|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why Isn't the Universe God ?
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I have a lot of atheist friends, who often tell me how irrational and unscientific the idea of God is. I typically respond that most important things in life are neither rational nor scientific, and the existence of God is a philosophical idea rather than a scientific hypothesis. And then we have more wine.
But if I am feeling annoying, I ask:
If consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems, (which most scientific theories of consciousness I am aware of suggest), - then surely an infinite universe of interconnected systems of great complexity is conscious. If the infinite universe is conscious, then surely the scale and complexity of its consciousness would endow with most of the attributes of a God ?
Now my gut instinct is that this hypothetical connectionist deity is a steaming pile of bullshit, (but useful for diverting atheist at drunken parties) - but no one I have put this to has yet come up with a plausible reason why.
I thought you guys might know why it doesn't work.
[ 25. September 2014, 20:17: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
Sounds to me like an argument against consciousness being an emergent property of complex systems.
What seems irrational to me is the idea that the concept of an emergent property, which refers to something that can be observed, could even theoretically provide any kind of explanation for the ability to do the observing.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Doublethink: I have a lot of atheist friends, who often tell me how irrational and unscientific the idea of God is. I typically respond that most important things in life are neither rational nor scientific, and the existence of God is a philosophical idea rather than a scientific hypothesis. And then we have more wine.
Perfectr strategy.
I don't agree with the premise that consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems, but the logic of your reasoning seems perfectly fine to me.
I'm a panentheist, so the idea of identifying God with the Universe doesn't come as a shock to me.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
So you are saying I am preceding from a false premise, I mostly agree.
I suppose for myself, I conflate the part of ourselves capable of consciousness with the idea of the soul which dovetails neatly with my theology. I don't therefore need a naturally mechanistic explanation for the emergence of consciousness.
However, I think an atheist does need such an explanation - and I am not familiar with the gist of any other godless explanations of the existence of consciousness.
[ 25. September 2014, 20:58: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think I'd question whether the universe is sufficiently interconnected at sufficiently large scales for it to generate consciousness. Most of the universe is vast swathes of space with the odd hydrogen molecule bobbing about. The speed at which information can travel from one part of the universe to another part of the universe is fairly small in comparison to the size of the universe.
I think we're already at the point at which it takes longer than the current age of the universe to get from one side of the universe to the other. The present state of knowledge I think only expects the size of the universe relative to its age to increase. Any consciousness arising out of the universe would therefore be incredibly slow, and getting slower.
A more theological objection would be that anything that qualifies as God cannot be dependent upon parts of which it is composed.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
There's a strange development from that. If the Universe is not conscious, and we've no reason to suppose that it is, might that not mean that each human is a more complex and amazing creation than the whole of the physical world around us (except of course, the other humans we encounter in it)?
It is also quite difficult to imagine where human consciousness might have come from without there being a conscious being who created us. I know there are arguments used as against this, but IMHO they are a lot less persuasive than the more normal theistic explanation.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Perfect Dafyd.
W Hyatt: as the Astronomer Royal Martin Rees said when asked why he studied the sun: stars are simpler than frogs. In other words, what complexity? What interconnectedness? The average density of the universe is one hydrogen atom per cubic meter.
As for how to measure complexity, tell the story of a star in as much explanatory detail as possible. Then tell the story of a frog.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Exactly so Enoch. Any single functioning human brain is more complex then the rest of the non-living universe at least.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
<crosspost with the multitude>
A bucket of rusty nails is a complex system. Shake it, and ask some physicist to predict what exactly is happening with every nail and rust flake inside the bucket... All of its dynamics is "emergent", which is just jargon for: I know the basic laws governing this system, I think, but short of simulating the whole lot I have no clue what's going to happen. It does not follow that this bucket and its rusty content is about to give birth to some inchoate consciousness. A bigger bucket with double the number of rusty nails might be roughly twice as complex, by some measure of complexity. But there is no reason whatsoever to believe that it has gotten any closer to being conscious. It is not the right kind of complex system.
Of course, nobody really knows what the right kind of system might be if the goal is consciousness. But we do know that all systems that appear conscious are designed in highly specific ways that have little to do with buckets full of rusty nails, best anybody can tell. (Incidentally, higher animals certainly are conscious. This is not a distinguishing mark of humans, sapience is. Or at least many people think so.)
So simply scaling up complex systems does not work any particular magic, as far as we know. Furthermore, even if we take the idea of a consciousness encompassing the entire universe seriously, the physical mechanisms that appear to be available to instantiate this consciousness make it mildly ridiculous to worry about it. If motions of stars at the galactic level are some kind of "neural code" of the universe, say, then clearly for the universe to think anything at all will take billions of years. Basically, if the universe starts thinking "W..." when the first humans appear then it will not have finished with "...TF!" by the time our sun goes Red Giant. Of course, that a universe-wide brain can have any thought when it is exploding apart in all directions, rapidly losing contact with other parts of itself, is unlikely on top of the no way after the what nonsense.
