Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Proof of Intelligent Design 4th Rough Draft
Russell E. Rierson
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 15 (68909)
11-24-2003 3:25 AM


This is an interpretation of Chris Langan's CTMU, CTMU Papers | Teleologic Evolution , and Saint Anslem's ontological argument.
This argument cannot be used to prove anything besides the fact that God exists:
1. If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.
2.If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.
3. If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.
4. That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.
5. If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic.
6.The describer is a super-intelligence.
7. By definition, the super-intelligence is God.
Russell E. Rierson
analog57@peoplepc.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by sidelined, posted 11-24-2003 6:43 AM Russell E. Rierson has not replied
 Message 5 by :æ:, posted 11-24-2003 11:33 AM Russell E. Rierson has not replied
 Message 6 by grace2u, posted 11-24-2003 12:27 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied
 Message 7 by helena, posted 11-24-2003 12:47 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2003 4:12 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 2 of 15 (68916)
11-24-2003 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson
11-24-2003 3:25 AM


Russel
It is difficult to make out what the first point is trying to say.
"1. If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God."
We are,I believe already using Godel's proof to show that a mind cannot model reality,in the same way a map can never precisely model that which it is a map of.Mind, being as it is, a product of the brain and its electrical activity can never exist outside of that brain.It is a curious Gap in the attempts to prove the existence of god that the idea of a disembbodied mind is so uncritically accepted.
------------------
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-24-2003 3:25 AM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 11-24-2003 6:55 AM sidelined has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 3 of 15 (68918)
11-24-2003 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by sidelined
11-24-2003 6:43 AM


Justify 2. Why must the limit exist?
And Sidelined, what is your avatar of?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by sidelined, posted 11-24-2003 6:43 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by sidelined, posted 11-24-2003 7:03 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 4 of 15 (68919)
11-24-2003 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Jack
11-24-2003 6:55 AM


Mr. Jack
This is my mind on a bad acid trip.LOL
Actually it is a photomicrograph of Ascorbic acid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 11-24-2003 6:55 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 5 of 15 (68955)
11-24-2003 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson
11-24-2003 3:25 AM


Y'know, I've read Langan's CTMU pretty thoroughly, and while I'm not convinced that it is the "Theory of Everything" or "Proof of God" as it is touted by him, I do think that Langan takes some remarkably bold yet reasoned steps in metalogic and universal theory.
Having said that, I think your argument here can only succeed in establishing an isomorphism between the universe and and God, ultimately making them one. Langan states plainly that his model is holopantheistic, and that falls a far cry short of establishing the existence of any classical God. I don't think many rational atheists would have a great deal of difficulty acknowledging the validity of a pantheistic model since its difference from atheism is bascially only definitional. Call the universe God if you want to, or just call it the universe. As long as we agree on the referent, it matters not what label it wears.
In short, I'd say your proof is equally a proof of no-God depending on how one defines "God" and "the universe." It may support the notion of a "universal mind," however, a universal mind is not necessarily a classical God. Personally, I do think that there is merit to panpsychic models, and it may be helpful for the likes of Chalmers, Whitehead, Seager etc... to consider some of the approaches Langan has taken in relating consciousness to the rest of the universe. Still, Langan's model and your proof don't quite differentiate what they call "God" from the universe itself which is what is required, IMHO, to develop a supportive argument for the existence of a classical God like Yahweh, Allah, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-24-2003 3:25 AM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 15 (68961)
11-24-2003 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson
11-24-2003 3:25 AM


This is by far one of the most convincing arguments for the existence of God. I think that if one examines Anslem's ontological argument and Kants transcendental argument for the existence of God, the evidence is certainly compelling. Adding other more subtle evidences such as those exhibited in the argument from morality and I think the most logical answer is to concede that God probably does exist. What that God is would be another question-I would labor that further evidence suggests that the Christian God as defined from revealed theology, is the most likely candidate for who that God is.
"Christe eleison"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-24-2003 3:25 AM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by :æ:, posted 11-24-2003 12:53 PM grace2u has not replied
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2003 7:55 PM grace2u has not replied

  
helena 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5845 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 03-27-2008


