God, Science and Naturalism

[Mmarco]

I am a scientist – a biochemist – and I know the laws of nature. As I point out, in the physical world there are only either determinism or quantum probability. Neither allows for free will under naturalism.

As I explain above:
“Some propose that freedom of thought might be a result of ‘emerging complexity’, but this is based on a misunderstanding of the concept. While emergence results in phenomena that would not have been predicted from the basic components of the system on their own, it never violates the physical laws by which these basic components operate.”

Dear Al, I am a physicist and I would like to add some considerations about “emergent properties”.

Emergent properties are only concepts used to describe approximately microscopic processes. An example of emergent property often used by antireductionists is roughness; they claims that quantum particles have no roughness, and therefore roughness is a new property, emerging only at the macroscopic level. Actually, roughness is only a concept used to describe a certain kind of geometrical distribution of the molecules in a surface. There are many possible geometrical distributions of particles, and we can classify such possible distributions with different names, and elaborate the concepts of roughness or smoothness, etc. However these are only arbitrary and subjective concepts and classifications,used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is . Actually, all emergent properties quoted by antiredutioninsts, are not objective properties of the physical reality, but they are only abstractions or concepts used to describe our sensorial experiences or approximated models describing too complex systems. In other words, they are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes.

Here comes my argument : arbitrariness, as well as subjectivity, implies the existence of a conscious mind, who can choose a specific point of view and arbitrary criteria.

It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. We can conclude that consciousness transcends the physical reality and is a more fundamental reality than the physical reality.

(see also next post)

 

[Mmarco]

I would like to suggest another argument, you may find interesting.

All what science shows about the physical reality is that it manifests itself as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical models (what we call “the laws of physics”); in fact, the subatomic components of matters (quantum particles and fields) are actually only abtract mathematical concepts. On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; this implies that matter (and the physical reality) is not the foundation of reality, but its existence depends on a more fundamental reality i.e. consciousness: contrary to the basic hypothesis of materialism, consciousness is a more fundamental reality than matter.

Therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God, conceiving it as a mathematical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of a personal God.

Personally I think that atheism does not account for the existence of our mathematically structured universe and denies, without any rational arguments, the only rational explanation.

 

[Al_Moritz]

"If we do not have free will, as under naturalism we do not, my conclusion logically follows, which is that under naturalism the assertion “Naturalism is true” is incoherent and self-contradictory. "

So if we don’t have free will …

…if naturalism is true, then the assertion that ‘naturalism is true’ is false. Meaning that naturalism is false…

…then we do have free will.

So if we don’t have free will, then we do have free will.

That construct does not follow from what I said. You make a strange fusion between a condition under which a conclusion follows (first part of the sentence), and a different conclusion (second part of sentence).

By the way, the second conclusion is one that I do not arrive at in my above argument. I merely say that under naturalism the affirmative statement “Naturalism is true” cannot be made. This in itself does not imply that naturalism is false or true, it only implies that the fact if naturalism is true or not is unknowable under naturalism.

With that, the following holds. If I ever were to lose my faith in God (unlikely, and hopefully not), I could logically be only a true agnostic – not knowing if God exists or not, without leaning towards either atheism or theism. Yet I could not logically be a naturalist, since under naturalism I could not know if naturalism is true or not. With that, I could also not be an atheist (for me, naturalism and atheism would be tied together).

In the longer version of my article (from which above argument is just the first part) I do argue why we must have free will:
https://www.god-science-naturalism.org/naturalism_is_true.htm

(link also accessible from the first link in this thread)

 

[lelinator]

Therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God, conceiving it as a mathematical model.

How do you come to the conclusion that mathematics is the cause of a structured universe and not simply a consequence of a structured universe. Correlation not causation.

Why not simply conclude that consciousness is by necessity coherent, and coherency is by necessity ordered rather than random, and order is by necessity mathematical. Therefore consciousness will always exist in a reality that’s describable by mathematics, not because mathematics is the cause, but simply because where there’s consciousness, mathematics is inevitable.

