Do you believe that the universe originated from consciousness?

Author: Fallaneze ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 97
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    I'm doing a poll.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,649
    2
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    Knowledge about the origin of the universe is at this time beyond human epistomology. Belief in any hypothesis is premature. That being said conciousness does not seem to have developed in the universe until very very recently.

  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    I don't think that making a determination of whether the universe arose from consciousness or not is beyond the limits of human understanding.

    The advent of consciousness on earth is irrelevant to whether the universe originated from consciousness or not.
     

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,649
    2
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
     don't think that making a determination of whether the universe arose from consciousness or not is beyond the limits of human understanding.
    It is nevertheless something we have no sufficient information about at this time. Whether this will change in the future remains to be seen. 
    The advent of consciousness on earth is irrelevant to whether the universe originated from consciousness or not. 
    We have no sufficient evidence of any conciousness that has not originated on earth.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    "Sufficient information" is relative to your epistemological standards. My epistemic standard for "sufficient evidence" is whether the claim has more information indicating that it's true rather than untrue and vice versa. It's possible to attain information about something using logic and/or empirical inquiry. In this case, we can use logic to say that whatever brought the universe into being did not have an infinite chain of preceding causes. That is a logical extrapolation. It's also an example of our ability to apply human understanding to the origins of the universe.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,649
    2
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    Sufficient information" is relative to your epistemological standards

    Why would you except anything less than demonstrable?
    In this case, we can use logic to say that whatever brought the universe into being did not have an infinite chain of preceding causes
    Which even if true has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not this hypothetical event was being consciously guided. 
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Fallaneze
    You asked if people believe "that the universe originated from consciousness".    Secular said no - so is a poll really all you want, or do you want to argue? Like SM, I don't know how the universe originated; that makes me a no because I don't believe the universe originated from consciousness.

    Whether I believe it might have originated from consciousness is a very different question.   I believe it might, but I don't believe it is likely, nor a useful hypothesis to pursue.

    I think evolution is a useful parallel.  For a long time the idea that life was the product of consciousness held sway - but eventually Darwin and others showed how what appears to require foresight and planning doesn't - ordinary causality suffices.  I believe the same will happen with the origin of the universe (and consciousness).  I don't know that is true, but it is what I believe.     
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    "Demonstrable" is also subjective. It implies a rigorous framework with which we can arrive at the correct answer but we don't always have access to a rigorous framework and must make an inference to the best explanation. It's a mistake to withhold belief in a claim that is more likely true than false just because you don't have what you consider to be "demonstrable evidence" of it.

    The point in mentioning the infinite regress is that we CAN apply human epistemology to the origins of the universe, contrary to your claim that we cannot.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @keithprosser
    Taking a poll doesn't preclude further discussion. It's always best to explore both sides of an issue isn't it?

    Evolution was theorized in the 1800's. It was only in the 1950's that Watson and Crick elucidated the fundamental importance of genetic infomation in even a single protein, let alone the simplest life forms. I could just as easily say that the long-held belief that physics and chemistry alone could account for the origin of genetic information is obsolete. Not to mention breakthroughs in quantum mechanics suggesting that reality is indeterminate without conscious participation.


  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,649
    2
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    we don't always have access to a rigorous framework and must make an inference to the best explanation
    I disagree. I'm pretty sure under those circumstances the intellectually honest thing to do is to admit that we do not know the answer.
    The point in mentioning the infinite regress is that we CAN apply human epistemology to the origins of the universe
    Even if we assume that our current local time space (otherwise known as the physical universe) did require some cause or initial event that still tells us literally nothing about that cause/event. Presuming that said cause/event was necessarily concious is a leap that is not supported by the logic you have presented.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    It isn't a matter of "knowing" the answer. We can arrive at an answer that, based on the evidence, is more likely true than not, while also recognizing that we do not "know" whether that is the case. We "know" hardly anything.

    That cause or event could not have been preceded by an infinite chain of causes. That itself tells us something about that cause or event.

