Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[Linusthe2nd]

It has everything to do with introspection, which I define here as the passive perception of one’s soul. I don’t care if that’s what it normally means. As long as I say I’m doing it, there’s nothing wrong with redefining a term. Anyway, my point in this paragraph was that since introspection is the way you receive physical perceptions,

For you maybe, not for the rest of us. Is this your own philosophy or does it have standing some where, and what name does it go by, and who was the founder or originator?:.

What I meant by abstract is “not substantive”, “lacking causal efficacy”, “existing only insofar as instantiated in a substance”… any of these definitions should do.

When " doing " philosophy is is better to use tems used by the founders, the Masters. That is one of the problems with today’s age, they think that just because it is TODAY that they are special and they don’t need to consult the PAST.

Just saying you disagree with me does not refute me. The validity of what I said there is almost self-evident, you just need to realize that hylomorphism would in that case lead to a deterministic system, making it vulnerable to the argument from free will, which I’m pretty sure I’ve given against your views on some other thread before.

The validity of what you said is not " self-evident, " exactly the opposite, it makes no sense at all. Your thinking that hylomorphism leads to determinism is something I never heard raised against it before, I’m sure Edward Feser will be interested to hear it. Anyway, you have not proven it does. Besides, the Church, more or less, has put its stamp of approval on it by referring to the soul as the " form " of the body. And didn’t you ever hear of the 24 Thmistic theses? u.arizona.edu/~aversa/scholastic/24Thomisticpart2.htm

• I didn’t say either caused the other. You couldn;t possibly have thought I meant that.
• What I was saying that hylomorphism posits a causal dependence from body to soul, but a metaphysical one in the other direction. The point was the difference between causal and metaphysical, and how ridiculous it is to say that the soul depends metaphysically on the body. I don’t know how I could have made that any clearer.

I don’t know what else to think when you say there is a causal relationship between them.
Hylomorphism does not posit a causal dependence of the body on the soul. There is no dependency of one upon the other at either level Together they form the man. It is the man who is nourished, senses, reproduces, acts, thinks, wills, remembers. Though the soul has three functions properly its own, thinking, willing, remembering.

An algorithm is not necessarily matematical, it is just a logical process that accepts (name removed by moderator)ut, Processes it, and produces Output. And since math is really just a complex form of logical reasoning, it did come before human life.

The reasoning process is complex indeed, but it would be better not to put labels on it as you have done. We are not computers. And I do not agree that math came before human life. That would be impossible since it is man who invinted math, it is a human construct. And man must exist before reasoning begins.

.

What? I didn’t say anything about God “founding the universe on scientific principles”! Please stop responding to things I said explicitly against

It certainly seemed like that was what you were implying…

You know fully well I didn’t say our belief reality was an ungrounded assertion. If you don’t stop these ridiculous evasion tactics, I will start ignoring you.

Then you need to take greater care in explaining what you are saying.

Nor did I say that I live by algorithms. The algorithm of the universe does not govern my behavior. Also, why do you talk like Idealism is more popular than realism? It isn’t, and you know that too. Idealism is by far the least common metaphysic. Even dualism is a lot more common.

Your statement on post # 481, " … I live as though my actions will, by the algorithm, factor into the experiences of other souls, which is exactly the case. This makes no implications whatsoever about realism…" I think my conclusion was reasonable.

Linus2nd

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Linusthe2nd:

For you maybe, not for the rest of us. Is this your own philosophy or does it have standing some where, and what name does it go by, and who was the founder or originator?:.

unrelated thought: this really sounds like it was written my mytruepower2.
more relevant: What do you mean? Are you saying that introspection is not the way you know what perceptions you are having? Because by introspection I meant the passive perception of one’s mind that is always active. And by that definition this certainly goes for you too.
And yes, this is my own philosophy. Is there something wrong with thinking for myself?

Linusthe2nd:

When " doing " philosophy is is better to use tems used by the founders, the Masters. That is one of the problems with today’s age, they think that just because it is TODAY that they are special and they don’t need to consult the PAST.

Stop arguing over which definition is somehow superior and just respond to what you know I meant.