Message 7 of 15 (68968)
11-24-2003 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson
11-24-2003 3:25 AM


quote:
If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.
non sequitur...
You'd first have to show that it is impossible to model reality except for a super-intelligence (which I presume, that in your definition this would be be somebody with higher intelligence than the highest achievable human intelligence).
otherwise everyone at once could be god, if only they could all model reality...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-24-2003 3:25 AM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 8 of 15 (68972)
11-24-2003 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by grace2u
11-24-2003 12:27 PM


grace2u writes:
I would labor that further evidence suggests that the Christian God as defined from revealed theology, is the most likely candidate for who that God is.
I think you're begging the question by proposing that revealed theology is a reliable source for knowledge about any existing deity. How do we know that we can trust what is "revealed"? I anticipate your response to be that honesty is inherent in your God's nature. The problem is that with revealed theology you have no way to apprehend God's nature except through revelation, and it becomes one big circular argument. In other words, your argument boils down to "God tells me he never lies, so that must not be a lie."
What if God was lying when he told you this? What if God, for some inscrutable reason, created a false reality for us to experience? You see, the introduction of supernatural elements into a theory also introduces these unanswerable questions, and it thereby short-circuits the reliability of the connection between our senses and reality. We can only trust our perceptions of reality if they are presumed to be absent of the effects of intermeddling supernatural beings. This is why there can be no "science of the supernatural," and also why any claim to knowledge about a supernatural being or a supernatural event bascially begs the question as to the reliability of that knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by grace2u, posted 11-24-2003 12:27 PM grace2u has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 15 (69010)
11-24-2003 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson
11-24-2003 3:25 AM


:ae: and Alex have essentially beat me to the punch, but let me consolidate and add to what they said, in order to create a list of problems this 4th draft contains.
1) It appears you attempted to escape the Universe=God problem by adding the words "mind" and "understand" to your original argument. Unfortunately this anthropomorphisation does not aid your argument. What it does is make any sentient entity capable of being a God.
Your only caveat (found in point 2) which might save you from the Humans=God dilemma is stated as "a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit." But this leads to more problems...
2) Your caveat is mere assertion unless you have something to back it up. What exists to prevent a sentient mind "within reality" from being able to meet the limit?
3) What in fact is a sentient mind "outside reality"? In order to model "everything" that would... by necessity... have to include modelling itself, which then puts that mind within the realm of reality. Or are you talking physical and nonphysical? If so, then you must remove this equivocation of terms in your overall argument.
Even if your points 1 and 2 are conceded for sake of argument...
4) There is no logical limit, or identification of, the number of "intelligences" capable of modelling reality and so it is wholly pantheistic.
5) Your argument contains no mention of these "intelligences" being able to effect reality and so by definition any entity which "models" is essentially "intelligent", which allows for artificial Gods, or practically unsentient (by which I mean unable to affect their own will) Gods. This can almost be reduced to Leibnitz's theory of monads.
6) Your points 1-5 actually leave an "if" hanging, and so your argument is not a logical necessity anyway. Notice you have if/then if/then if/then etc etc... Where is there any indication that any of those ifs have been met? Point #2 is especially weak in that it is illdefined ("perfect", "approached", "convergent", "propositional "limit""?) and so carries nothing forward. I believe it is point #2 you are trying hang your hat on, but I don't see the logical "hook".
Ahhhhh... back to the drawing board for a 5th draft.
Let me suggest to you (before you hit the drwaing board) that while this is kind of fun in a brain teaser sort of way, and maybe it helps flex the mind like isometric exercise, ontological arguments are as procreative as masturbation.
Essentially such arguments boil down to having fun while trying to figure out where the hole is, or wondering if you will find a hole at all. But a hole will always exist, and it will be found by someone.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-24-2003 3:25 AM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
Russell E. Rierson
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 15 (69019)
11-24-2003 4:39 PM


UPDATE: MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Thanks for the help. I see that the problem continues to be one of interpreting the definitions.
UPDATE:
MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
This is an interpretation of Christopher Langan's CTMU, CTMU Papers | Teleologic Evolution , and Saint Anslem's ontological argument.
1. If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.[ This is self evident. No human mind will ever be able to know every aspect and detail of the universe from its beginning to its ending. We are the products of a Creator, we are not "the" Creator.]
2.If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.
[ All that needs to be proven is that the limit converges. No "sub-sentient" mind within creation itself can know every aspect of ...creation itself.]
3. If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.
[self evident]
4. That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.
[another way of stating 3.]
5. If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic.
6.The describer is a super-intelligence.
7. By definition, the super-intelligence is God.
The burden of proof becomes the burden of proving the "convergence", to an exact correspondence, between the mental construct[infinite number of axioms] and reality
At the limit
[MIND][REALITY]
M = R
[axiomatic method]--->[exact correspondence]<---[scientific method]

