Lucky Guesses?

[Dark Matter]

You still have not said how that relates to what Carroll says about causality.

Seriously? After all the discussions we've had about "God" being Being itself and not a being?

In any case, the question remains: how did those cited in the OP come to their conclusion, which defies all common sense and yet is compatible with 21st century physics?

BTW....I'm through with responding to your attempts to muddy the water.

[Fooloso4]

Dark Matter:

Seriously? After all the discussions we've had about "God" being Being itself and not a being?

First of all, that is a concept of God, not the concept of God. “‘God’ being Being” points to the problem of not recognizing the various different ways in which the terms ‘Being’ and ‘being’ are used, as well as the problem of conceptualizing God. It is not analogous to the limits of conceptualization within quantum physics which deals with actual entities guided by evidence. The question of whether there is anything that corresponds to our concepts of God is made even more problematic by the fact that some of those concepts claim that God is beyond conceptualization. The peculiar desire to talk about something while simultaneously claiming that it cannot be talked about.

Second, however you might conceive of God, that does not address the problem of causality as argued for by Watts. As I pointed out in the example of rubbing two sticks together, properties found in effects need not be found in the cause. We do not find fire in sticks or in the action of rubbing sticks. The existence of human consciousness does not entail the existence of a conscious cause. To be clear, it does not preclude it either. The origin of consciousness remains a mystery. There are men and women devoting their living to answering this question and then there are those who are smugly satisfied that they have answered it by invoking God.

In any case, the question remains: how did those cited in the OP come to their conclusion, which defies all common sense and yet is compatible with 21st century physics?

I answered this #2:

It is a logical necessity in any theory of a self contained systematic whole.

I elaborated in #4:

I think it simply follows logically from the idea of an intelligent being thinking about the world as an intelligible whole. That it is intelligible follows from our ability to make sense of things (even if the way in which we make sense of things turns out to be wrong). That it is a whole is one of two options, and is consistent with such things as our experience of bodies as wholes.

I then went on to say:

Commenting on how well they correspond requires specifics regarding what you see as corresponding.

You did not respond and you ignored the problem of interpretation of quantum physics. If you do respond you will provide an interpretation but are attempting to avoid having that interpretation questioned by saying that interpretation is irrelevant.

You are trying to build your own little self-referential world to protect you while throwing spitballs at those who do not agree. Quaint but ineffectual. If you wish to discuss your views philosophically then you must be open to philosophical criticism and address them.

[Dark Matter]

I answered this #2:

It is a logical necessity in any theory of a self contained systematic whole.

Then why was it abandoned?

I think it simply follows logically from the idea of an intelligent being thinking about the world as an intelligible whole. That it is intelligible follows from our ability to make sense of things (even if the way in which we make sense of things turns out to be wrong). That it is a whole is one of two options, and is consistent with such things as our experience of bodies as wholes.

Same question: why was it abandoned?

You did not respond and you ignored the problem of interpretation of quantum physics. If you do respond you will provide an interpretation but are attempting to avoid having that interpretation questioned by saying that interpretation is irrelevant.

You are trying to build your own little self-referential world to protect you while throwing spitballs at those who do not agree. Quaint but ineffectual. If you wish to discuss your views philosophically then you must be open to philosophical criticism and address them.

I told you: I'm not going to respond to your attempts to muddy the water.

[Fooloso4]

Dark Matter:

Then why was it abandoned?

According to you it has not been abandoned since it accords so well with 21st century physics. Of course you refuse to say anything to show that correlation, claiming it muddies the water!

[Dark Matter]

Dark Matter:

Then why was it abandoned?

According to you it has not been abandoned since it accords so well with 21st century physics. Of course you refuse to say anything to show that correlation, claiming it muddies the water!

It's not enough to habitually muddy the water? Now you have to be dishonest. Of course the insights mentioned in the OP were abandoned! If not, why did QM come as such a shock?

[Fooloso4]

Dark Matter:

If not, why did QM come as such a shock?

You have given absolutely no indication what you think quantum mechanics claims and so there is no way to know what you think came as a shock or how it relates to your self-referential world.

[Dark Matter]

Dark Matter:

If not, why did QM come as such a shock?

You have given absolutely no indication what you think quantum mechanics claims and so there is no way to know what you think came as a shock or how it relates to your self-referential world.

Irrelevant. There are books and you have the internet.

[Fooloso4]

Dark Matter:

Irrelevant. There are books and you have the internet.

This is ridiculously evasive. There is nothing more that I can say that speaks louder than your actions.

[Dark Matter]

Like I said, I'm not going to respond to your obfuscation. Ignore me, or posit your why you think the said insights are are not compatible with QM. But stay on subject.

[Gertie]

DM on post 387 of the What has God actually done wrong thread I asked you to explain why White Dragon was apparently replying to me using your Dark Matter account.

Apologies if I'm missing something or mistaken, but can you explain this please before we continue.

[Dark Matter]

My mistake. For some reason I saw DM instead of WD.

[Fooloso4]

Dark Matter:

Like I said, I'm not going to respond to your obfuscation.

Asking for clarification is the opposite of obfuscation or muddying the water.

Ignore me, or posit your why you think the said insights are are not compatible with QM.

As you indicated in your original post, there are various interpretations of quantum mechanics. How can we say whether your interpretation is compatible with your self-referential world if you refuse to tell us what your interpretation is?