Linusthe2nd:

The validity of what you said is not " self-evident, " exactly the opposite, it makes no sense at all. Your thinking that hylomorphism leads to determinism is something I never heard raised against it before, I’m sure Edward Feser will be interested to hear it. Anyway, you have not proven it does. Besides, the Church, more or less, has put its stamp of approval on it by referring to the soul as the " form " of the body. And didn’t you ever hear of the 24 Thmistic theses? u.arizona.edu/~aversa/sch…isticpart2.htm

You acknowledge the validity of the free will argument, right? I assume you do. You cannot deny that if the soul does not produce effects which are not causally preceded by any physical effect than determinism follows.

Linusthe2nd:

I don’t know what else to think when you say there is a causal relationship between them.
Hylomorphism does not posit a causal dependence of the body on the soul. There is no dependency of one upon the other at either level

There is no dependence in either direction? Sounds like epiphenomenalism to me. That is a) demonstrably false and b) exactly the opposite of what you said earlier. There is a causal relationship in one direction because the soul directs the body, hence it depends causally on the soul, and the soul depends causally on the body because that is how we get our physical perceptions.

Linusthe2nd:

The reasoning process is complex indeed, but it would be better not to put labels on it as you have done. We are not computers. And I do not agree that math came before human life. That would be impossible since it is man who invinted math, it is a human construct. And man must exist before reasoning begins.

I did not say we were computers. I likened the physical world to a program, not human mental functioning. And I just proved that the rules of math existed before human life, you can’t refute me except by spotting a non-existent flaw in my argument.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Linusthe2nd:

Then you need to take greater care in explaining what you are saying.

I am being perfectly clear, you are just pretending I said things I didn’t say just to evade the question, because you know from memory that I can refute you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

unrelated thought: this really sounds like it was written my mytruepower2.

No, it is pertinent. No one should do philosophy unless one is familiar with the terminology of the Masters.

more relevant: What do you mean? Are you saying that introspection is not the way you know what perceptions you are having? Because by introspection I meant the passive perception of one’s mind that is always active. And by that definition this certainly goes for you too.

Not the way I understand introspection. We don’t know anything by thinking about ourselves. Thinking is an activity of the mind directing itself to consider the contents presented to it for consideration. It may be a word, a definition, or a universal concept. You have used the word " introspection " incorrectly. That is the problem with doing " free lance " philosophy. The proper word would have been " refelection. " And indeed, the contents of memory or the " forms " immediately presented to us represent a passive object for the active intellect. We agree on many things, but your insistence on inventing vocabulary is a problem. Not only to people in general, but also for those who know the correct terminology. .

And yes, this is my own philosophy. Is there something wrong with thinking for myself?

Nothing wrong with it but use the accepted terminology. That prevents confusion.

Stop arguing over which definition is somehow superior and just respond to what you know I meant.

But I didn’t because you used improper terminology.

Certainly you did.

You acknowledge the validity of the free will argument, right? I assume you do.

Can’t say that I do. I don’t know any argument called the " free will " argument.

You cannot deny that if the soul does not produce effects which are not causally preceded by any physical effect than determinism follows.

I’m afraid you lost me there, the sentence doesn’t make sense. If you are saying that the intellect considers data received through the senses, I agree with that. No kind of determinism comes from that. Perhaps I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

There is no dependence in either direction? Sounds like epiphenomenalism to me.

What I meant is that we act as a person. The body and soul act as a unit. Together they form the person but the soul is the form of the body ( hylomorphism). The body acts through its form. That is not causality, that is the normal functing of the human nature. St. Thomas is absolutley adamant that the soul does not act as an effecient cause of what man does… By extension, neither does the body. Here I speak of all the operations and activities of the body that flow from the nature of the person. And as I said, the intellect has some specific activities proper only to itself.

That is a) demonstrably false and b) exactly the opposite of what you said earlier.

Not false, as explained above. I don’t think I said anything different, I didn’t mean to. I’m not writing a dissertation. .

There is a causal relationship in one direction because the soul directs the body, hence it depends causally on the soul, and the soul depends causally on the body because that is how we get our physical perceptions.

I would rather say they work together through the functioning of nature to do what flows spontaneously from that nature. Thomas would agree with what I just said. In Thomism there are only four causes, efficient, material, formal, and final. An efficient causes causes the movement/change of some other being, causing it to change in some way. But the body and soul are not independent beings. the body and soul are principles of one being and one nature. Therefore it is improper to speak as if one is causing the other to act. Now it is true that data coming from outside the body act upon it causing sense perception. From that point on, the person does, naturally, what flows from its nature.

