measure the weirdness (eg double slit), no one would have proposed such an odd model. Physical reality may very well have weirdness that doesn't expose itself to us. There would be no way to know.

Assume God created the world. What exactly did he create? Would there be any way to determine this?

There just has to be intelligences behind it. Or not, who knows, but I feel more comfortable, in the knowledge that there is such reason behind it. — Hillary

There is a psychological phenomenon called "the need for cognitive closure." We all have it to some degree - it's related to curiosity. But it can also drive people to embrace answers just because they are answers. Conspiracy theorists have a high need for cognitive closure. Plausibility takes a back seat, explanatory scope is the driver. "Knowing" the answer gives them comfort. IMO, it's worthwhile to seek answers, but counterproductive to land on answers just because of the compulsion to have an answer, rather than applying reasonable epistemic standards.

My issue is that "purpose" suggests intentionality, and intentionality implies an intelligence directing it. Theists often reply, "of course there is!", but that's not a deduction, it's an interpretation from a theist point of view — Relativist

But so is Dawkins' interpretation of evolution. The selfish genes or memes testify and this is based on a dogma even: The central dogma of molecular biology.

It can't be denied there is purpose in biology, but the purpose as suggested by Dawkinskians is just a consequence. The passing on of genes and memes is not the purpose but a consequence. Not a cause but an effect. It can't be denied it happens but his interpretation is wrong. That is, wrt to my interpretation, which views life as a mortal, finite, material copy of eternal, non-material life in heaven. And of course, some of that non-materialness is contained in the universe too. It's simply physical charge, like electricity or color, or hypercolor (gravity is a separate case, as mass is no real charge).

A question popular among theists is: "why is there something rather than nothing?" But this assumes there is a reason - so to ask the question implies one assumes there is intentionality behind it all. Similarly, fine-tuning arguments assume there's a reason (or design objective). — Relativist

The question is asked because there has to be a reason. And the fine-tuning argument is a good indication for the reason. The coupling constants (electric, color, and hypercolor charge, and to some extent mass) need to have a fixed ratio. In the string landscape 10exp 500 possibilities are offered but in the face of infinity this is small. We can also look at the geometric shape of a particle (so not strings or branes but something more sophisticated).

There is a psychological phenomenon called "the need for cognitive closure." — Relativist

Exactly! I said that earlier somewhere. When the gaps are closed, gods provide the last closure.

How could we ever determine the nature of the "bottom layer" of reality? Even if a model were developed (something like the standard model of particle physics), we could never know that there isn't something even more fundamental. — Relativist

Two basic massless particles, beneath the standard model seems the bottom. You logically can't go deeper. Or can we?

Quantum mechanics is weird - had we not been able to measure the weirdness (eg double slit), no one would have proposed such an odd model. Physical reality may very well have weirdness that doesn't expose itself to us. There would be no way to know. — Relativist

It's not so weird if you understand it from a certain angle, contrary to what Feynman said. It's actually very easy if you get used to it. Okay, classical particles are different, but you can use them to understand the quantum domain. The quantum apple bitten is sweet and we remain innocent!

But so is Dawkins' interpretation of evolution. The selfish genes or memes testify and this is based on a dogma even: The central dogma of molecular biology. — Hillary

I assure you, Dawkins believes the processes are deterministic (perhaps with some influence from quantum indeterminacy). Genes are not making choices based on some sense of self-interest. The descriptions are terms of art.

The question is asked because there has to be a reason. — Hillary

That's an assumption you make. There is no objective basis for the claim. Everything that exists has been caused by something prior, which can be described as a "causal reason" , but it's a phrasing to describe our motivation to discover "why?" There's no objective basis for assuming intentionality.

And the fine-tuning argument is a good indication for the reason. The coupling constants (electric, color, and hypercolor charge, and to some extent mass) need to have a fixed ratio. In the string landscape 10exp 500 possibilities are offered but in the face of infinity this is small. — Hillary

The constants are what they are, and the universe has evolved accordingly. Fine tuning arguments assume there was a design objective and remark at the improbability of meeting the objective. The exact state of the universe today is grossly improbable, because of the many instances of prior quantum indeterministic events. But every unrealized state would have been equally improbable - so it is an absolute certainty that the universe would exist in a low probability state. Only if you assume humans (or a life permitting universe) was a goal does it seem remarkable that this particular universe came to be.

Exactly! I said that earlier somewhere. When the gaps are closed, gods provide the last closure. — Hillary

The point is that the psychological need for causal closure makes some of us overly willing to accept answers just because they are answers, in spite of weak support and implausibility.