[ 25. September 2014, 21:55: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The OP reminds of the news report that a sizeable number of people recorded their religion as Jedi on the last Canadian census form. Sort of Force be With You, whatever it may be. Perhaps an updated AA type concept of a Higher Power.
These types of ideas sound agnostic to me. There is a yearning for something, so they make up something based on the state of current knowledge, some current cultural ideas, a need for comfort, and their (in my opinion, undeveloped) aesthetic sense. It is difficult to share the sense of the mystery with those.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems, (which most scientific theories of consciousness I am aware of suggest), . . .
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, nobody really knows what the right kind of system might be if the goal is consciousness.
I think IngoB is right on this one. "Complexity", however defined, does not seem to be a sufficient criteria for consciousness. Sticking with purely biological systems, a human is not particularly more complex than an apple tree, despite which the latter does not seem to be particularly conscious.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I play around with fun ideas like this with my friends - for example, that we are the universe becoming conscious of itself; or that the multiverse is like God, since everything possible is actual; or that some amazing discovery of the non-local, will demonstrate a fusion of time, space and information.
They are fun, and they could be the basis for an interesting sci-fi novel - but they are very speculative, and with little empirical basis.
As others have said, nobody knows how to get to consciousness from matter, but of course, you can guess.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Sounds to me like an argument against consciousness being an emergent property of complex systems.
What seems irrational to me is the idea that the concept of an emergent property, which refers to something that can be observed, could even theoretically provide any kind of explanation for the ability to do the observing.
I agree with previous posters that complexity alone is not enough.
But why can't something that can be observed provide an explanation for the act of observing?
Observers can be observed and they seem to be made up of parts that can be observed.
And how can something that can't be observed be a better explanation.?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Dafyd: I think I'd question whether the universe is sufficiently interconnected at sufficiently large scales for it to generate consciousness. Most of the universe is vast swathes of space with the odd hydrogen molecule bobbing about.
Recent research seems to indicate that there's more going on in between the galaxies than we've suspected. Some of it is quite fascinating. Yes it's slow. So what, God is a slow thinker ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pulsator Organorum Ineptus
Shipmate
# 2515
|
Posted
Whilst there is some evidence that complexity is a necessary condition for consciousness, there is no evidence that it is a sufficient condition.
The Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex, but nobody would suggest it is conscious.
Posts: 695 | From: Bronteland | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Sounds to me like an argument against consciousness being an emergent property of complex systems.
What seems irrational to me is the idea that the concept of an emergent property, which refers to something that can be observed, could even theoretically provide any kind of explanation for the ability to do the observing.
I agree with previous posters that complexity alone is not enough.
But why can't something that can be observed provide an explanation for the act of observing?
Observers can be observed and they seem to be made up of parts that can be observed.
And how can something that can't be observed be a better explanation.?
It can potentially provide an explanation for the act of observing. But to say that that would be the same as explaining the consciousness within the [observed] observer is to take advantage of the ambiguity of the broad range of meaning we attach to the word "consciousness." Discussion about animal consciousness may lend itself to scientific investigations, but that would not be the same thing as investigating the phenomenon we all (apparently) experience as self-awareness. At least not until some other species manages to learn to use language well enough to discuss these things with us.
There is no way the concept of emergent properties can explain the very personal, first-person experience of self-awareness, only some measurable behavior or brain activity that might manifest itself as a result. But then that would still leave the problem of "connecting" that explanation to the actual experience.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
As people have commented, the universe may be too widely dispersed and not complex enough to evolve consciousness, or it may be doing so but so slowly that it is not conscious yet.
The other part of the original post has to do with identifying the universe as God. Don't we actually expect much more from God than just consciousness? Don't we expect God to be able to multitask, to plan ahead and to react quickly? In particular, don't we think of God as having a perspective outside of space-time? I don't see how the universe can have a perspective outside of itself.
I also question the notion that consciousness must necessarily be evolved by a sufficiently complex system. Until someone actually builds a system that achieves consciousness, it seems speculative.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andromeda
Shipmate
# 11304
|
Posted
Great answers already.
If I was coming from a perfectly scientific/materialistic perspective I would base my objection on the premise that consciousness and conscious experience evolved out of a direct need for survival. I.e. the experience of pain is there to tell you to move away from danger, or to protect an injured foot by not walking on it. Thus brains capable of producing consciousness (IngoB's right kind of complex system) evolved over millions of years. I'd see no similar story to show how consciousness had arisen out of the universe since I'd see no necessity for it to have done so.