I did not say we were computers. I likened the physical world to a program, not human mental functioning.

I think that is a very risky view. And it is not needed. Why clutter up a perfectly normal occurrence with an analogy which is incomplete or poorly defined or both? We experience the external world and that is that.

And I just proved that the rules of math existed before human life, you can’t refute me except by spotting a non-existent flaw in my argument.

No they don’t and you certainly didn’t " prove " they did. And it would be impossible to prove in the second place. Math is a product of human effort and imagination. How could it preceed man? That is the flaw.

Linus2nd

 

[mytruepower2]

Maybe it’s not.

But I’m right, aren’t I

I think you know as well as anyone that when there are good reasons to reject a proposition, and no good reasons to believe it’s true, the proposition should be considered false by a rational man.

This is how I see your claim. There are good reasons to consider it false (logic and reason being among them,) and in the absence of a powerful argument in favor of it (which you have certainly not provided,) a rational person would be unjustified in believing it.

Also, to be frank, I’m disappointed. That last reply had all the substance of “so’s your mother.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am being perfectly clear, you are just pretending I said things I didn’t say just to evade the question, because you know from memory that I can refute you.

I think it is a foible of human nature to presume we are ourselves are always correct. You have not made you point clear, nor established it.

"… because you know from memory that I can refute you. " What a very strange thing to say. I have no memory of being " defeated " by anyone here. I didn’t realize that we were playing a combatitive game. I certainly haven’t been. I try to get folks to listen to reason, that is all. That is always my intent.

Good night all, way past my bed time.

Linus2nd

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

Not even close

All that was ever shown by this when it was looked at was that Godel’s maths was correct.

So, If God exists as a concept, then He must exist in reality, because that would be greater, and God is the greatest

But which God - The God of the Bible, the God we are told is jealous and possessive and angry?

I can conceive in my mind of a God that is above these base feelings.

Is my God bigger than yours?

Of course, it all hangs on accepting the starting axioms, which, quite clearly, are not self evident truths.

Sarah x

This perhaps?
No? Then Jesus has prophesied about you:

For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Luke 16.28-31)

Still don’t believe Jesus, both a prophet & the firstborn of the dead? Read again. And again, for this is a model of your existence: an inescapable Groundhog Day. The Bible reveals this, which thing is not incompatible with the theory of relativity as shown by K. Gödel (cf. his rotating universe). Still don’t believe? How beautiful creation is: the whole is analogous to its parts e.g., your existence. This teaches us that we should generalize.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

Here is a popular exposition.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

No, it is pertinent. No one should do philosophy unless one is familiar with the terminology of the Masters.

So I just shouldn’t think about anything existential unless I know what some irrelevant ancient people called stuff?

Linusthe2nd:

Not the way I understand introspection. We don’t know anything by thinking about ourselves. Thinking is an activity of the mind directing itself to consider the contents presented to it for consideration. It may be a word, a definition, or a universal concept. You have used the word " introspection " incorrectly. That is the problem with doing " free lance " philosophy. The proper word would have been " refelection. " And indeed, the contents of memory or the " forms " immediately presented to us represent a passive object for the active intellect. We agree on many things, but your insistence on inventing vocabulary is a problem. Not only to people in general, but also for those who know the correct terminology.

This is another ridiculous evasion. I have explained what I meant several times and restated the point I was making every time. You know fully well what I meant, so please just answer the point.

Linusthe2nd:

Certainly you did.

I don’t remember writing that second quotebox. Are you sure you didn’t get that from someone else?

Linusthe2nd:

Can’t say that I do. I don’t know any argument called the " free will " argument.

Linusthe2nd:

I’m afraid you lost me there, the sentence doesn’t make sense. If you are saying that the intellect considers data received through the senses, I agree with that. No kind of determinism comes from that. Perhaps I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

I don’t know how to make it any more clear. If the soul does not have the ability to produce effects which are not traceable back to a physical cause, then determinism follows. That is crystal clear.

Linusthe2nd:

What I meant is that we act as a person. The body and soul act as a unit. Together they form the person but the soul is the form of the body ( hylomorphism). The body acts through its form. That is not causality, that is the normal functing of the human nature. St. Thomas is absolutley adamant that the soul does not act as an effecient cause of what man does… By extension, neither does the body. Here I speak of all the operations and activities of the body that flow from the nature of the person. And as I said, the intellect has some specific activities proper only to itself.