Two basic massless particles, beneath the standard model seems the bottom. You logically can't go deeper. Or can we? — Hillary

We may not be able to explore deeper, but that doesn't mean this is truly fundamental. We used to think protons and neutrons were fundamental.

I assure you, Dawkins believes the processes are deterministic (perhaps with some influence from quantum indeterminacy). Genes are not making choices based on some sense of self-interest. The descriptions are terms of art. — Relativist

Of course. But he could have called it the altruistic gene as well then. Though he literally claims to have found the absolute truth of organisms being vessels of selfish genes and memes. Based on a dogma. Now what a view on life...

That's an assumption you make. There is no objective basis for the claim. — Relativist

No. But neither is there not to claim. And I think the incapacity of physics to find the cause of it's ingredients, elementary particles, pretty good reason for such assumption.

The constants are what they are, and the universe has evolved accordingly. Fine tuning arguments assume there was a design objective and remark at the improbability of meeting the objective. The exact state of the universe today is grossly improbable, — Relativist

Yes. But they could have been different. Only if the coupling constants have the ratio they have, and the speed of light and Planck's constant are what they are, life evolves. Redirecting the problem to a landscape, a stringscape, with many possible ratios isn't sufficient. Among the 10exp500 possibilities you already put the right ratio in.

It's not so weird if you understand it from a certain angle, — Hillary

It's weird in the sense that no one would have proposed it based on everyday experience of the world. The behavior did, at least, have an experimental manifestation. But there could be weirdness that doesn't manifest itself this way. We don't know what we don't know.

We may not be able to explore deeper, but that doesn't mean this is truly fundamental. We used to think protons and neutrons were fundamental. — Relativist

But I mean, if there are 2 basics, you can't go deeper logically. Two basis particles is the minimum. It can't be one.

No. But neither is there not to claim. And I think the incapacity of physics to find the cause of it's ingredients, elementary particles, pretty good reason for such assumption. — Hillary

Why exempt god(s) from requiring a reason for existing?

It's weird in the sense that no one would have proposed it based on everyday experience of the world. The behavior did, at least, have an experimental manifestation. But there could be weirdness that doesn't manifest itself this way. We don't know what we don't know. — Relativist

That's true. But the everyday world was not looked at in the experiments. Of course the macroscopic results were everyday life results. But the microworld has different particle properties. Which are still particles. But point particles are not the solution. They mean trouble in paradise. Singularities or renormalization. All because of point particles.

But I mean, if there are 2 basics, you can't go deeper logically. Two basis particles is the minimum. It can't be one. — Hillary

Logically, humans can't go deeper in exploration, but that does not mean that's all there is. Remember, I wad responding to this:

I think everything can actually be known. — Hillary

Why exempt god(s) from requiring a reason for existing? — Relativist

Because they are different from the material universe. They are eternal intelligences, without the need for explanation. At least, not for me. BTW, Im absolutely no Christian or other monotheist. And I don't adore or worship them selfish bastards! :grin:

Remember, I wad responding to this:

I think everything can actually be known.
— Hillary — Relativist

Not sure I follow you here... You mean not everything can be known?

But the everyday world was not looked at in the experiments. — Hillary

But the phenomena does manifest itself in a detectable way.

If there is a god, it is probably not directly detectable. If one is open to that possibility, one should be open to the existence of other non-detectable things.

But the phenomena did manifest itself in a detectable way.

If there is a god, it is probably not directly detectable. If one is open to that possibility, one should be open to the existence of other non-detectable things — Relativist

Well, maybe the gods can influence the hidden variables, as proposed in one interpretation. The chance-like character of QM offers a means for that.

Because they are different from the material universe. They are eternal intelligences, without the need for explanation. — Hillary

Sounds like a special pleading. You acknowledge that something exists without explanation, and we agree on that. IMO, the notion that it is something as complex as intelligent beings seems absurd.

Not sure I follow you here... You mean not everything can be known? — Hillary

Yes, more than likely. You should agree, since you believe there are gods. How could you possibly determine their properties?

Sounds like a special pleading. You acknowledge that something exists without explanation, and we agree on that. IMO, the notion that it is something as complex as intelligent beings seems absurd. — Relativist

Yes, it's a special pleading. Non-intelligent matter, like elementary particles and space, etc. need intelligences to exist. Why should eternal intelligence need one too? They are different things. I think the fact (if you dont mind me calling that) that the gods are unexplainable comforting. There must be mystery!

Yes, more than likely. You should agree, since you believe there are gods. How could you possibly determine their properties? — Relativist

Well, I can account for that too (Im terrible!). We can know the gods and heaven by looking at all life. All living beings have a counterpart as god.