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 11-24-2003 4:47 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2003 6:35 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied
 Message 14 by helena, posted 11-25-2003 2:50 AM Russell E. Rierson has not replied
 Message 15 by sidelined, posted 11-25-2003 6:29 AM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 15 (69025)
11-24-2003 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Russell E. Rierson
11-24-2003 4:39 PM


Re: UPDATE: MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Russell,
4. That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.
[another way of stating 3.]
5. If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic.
But does the description exist? It does not follow from 1 & 2 that because something exists that there must be something that understands it.
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-24-2003 4:39 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 12 of 15 (69053)
11-24-2003 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Russell E. Rierson
11-24-2003 4:39 PM


My criticisms in post #9 still stand.
Unfortunately you just added more.
quote:
This is self evident. No human mind will ever be able to know every aspect and detail of the universe from its beginning to its ending. We are the products of a Creator, we are not "the" Creator.
This is not self-evident. You might be able to say that no human RIGHT NOW is capable of doing so, but you cannot discount that humans will be able to at some point in the future or may have in the past... or perhaps humans unknown to us already do (but due to their power remain unknown).
The "we are the products" line makes your entire argument circular.
It is also not capable of denying nonhuman sentient minds, of limited physical capacity (which make them unlike the stereotype "God").
quote:
All that needs to be proven is that the limit converges. No "sub-sentient" mind within creation itself can know every aspect of ...creation itself.
You must define the terms I stated in post #9. In particular why do the terms in the front half of point #2 logically necessitate (if/then) your conclusion. I see no logical force that if something can be approached (metaphorically) that something must exist (literally). It feels that there is either an equivocation or an unstated premise floating around this point in particular.
But besides that, why can no subsentient mind know every aspect including creation? This is only true if one defines creation as an event by the very type of creator you are trying to prove (circular) which is unable to be fathomed by anything else (assertion). Since this is pure logic, you must have airtight logical necessity throughout.
Let me point out to you that it is possible to use this same type of ontological argument for a human (or at least a wholly physical entity) to reach this state of knowledge and so godhood, by his capacity (possibility) to understand the world via diverse mechanisms (timetravel etc) or by hooking up with God.
One must remember that in pure logic, time itself becomes lost and so beings may know their own creation and the creation of the universe itself. In fact, if humans by nature have a soul (which uses almost the same argument, and I might add is part of the Xtian mythos) then their spiritual component can know all of the things which you suggest and so be gods.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-24-2003 4:39 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 15 (69069)
11-24-2003 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by grace2u
11-24-2003 12:27 PM


Adding other more subtle evidences such as those exhibited in the argument from morality
Could you open a new thread for this? I for one don't see how the observation that all cultures have different moral structures supports the idea of a creator god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by grace2u, posted 11-24-2003 12:27 PM grace2u has not replied

  
helena 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5845 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 03-27-2008


Message 14 of 15 (69139)
11-25-2003 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Russell E. Rierson
11-24-2003 4:39 PM


Re: UPDATE: MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
quote:
[This is self evident. No human mind will ever be able to know every aspect and detail of the universe from its beginning to its ending. We are the products of a Creator, we are not "the" Creator.]
As Holmes has stated this makes your argument circular (as you argue from the non-proven existence of a creator for God whom you apparently assume to be the creator). In addition you add an unwarranted extension to your reasoning: In that you claim that there is a creator you attribute additional properties to the super-intelligence you define as God. Your argument is (even if it were logically correct, which I don't think it is) only for the existance of an all-comprehending intelligence and NOT for a creator, this would need significantly more effort.
regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-24-2003 4:39 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 15 of 15 (69152)
11-25-2003 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Russell E. Rierson
11-24-2003 4:39 PM


Re: UPDATE: MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Russ
To hell with circularity what the hell does
convergent analytic-synthetic propositional
mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-24-2003 4:39 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024