I pointed out a causal correlation in both directions, and you have yet to refute that point.

Linusthe2nd:

Not false, as explained above. I don’t think I said anything different, I didn’t mean to. I’m not writing a dissertation.

Below the part you quoted, I proved that too. Oh wait, it’s the same point. You just quoted higher.

[Linusthe2nd]
I would rather say they work together through the functioning of nature to do what flows spontaneously from that nature. Thomas would agree with what I just said. In Thomism there are only four causes, efficient, material, formal, and final. An efficient causes causes the movement/change of some other being, causing it to change in some way. But the body and soul are not independent beings. the body and soul are principles of one being and one nature. Therefore it is improper to speak as if one is causing the other to act. Now it is true that data coming from outside the body act upon it causing sense perception. From that point on, the person does, naturally, what flows from its nature.
Oh, it’s spontaneous now? So all actions are random? So I really don’t have free will! I knew it!

Linusthe2nd:

I think that is a very risky view. And it is not needed. Why clutter up a perfectly normal occurrence with an analogy which is incomplete or poorly defined or both? We experience the external world and that is that.

Because the “perfectly normal” experience is not what it seems. And the analogy is not incomplete or poorly defined.

Linusthe2nd:

No they don’t and you certainly didn’t " prove " they did. And it would be impossible to prove in the second place. Math is a product of human effort and imagination. How could it preceed man? That is the flaw.

Linus2nd

What you mean by math is the doing of math, what I mean is the rules of math. That is our problem.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Linusthe2nd:

I think it is a foible of human nature to presume we are ourselves are always correct. You have not made you point clear, nor established it.

"… because you know from memory that I can refute you. " What a very strange thing to say. I have no memory of being " defeated " by anyone here. I didn’t realize that we were playing a combatitive game. I certainly haven’t been. I try to get folks to listen to reason, that is all. That is always my intent.

I have made my point plenty clear, and provided grounds for it.
We are not playing a combative game. The word I used does not have that connotation. But you must remember that thread, right? It was the one where I got an infraction.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So I just shouldn’t think about anything existential unless I know what some irrelevant ancient people called stuff?

This is another ridiculous evasion. I have explained what I meant several times and restated the point I was making every time. You know fully well what I meant, so please just answer the point.

I don’t remember writing that second quotebox. Are you sure you didn’t get that from someone else?

I don’t know how to make it any more clear. If the soul does not have the ability to produce effects which are not traceable back to a physical cause, then determinism follows. That is crystal clear.

I pointed out a causal correlation in both directions, and you have yet to refute that point.

Below the part you quoted, I proved that too. Oh wait, it’s the same point. You just quoted higher.

[Linusthe2nd]
I would rather say they work together through the functioning of nature to do what flows spontaneously from that nature. Thomas would agree with what I just said. In Thomism there are only four causes, efficient, material, formal, and final. An efficient causes causes the movement/change of some other being, causing it to change in some way. But the body and soul are not independent beings. the body and soul are principles of one being and one nature. Therefore it is improper to speak as if one is causing the other to act. Now it is true that data coming from outside the body act upon it causing sense perception. From that point on, the person does, naturally, what flows from its nature.

Oh, it’s spontaneous now? So all actions are random? So I really don’t have free will! I knew it!

Because the “perfectly normal” experience is not what it seems. And the analogy is not incomplete or poorly defined.

What you mean by math is the doing of math, what I mean is the rules of math. That is our problem.

I have evaluated the discussion objectively and from the Thomist point of view, which is the one traditionally employed in defining Dogma and in discussing other teachings. The Church uses it because it makes sense. Every seminarian takes at least two years of philosophy, concentrating on Thomas.

The Church also uses concepts by Augustine ( so does Thomas), Scotus, and others, but mostly Thomas and Augustine. It wouldn’t hurt you to at least take a serious look at Thomas, he treats quite a bit of Human Psychology, the soul, knowing, etc. Feser has an excellent section at the end of Aquinas.

Linus2nd.

 

[atheistgirl]

Also, to be frank, I’m disappointed.