Which by the way means we will never go to heaven! We're doomed for eternal recurrence in every big bang! But every time differently.

Non-intelligent matter, like elementary particles and space, etc. need intelligences to exist. — Hillary

What makes you think that?

It appears to me that intelligence entails complex processes, which are produced by complex entities- there's a dependency on underlying, complex structure. This implies that without components that work together, there can be no intelligence. Why think intelligence can be produced without this?

Non-intelligent matter, like elementary particles and space, etc. need intelligences to exist.
— Hillary
What makes you think that? — Relativist

Just try to imagine how particles, virtual ones, or real ones, and the space the move in (which can be made of the hidden variables of QM) can come into existence. With all the right properties (or a mechanism to include all possibilities, which isn't the string landscape, and why not simply posing that they have the right qualities.). From nothing. I can't explain that. And the direction in which they move, towards the greater entropy, is an indication too.

Just try to imagine how particles, virtual ones, or real ones, and the space the move in (which can be made of the hidden variables of QM) can come into existence. With all the right properties (or a mechanism to include all possibilities, which isn't the string landscape, and why not simply posing that they have the right qualities.). From nothing. I can't explain that. And the direction in which they move, towards the greater entropy, is an indication too. — Hillary

What do you mean by "right qualities"?

Why do you assume there are QM hidden
variables? Does quantum indeterminacy unsatisfying?

You agree something exists that is uncaused. Do you also agree that it didn't "come into" existence?

Why assume the uncaused thing(s) are as complex as intelligent being(s)?

What do you mean by "right qualities"? — Relativist

The right coupling strengths of particles, which determines interaction, and are just numbers and determine the relative strengths of vertex factors, The right speed of light. The right Planck constant. The dimensionslity of space, though for three dimensions there are as many translational as rotational degrees of freedom. They could be interrelated though but still. Where does it come from? What blows the fire into the equations?

Why do you assume there are QM hidden
variables? Does quantum indeterminacy unsatisfying? — Relativist

I just don't believe in non-determined, "empty" chance. Hidden variables offer a solution for all problems in QM, and offers a very nice understanding of what's going on on the micro level. They can even function as the Lorenz invariant substance of space. And non-local as the are (and space by definition is) they offer an explanation for spooky effects...

You agree something exists that is uncaused. Do you also agree that it didn't "come into" existence? — Relativist

Yes. The gods are eternal without a cause. I think.

Why assume the uncaused thing(s) are as complex as intelligent being(s)? — Relativist

Because them gods are the non-material forms of life, as heaven is the form of the universe. Without the evolving into beings...

Why assume the uncaused thing(s) are as complex as intelligent being(s)?
— Relativist

Because them gods are the non-material forms of life, as heaven is the form of the universe. Without the evolving into beings... — Hillary

This is pure speculation. There is no evidence for it. This is true of many things you've asserted. I don't see how these can possibly be justified beliefs.

The right coupling strengths of particles, which determines interaction, and are just numbers and determine the relative strengths of vertex factors, The right speed of light. The right Planck constant. The dimensionslity of space, though for three dimensions there are as many translational as rotational degrees of freedom. They could be interrelated though but still. Where does it come from? What blows the fire into the equations? — Hillary

The constants are what they are, and there are consequences. This doesn't mean they're "right".

The "fire in the equations" (sounds like something Vilenkin said) is based on a platonic view of laws of nature: equations existing in platonic heaven that mysteriously affect the objects to which they apply. Law realists (e.g. Armstrong, Tooley, Sosa) view laws of nature as physical relations, part of the physical structure of the world, existing exclusively in their instantiations . e.g.the attraction between electron and proton reflects a physical relation between them.

This is pure speculation. There is no evidence for it. This is true of many things you've asserted. I don't see how these can possibly be justified beliefs. — Relativist

Of course it's speculation. So what? It offers reason for the material universe. Only for claims about the material universe, inside of it, evidence is required. And maybe the interaction is by means of hidden variables in dreams. I think it's like that.

The constants are what they are, and there are consequences. This doesn't mean they're "right". — Relativist

No. But for life they are right.

The "fire in the equations" (sounds like something Vilenkin said) is based on a platonic view of laws of nature: equations existing in platonic heaven that mysteriously affect the objects to which they apply. Law realists (e.g. Armstrong, Tooley, Sosa) view laws of nature as physical relations, part of the physical structure of the world, existing exclusively in their instantiations . e.g.the attraction between electron and proton reflects a physical relation between them. — Relativist

Yes. Hawking said that. The gods breath the fire, the charge, into them.