And why the unnecessary step of invoking one conscious being to act as the creator of a second conscious being? Why not simply conclude that the conscious creator of reality is me?

If a conscious being is truly the fundamental cause of reality, and I’m a conscious being, then why not simply conclude that I’m the cause of reality?

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

Therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God, conceiving it as a mathematical model.

How do you come to the conclusion that mathematics is the cause of a structured universe and not simply a consequence of a structured universe.

Actually, I have never said that mathematics is the cause of the universe; in fact I think that God is the Cause of the existence of the universe. What I have said is that all we know about the physical reality is that the physical reality is mathematically structured.

Why not simply conclude that consciousness is by necessity coherent, and coherency is by necessity ordered rather than random, and order is by necessity mathematical.

Because it is simply absurd; consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of mathematics.

If a conscious being is truly the fundamental cause of reality, and I’m a conscious being, then why not simply conclude that I’m the cause of reality?

Simply because you cannot control the physical reality with your mind. Your idea is simply ridiculous.

 

[lelinator]

What I have said is that all we know about the physical reality is that the physical reality is mathematically structured.

Fair enough, all we can say is that reality can be described using mathematics.

Because it is simply absurd; consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of mathematics.

But if consciousness is by necessity ordered, and order is by necessity mathematical, then it would seem that where you have the former, you will always have the latter, so they may in fact be inseparable. You simply cannot have one without having the other, therefore neither can precede the other, and thus neither can be said to be the cause of the other.

Simply because you cannot control the physical reality with your mind. Your idea is simply ridiculous.

To be more precise, I cannot control reality with my conscious mind, but simply because I cannot control it, doesn’t mean that I cannot cause it, although in this case “cause” is a misnomer. Because as I said earlier, where you have consciousness you will always have order, they’re inseparable, therefore one can’t possibly be the “cause” of the other. They will simply always exist together with neither of them being the cause.

As you said, consciousness is fundamental, but an inescapable attribute of consciousness is order, and mathematics.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

Because it is simply absurd; consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of mathematics.

But if consciousness is by necessity ordered, and order is by necessity mathematical, then it would seem that where you have the former, you will always have the latter, so they may in fact be inseparable. You simply cannot have one without having the other, therefore neither can precede the other, and thus neither can be said to be the cause of the other.

I have already answered; your statements above are simply absurd because mathematics is the product of the rational thinking and therefore consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of mathematics.

Mmarco:

Simply because you cannot control the physical reality with your mind. Your idea is simply ridiculous.

To be more precise, I cannot control reality with my conscious mind, but simply because I cannot control it, doesn’t mean that I cannot cause it

As I have already said, I think that solispsism is absurd and ridiculous; I am not interested in discussing solipsism.

 

[lelinator]

I have already answered; your statements above are simply absurd because mathematics is the product of the rational thinking and therefore consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of mathematics.

I understand what you said, I simply think that your dismissal of solipsism is unwarranted.

If the fundamental cause of reality is consciousness, then I see no reason why that consciousness can’t be mine.

 

[Freddy]

I have already answered; your statements above are simply absurd because mathematics is the product of the rational thinking and therefore consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of mathematics.

Maths is simply a description. If there was no consciousness and you had two rocks over there and two rocks over here then you’d still have four rocks. When consciousness evolved we were able to describe that relationship. It didn’t need consciousness for that relationship to exist.

Consciousness is required to describe various wavelengths of light as colours. You are saying that consciousness is a necessary condition for green.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

I have already answered; your statements above are simply absurd because mathematics is the product of the rational thinking and therefore consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of mathematics.

Maths is simply a description. If there was no consciousness and you had two rocks over there and two rocks over here then you’d still have four rocks.

I suppose you are postulating that a rock could exist “by itself”, as materialists believe they do.
In this case, what you are saying about four rocks is totally irrilevant because four rocks have nothing to do with mathematics and no mathematical relation is involved in their existence.
In case what you meant was that you would have that 2+2=4, you are wrong. The concept of “sum” would not exist if no mind existed. Therefore, it is false to say that 2+2=4 with no mind to understand it.