What can I tell you

I’m going to lock myself in the box with Schrödinger’s cat and beat myself with Summa Theologica.

:crutches:

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

This perhaps?
No?

Well, no.

It adds nothing more to the links you already provided.

Then Jesus has prophesied about you:

Threatening me with an eternal hellfire existence is hardly going to cut it when there is no convincing verifiable proof of the existence of either Heaven or Hell.

Still don’t believe?** How beautiful creation is**: the whole is analogous to its parts e.g., your existence. This teaches us that we should generalize.

Have you ever looked at creation

I mean, really closely looked at it.

I agree it’s beautiful, but in the most savage, cold, detached, self interested manner imaginable.

I think looking very closely at ‘‘creation’’ is the best argument ever for the reality of the finality of our lives and the best antidote ever for any idea of life being created either directly by a supernatural loving, caring, Being or being guided by a supernatural loving, caring, Being.

Sarah x

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have made my point plenty clear, and provided grounds for it.
We are not playing a combative game. The word I used does not have that connotation. But you must remember that thread, right? It was the one where I got an infraction.

Didn’t know you got one. Sorry I don’t remember it. I don’t know what other connotation “…can’t refute me… " could have. Any way that is not what I am about. I try to present a case. If no one buys it, it doesn’t mean anyone has won, it just means we disagree. And that is about where we are apparantly. However, I will always step in when I feel someone is off base, if for no other reason than to let the readers know, " …not everything goes…” There is an approach to all things which is correct and conforms to truth and there are many way ways leading to error. And those who do not study the Masters are most likely to wind up in error. But some people have such huge egos they won’t take advice.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Oh, it’s spontaneous now? So all actions are random? So I really don’t have free will! I knew it!

Certainly many functions of human nature are perfectly spontaneous but I certainly didn’t mean all were. We direct many of our activies through our intellects and free will. These activities are not random. Sorry if I did not make that clear.

Because the “perfectly normal” experience is not what it seems. And the analogy is not incomplete or poorly defined.

You certainly haven’t made it clear to me. Humor me a bit and give me a detailed example of what you are attempting to say.

What you mean by math is the doing of math, what I mean is the rules of math. That is our problem.

Look, if you are saying the " rules of math " exist as ideas in the Mind of God, I will accept that, tentitatively, as being open to revision by someone who knows more than either of us. Is that what you are saying?

Linus2nd.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Linusthe2nd:

I have evaluated the discussion objectively and from the Thomist point of view, which is the one traditionally employed in defining Dogma and in discussing other teachings. The Church uses it because it makes sense. Every seminarian takes at least two years of philosophy, concentrating on Thomas.

The Church also uses concepts by Augustine ( so does Thomas), Scotus, and others, but mostly Thomas and Augustine. It wouldn’t hurt you to at least take a serious look at Thomas, he treats quite a bit of Human Psychology, the soul, knowing, etc. Feser has an excellent section at the end of Aquinas.

this post = “Look, it doesn’t really matter if I can answer your arguments, because I’m just right and you’re just wrong.”
Fine. I’m going to stop arguing this point.

 

[mytruepower2]

I’m going to lock myself in the box with Schrödinger’s cat and beat myself with Summa Theologica.

Then you’ll be both beating yourself and not beating yourself, I’ll bet.

Seriously, though, “When I hear of Schrödinger’s cat, I reach for my gun.”
-Professor Stephen Hawking-

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What can I tell you

I’m going to lock myself in the box with Schrödinger’s cat and beat myself with Summa Theologica.

:crutches:

Sarah x

While you are there why not turn on a light and read it ?

Linus2nd

 

[wmw]

I find it a chicken and egg paradox when Professor Stephen Hawking starts talking about the laws of the universe that makes it possible that the universe created itself. I would like to ask him when and how these laws came into existence as the universe began and what is beginning if the laws are prefixed to begin from nothing but laws of the universe?

 

[Mount_Carmel]

For the universe to have ‘created’ itself it must have already been in being, otherwise it must have been something else that created/made it. If the universe was the cause and the effect was the universe, then big deal. It is however true that the early universe was imbued with more energy than it has now - due to entropy.

This prior ‘something’ could not have been ‘nothing’, since the idea of ‘nothing’ creating/making ‘something’ from ‘nothing’ is pushing the bounds of rationality and logic a tad too far.