--------------------
In this world you’ll have trouble. But cheer up! I have overcome the world.
Posts: 57 | From: South Wales | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I love the rusty nails debunk, (clearly my diversion strategy works on drunken athiests only).
However.
[Dons rusty hypothetical tin foil hat]
We can not assume that a consciousness arising from the complexity of the universe (henceforth UniGod) would be handicapped by time differences - because - time would be internal to this consciousness observed from all positions simultaneously. Also the interlinks salient to the UniGod could be, say, gravitational dents in spacetime rather than bits of matter or the patterns in the movements of quarks or dark matter.
[Undons rusty hypothetical tin foil hat]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
If the universe, or multiverse, was God, we would expect it to communicate with us, wouldn't we? Of course, some New Age people, and possibly some Eastern religions, such as advaita, might argue that it does, in a rather subtle fashion. So subtle in fact, that only devotees of that particular religion can detect it!
Or you can think of Blake's phrase, 'to see a world in a grain of sand, and a heaven in a wildflower'. This is very pretty, but I guess that it's mainly mystics who actually do detect these things. But then you are off into rather difficult stuff about the universe in the third person (as object), and in the first person (as subject).
Thus some people in advaita might say that this is the universe, but this will probably not go down well with atheists, or for that matter, Christians.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If the universe, or multiverse, was God, we would expect it to communicate with us, wouldn't we? Of course, some New Age people, and possibly some Eastern religions, such as advaita, might argue that it does, in a rather subtle fashion. So subtle in fact, that only devotees of that particular religion can detect it!
Rather like the Christian religion then? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If the universe, or multiverse, was God, we would expect it to communicate with us, wouldn't we? Of course, some New Age people, and possibly some Eastern religions, such as advaita, might argue that it does, in a rather subtle fashion. So subtle in fact, that only devotees of that particular religion can detect it!
Rather like the Christian religion then?
Yes, indeed. I like to quote my local shaman, who talks about power animals who accompany us, and who will, if we are cooperative, help us in life and protect us.
It's a brilliant idea, I think. Well, the puzzle is to discriminate between that and another religion. How do I do it? I suppose pick the one that tickles my fancy.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Whatever we detect is ourselves. Faith detects NOWT but itself.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Doublethink: We can not assume that a consciousness arising from the complexity of the universe (henceforth UniGod) would be handicapped by time differences - because - time would be internal to this consciousness observed from all positions simultaneously. Also the interlinks salient to the UniGod could be, say, gravitational dents in spacetime rather than bits of matter or the patterns in the movements of quarks or dark matter.
Sounds like solid logic to me.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Of course, if there was UniGod, we would literally be "an idea in the mind of God".
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
There may, or may not, be some sort of consciousness in the non-biological stuff of the Universe. It is certainly complicated as all get out.
What the musings here have left out is the biological side of things. We are biological and part of the Universe. Anything else biological in the Universe would also seem to be part of the Universe. Of course, there could be invaders from other universes that mean us harm. How else could we explain Newt Gingrich?
I am not proposing some sort of Star Wars "Force." What I do propose is that there are more connections between conscious persons than we understand.
My experience is that, with the exception of the odd burning bush, proclaiming angel, and pillars of fire and cloud, God works through us. If you look with an eye that wants to see, you can see God in other people and events. Multiply my personal experience (and maybe your personal experience) millions and millions of times over and don't confine it to Earth. God is at work in and through the material stuff of the Universe.
If we believe in an omnipresent god, why isn't the Universe a manifestation of God?
Which is not the same as saying the material stuff of the Universe created God. So, you can safely go back to ignoring me.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
There are plenty of people who have proposed that everything is shot through with consciousness, and consciousness (or maybe Consciousness) is more fundamental than matter. These theories have come from biologists inspecting the workings of the cell n(e.g. Buehler), from physicists (e.g. Goswami), from various religious traditions (e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism), from various spiritual "masters" and from various spiritual teachers (inc Steiner). The implication is either implicitly or explicitly, that the physical universe - biological and non-biological - IS God : in more or less the same way as, say, your little finger IS you.
Emergence is a nice theory which may explain some aspects of local detail. But another general rule runs through it - that "higher" processes create a template that gets echoed by "lower (more physical) processes.
"As above, so below" is the phrase usually used. Interesting thinking about the parent-child relationship wrt to this. When the parent-child relationship is not distorted, parents delight in their children, and wish the best for them.
[ 28. September 2014, 18:31: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
IngoB, not that I give it the slightest credence except as a sci-fi plot, wouldn't the delocalized instantaneity afforded by quantum entanglement allow for a cosmic substrate of sentience-sapience?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