[Gertie]

My mistake. For some reason I saw DM instead of WD.

Fair enough, thanks for clearing that up.

-- Updated January 10th, 2017, 5:53 pm to add the following --

Watts -

Man’s subjective presence is, of course, the very condition of knowledge both of the universe and of God. It is precisely the existence of man in the universe as a conscious, reflecting self that makes it logically necessary to believe in God. A universe containing self-conscious beings must have a cause sufficient to produce such beings, a cause which must at least have the property of self-consciousness. This property cannot simply “evolve” from protoplasm or stellar energy, because this would mean that more consciousness is the result of less consciousness and no consciousness. Evolution is, therefore, a transition from the potential to the actual, wherein the new powers and qualities constantly acquired are derived, not from the potential, but from a superior type of life which already possesses them.

The existence of conscious critters such as ourselves is consistent with the type of god belief you posit (as inevitably any god belief must be), but as an argument, isn't this essentially a god of the gaps argument? This conception of god is a nice fit with our contemporary unanswered big questions of cosmology and consciousness, but history tells us gods of the gaps retreat into ever tighter spaces as knowledge advances.

I don't know much about cosmology, but the people who do don't invoke god to advance their understanding of the singularity. I know a bit more about the current philosophy of consciousness, and again philosophers don't invoke god as a possible explanation. Watts himself nods to Emergence (the opposite of something from nothing), which is a serious theory of consciousness. Panpsychism, which Watts is sort of talking about too is another theory, tho not currently as fashionable. Neither invokes god.

So as a philosophical justification for god... the god bit isn't necessary to the way philosophers and scientists approach the questions of cosmology and consciousness.

[Dark Matter]

Watts -

Man’s subjective presence is, of course, the very condition of knowledge both of the universe and of God. It is precisely the existence of man in the universe as a conscious, reflecting self that makes it logically necessary to believe in God. A universe containing self-conscious beings must have a cause sufficient to produce such beings, a cause which must at least have the property of self-consciousness. This property cannot simply “evolve” from protoplasm or stellar energy, because this would mean that more consciousness is the result of less consciousness and no consciousness. Evolution is, therefore, a transition from the potential to the actual, wherein the new powers and qualities constantly acquired are derived, not from the potential, but from a superior type of life which already possesses them.

The existence of conscious critters such as ourselves is consistent with the type of god belief you posit (as inevitably any god belief must be), but as an argument, isn't this essentially a god of the gaps argument? This conception of god is a nice fit with our contemporary unanswered big questions of cosmology and consciousness, but history tells us gods of the gaps retreat into ever tighter spaces as knowledge advances.

I don't know much about cosmology, but the people who do don't invoke god to advance their understanding of the singularity. I know a bit more about the current philosophy of consciousness, and again philosophers don't invoke god as a possible explanation. Watts himself nods to Emergence (the opposite of something from nothing), which is a serious theory of consciousness. Panpsychism, which Watts is sort of talking about too is another theory, tho not currently as fashionable. Neither invokes god.

So as a philosophical justification for god... the god bit isn't necessary to the way philosophers and scientists approach the questions of cosmology and consciousness.

I don't see it. The argument opens with the only choices available to us and follows it with the logical consequences of each. Period. There's no suggesting that goddidit. Rather, its like what physicist and philosopher Paul Davies argues in the videos below:

I, too, am growing more and more uncomfortable with the word "God," but resist using "Ultimate Reality" because it feels like surrendering to ignorance.

-- Updated January 10th, 2017, 3:43 pm to add the following --

Davies' "loop" is not unlike "Wheeler's Eye," an image drawn by physicist John Wheeler to illustrate a self-conscious universe

-- Updated January 10th, 2017, 3:47 pm to add the following --

The question remains: are the insights cited in the OP coincidence, lucky guesses, or were ahead of their time?

[Fooloso4]

Dark Matter:

I, too, am growing more and more uncomfortable with the word "God,"

I will put the following remark in brackets so that it you can move beyond it.

[You are coming around. Others on this forum before you have as well. The theism versus atheism discussion is not as futile as some claim.]

Davies' "loop" is not unlike "Wheeler's Eye," an image drawn by physicist John Wheeler to illustrate a self-conscious universe

I see that you have decided to begin to come out of hiding. Perhaps your reluctance was based on concern for Schrodinger's cat.

In order to make sense of Davies’ and Wheeler’s claims it is necessary to clarify an important point (or as Mark Matter would have it, “muddy the water”) by briefly mentioning an interpretive premise they share regarding quantum mechanics which is part of the Copenhagen interpretation:

[The] Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics ... treats “observing” as a completely distinct kind of natural phenomenon, one that requires a separate law of nature.
preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere ... e/quantum/

Everything they say follows from this premise. If observation is a fundamental law of nature then of course it follows that, in Wheeler’s words, we live in a “participatory universe”.

So, basically they use a questionable interpretation of an unexplained quantum phenomenon to explain the existence of the universe.

The question remains: are the insights cited in the OP coincidence, lucky guesses, or were ahead of their time?

Neither, it is a simple recycling of old ideas - mind or intellect or consciousness coming to know itself via the human mind or intellect of consciousness.

BTW Dark Matter: all three would be better options if you are dropping God.