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,649
    2
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    quantum mechanics suggesting that reality is indeterminate without conscious participation
    The double slit experiment shows that observation can backload the course of quantum events. In event nonlinear causality. That being the case the event which causes the universe to manifest may not have yet happened. The same experiment shows us that there is no all knowing being or all particles would be observed all the time and no waveforms could exist only superpositions. Since this us not what we observe omniscience is logically contradictory to our findings.

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,649
    2
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    That cause or event could not have been preceded by an infinite chain of causes. That itself tells us something about that cause or event.
    Nothing beyond the statement itself. Also while infinite regress seems logically incoherent so does any eternal existent object or force and so does a causeless event. Clearly logic is insufficient to the task of unteasing the mystery of the universes origin.

  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    Observation backloads the course of quantum events because reality is comprised of information-bearing code. The code continues to run and "calculate" in the background but observation is what makes that code actually render. 

    Non-linear causality would falsify science.


  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    If it tells us nothing beyond the statement itself then your statement tells us nothing beyond itself and hence doesn't apply to my statement.

    Infinite regress is impossible mathematically.

  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Fallaneze
    My epistemic standard for "sufficient evidence" is whether the claim has more information indicating that it's true rather than untrue and vice versa.
    I don't think that one judges which side of an argument 'has more information' in a strictly rational fashion.  We have conscious and unconscious biases.   I am damn sure you and I have exactly the same information regarding the role of consciousness in the origin of the universe yet we reach completely different conclusions.

    It's less to do with the objective quantity if information than the subjective weight we give it.  For example, we both know consciousness has only ever been observed associated with physical brains.   I think that counts against consciousness being the origin of the universe big time.   You, presumably, don't think it is particlarly relevant.

    We aren't robots or computers - we are illogical, emotion driven animals.
     
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,649
    2
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    Non-linear causality would falsify science.
    Science does not take at particular stance it only evaluates information. In any case it hardly seems to matter in the face of the fact that we seem to have observed nonlinear causation 
    Infinite regress is impossible mathematically.
    How do you make the leap from there must be a cause to the cause must be concious? We observe causes that are not directed by any conciousness all the time.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @keithprosser
    What would a perfectly rational person's epistemic approach be? 

    The total body of information as well as the most rational interpretation of that information is vitally important.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,649
    2
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    What would a perfectly rational person's epistemic approach be? 
    The most rational approach would be to withhold belief until a claim cam be demonstrated.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    Scientific inquiry is based on cause and effect. If non-linear causality were true, this would violate the cause and effect methods of science and hence science itself would be falsified.

    Very simply, the cause that brought the universe into being could not have been an inevitability, otherwise it would have a quantifiable beginning by counting backwards the number of trials leading up to the creation of the universe. Naturalism has no mechanism like free will to prevent this



  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    Disagree. It's house odds.

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,649
    2
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    When current scientific understanding is falsified we do not give up on the scientific method we adjust pur understanding in light of the new information. Quantum mechanics may invalidate some of our most fundamental ideas about cause and effect. The universe is under no special obligation to make sense to us.

    This still does nothing to make the leap from a cause to a consciously directed cause.

  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    "Scientific method" means to investigate using a method of cause and effect. If "scientific method" also encompasses an a-causal approach, the term "scientific method" is meaningless. 

    Quantum mechanics hasn't invalidated cause and effect yet. The universe needn't make sense, I agree. But unless there's an overriding reason to reject that it makes sense, it should make sense. The universe is intelligible and mathematically structured.
     (Yet more reason to suggest it arose from a conscious source)

    It does, because free will is the only way you avoid the mathematically impossible infinite regress. 

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,649
    2
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    It does, because free will is the only way you avoid the mathematically impossible infinite regress. 
    How have you made the leap from infinite regress seems logically incoherent to only conciousness can (or even could) avoid infinite regress? All conciousnesses I have ever observed have a very definite cause. For example my parents had sex.

  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    An action is either deterministic or non-deterministic. Under naturalism, all you have are chance and physical necessity which are both deterministic. Hence, whatever caused the universe must have been deterministic and therefore had a quantifiable beginning ad infinitum.