On the contrary, all we know about the physical reality shows that the physical reality implies abstract mathematical models, which, in their turn, imply the existence of a thinking mind. In fact, quantum fields and quantum particles are intrinsically abstract mathematical structures.

Consciousness is required to describe various wavelengths of light as colours. You are saying that consciousness is a necessary condition for green.

First of all, the colour green (as well as any flavour or smell) is only a psichical experience, and not a physical property of light; without no consciousness, the colour green would not exist.

 

[Freddy]

I suppose you are postulating that a rock could exist “by itself”, as materialists believe they do.
In this case, what you are saying about four rocks is totally irrilevant because four rocks have nothing to do with mathematics and no mathematical relation is involved in their existence.
In case what you meant was that you would have that 2+2=4, you are wrong. The concept of “sum” would not exist if no mind existed. Therefore, it is false to say that 2+2=4 with no mind to understand it.

On the contrary, all we know about the physical reality shows that the physical reality implies abstract mathematical models, which, in their turn, imply the existence of a thinking mind. In fact, quantum fields and quantum particles are intrinsically abstract mathematical structures.

First of all, the colour green (as well as any flavour or smell) is only a psichical experience, and not a physical property of light; without no consciousness, the colour green would not exist.

Well…yeah. Rocks exist ‘by themsleves’. They don’t need us. And if there’s two rocks over there, that doesn’t need us. And we’re not required for there to be another two rocks somewhere else. Neither does there need to be any conscious mind for there to be four rocks in total. But it does need conscious minds to conceptualise the relationship between objects and formulate a method of describing that relationship.

And grass would reflect light at a wavelength of 550nm whether we are here or not. But we’re needed to be able to describe that specific wavelength. As green.

If humanity ceased to exist tomorrow, what colour would grass be?

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

I suppose you are postulating that a rock could exist “by itself”, as materialists believe they do.
In this case, what you are saying about four rocks is totally irrilevant because four rocks have nothing to do with mathematics and no mathematical relation is involved in their existence.
In case what you meant was that you would have that 2+2=4, you are wrong. The concept of “sum” would not exist if no mind existed. Therefore, it is false to say that 2+2=4 with no mind to understand it.

On the contrary, all we know about the physical reality shows that the physical reality implies abstract mathematical models, which, in their turn, imply the existence of a thinking mind. In fact, quantum fields and quantum particles are intrinsically abstract mathematical structures.

First of all, the colour green (as well as any flavour or smell) is only a psichical experience, and not a physical property of light; without no consciousness, the colour green would not exist.

Well…yeah. Rocks exist ‘by themsleves’. They don’t need us.

My point is that rocks need God to exist because they are made of quantum particles and quantum fields, which are intrinsically abstract mathematical concepts. Therefore, rocks can exist only if God made them exist by conceiving them as mathematical structures.

And grass would reflect light at a wavelength of 550nm whether we are here or not. But we’re needed to be able to describe that specific wavelength. As green.

If humanity ceased to exist tomorrow, what colour would grass be?

Grass has no colour; colour is only a psichical experience; it is the psichical responce to a physical stimulus, exactly as a flavour or a smell. These sensations do not exist outside our minds. Wavelength is not a “colour” . You must understand the difference between physical properties and our perceptions, which are only a psychical responce to a physical stimulus.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If humanity ceased to exist tomorrow, what colour would grass be?

Grass has no colour…

Hmmm.

OK…what wavelength of light does grass reflect?

Well, at a wavelength of 550nm, Freddy.

Well, let’s give that wavelength a description so we don’t have to keep writing out ‘light relected at a wavelength of 550nm’. Let’s call that wavelength ‘green’.

Is that the wavelength it’s reflecting now?

You mean ‘green’? Yeah.

Is that the wavelength it reflected before any consciousness evolved?

You still mean ‘green’? Yeah.

And if humanity ceases to exist, what wavelength will grass reflect then.

The same. 550nm.

You mean ‘green’?

Yeah. Grass will still be green.

 

[AlNg]

All what science shows about the physical reality is that it manifests itself as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical models

Reality, or at least most of reality, can be represented by mathematical models. It is a leap to say that reality is mathematically structured.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

Freddy:

If humanity ceased to exist tomorrow, what colour would grass be?

Grass has no colour…

Hmmm.

OK…what wavelength of light does grass reflect?

Well, at a wavelength of 550nm, Freddy.

Well, let’s give that wavelength a description so we don’t have to keep writing out ‘light relected at a wavelength of 550nm’. Let’s call that wavelength ‘green’.

Is that the wavelength it’s reflecting now?

You mean ‘green’? Yeah.

Is that the wavelength it reflected before any consciousness evolved?

You still mean ‘green’? Yeah.

And if humanity ceases to exist, what wavelength will grass reflect then.

The same. 550nm.

You mean ‘green’?

Yeah. Grass will still be green.

You do not understand the difference between the physical property “wavelength” and the visual perception “colour green”. Grass has no colour; it reflects a specific wavelegth, the reflected light stimulate our phtoreceptors which send electric signals to our brain, and our mind interpret such signals as visual sensations.
It has been proved that the same wavelength can be “seen” as completely different colours. Colours, smells, flavours etc. are only psichical perceptions and they do not exist as properties of the physical reality.

 

[Mmarco]

Reality, or at least most of reality, can be represented by mathematical models. It is a leap to say that reality is mathematically structured.

Actually, I think that all what sciences has revealed about the nature of the physical reality is that it manifests itself as a mathematical structure. I think that it is a leap (and a totally unreasonable leap) to say that the physical reality is not mathematically structured. This kind of leap makes you abandon science and choose a totally arbitrary view, as the ancient philosopers did, and came to totally wrong ideas about reality.

 

[Freddy]

You do not understand…

Let’s fine tune it then.

OK…what wavelength of light does grass reflect?

Well, at a wavelength of 550nm, Freddy.

Is that the wavelength it’s reflecting now?

Yeah.

Is that the wavelength it reflected before any consciousness evolved?

Yeah.

And if humanity ceases to exist, what wavelength will grass reflect then.

The same. 550nm.

Do you want to give that wavelength a description so it’s simpler to write out?

Nah. It just confuses people.

I like your tie.

Yeah, it matches the wavelength of light being reflected by my eyes.

You mean…

I mean 550nm.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

You do not understand…

Let’s fine tune it then.

OK…what wavelength of light does grass reflect?

Well, at a wavelength of 550nm, Freddy.

Is that the wavelength it’s reflecting now?

Yeah.

Is that the wavelength it reflected before any consciousness evolved?

Yeah.

And if humanity ceases to exist, what wavelength will grass reflect then.

The same. 550nm.

Do you want to give that wavelength a description so it’s simpler to write out?

Nah. It just confuses people.

I like your tie.

Yeah, it matches the wavelength of light being reflected by my eyes.

You mean…

I mean 550nm.

And then? I see no connection with my point.
The point is that electromagnetic fields are intrinsically abstract mathematical structures and wavelength is just a mathematical property of such a mathematical structure. Therefore, electromagnetic fields (and wavelegths) can exist only if a conscious and intelligent God make them exist by conceiving them as mathematical structures.

 

[AlNg]

Actually, I think that all what sciences has revealed about the nature of the physical reality is that it manifests itself as a mathematical structure.

No because “It’s true that mathematics enables us to quantitatively describe the Universe, it’s an incredibly useful tool when applied properly. But the Universe is a physical, not mathematical entity, and there’s a big difference between the two. Here’s why mathematics alone will always be insufficient to reach a fundamental theory of everything.”

No, The Universe Is Not Purely Mathematical In Nature

 

[Freddy]

This kind of leap makes you abandon science…

It do? So it’s abandoning science to.claim that…

…therefore, electromagnetic fields (and wavelegths) can exist only if a conscious and intelligent God make them exist by conceiving them as mathematical structures.

It would have saved you quite a lot of typing if you just said that God created everything.