Logical Proof of I.D. of Infinite Universe.

[Nicholas I. Hosein]

This is an interpretation of Christopher M. Langan's CTMU and Russell E. Rierson's mathematical argument for the existence of God:


For the purpose of this argument, I will define reason as not simply modelling thought after the process of cause and effect, but the process of cause and effect themselves.

All cause and effect are processes too. Therefore, reason is also the process of process.

Existence is an effect. All effects have cause. Where there is effect, there is cause. [By definition, cause is that which precedes effect. But also, effect can precede effect.]Hence, existence is[can be] simultaneous(ly) cause and effect. Since reason is a process, and all processes are cause and effect, existence is reason.

Existence is reasonable. But reason is just a word, an expression bounded by definition not so unconstrained as the definition of "Being". To exist means "TO BE". This is a first principle which forms the basis of existence itself. Loosely, we can call it 'the definition of definition'. Bringing the word of existence to a status beyond definition. To a status of "unknown" definition.

Cause and effect define structure. Therefore, process itself defines structure. Since existence is reason, and existence is cause and effect. Reason defines structure.


Existence is reason(able).


Existence takes place..............................................................................................................................defining time.


All definitions are structures of that which is defined. Hence, defining time is a structure. The structure of content is known as "syntax". Where existence is content, time is the syntax of existence. Hence, reason and existence are defined through time. Mind sustainsmemory which maps time and hence existence. If something does not exist, but has once existed, the information about that something can be remembered. Yet, if something does not exist, and has never existed, the information about that nothing can too be remembered. Hence, nothing is simultaneously something which is information.

This being true, the universe is indeed infinite.

In the infinity of the universe, infinite structure is yet infinite randomness. Absolute chaos is absolute order.

|chaos| = |order|

A paradox. Existence is a dynamic, self-resolving paradox. In other words, chaos is contained by an "unknown" order. This "unknown" order, contains all order. Containment is the act or process of containing. Since containment is a process, it defines structure. Hence, order is structure.

Structure is defined by reason. Where there is order, there is reason. Order is reason.

The universe is indeed infinite. It is infinite information. The baffling ineffectual yet effectual simultaneous nature of infinity as both something and nothing is a reason that contains information that cannot be comprehended finitely, yet, all information is contained by reason. For reason to exist, it is necessary that mind exist. The universe is a mind.


Nicholas I. Hosein
nickhosein@msn.com

 

[Katazia]

We have already had a thread on this and I believe the overwhelming conclusion was that Langan's ideas on this and his claimed proof was gibberish.

You do not appear to be offering anything new.

Kat

 

[Nicholas I. Hosein]

Assuming your "(666 posts)" is just a coincidence I should like to know in what way is a logical proof of God gibberrish?

Nicholas I. Hosein
nickhosein@msn.com

 

[pavlosmarcos]

logical proof of God

well that statement is a contradiction,
you cant put logical, and a god/gods in the same sentence.
to start with.
you'll get used to us.

 

[Katazia]

I should like to know in what way is a logical proof of God gibberrish?

When it isn't a proof.

 

[Raithere]

I should like to know in what way is a logical proof of God gibberrish?

"I will define reason as not simply modelling thought after the process of cause and effect, but the process of cause and effect themselves."

"For reason to exist, it is necessary that mind exist."

It's a word game, Nicholas, not logic. You redefine 'reason' to mean cause and effect then run through a bunch of unrelated nonsense and conclude for reason to exist mind must exist. Of course the conclusion alone sounds logical. But given the initial redefinition all that has been stated is the assertion that 'for cause and effect to exist mind has to exist'. It's a non sequitur. You've provided no argument for your conclusion.

~Raithere

 

[Nicholas I. Hosein]

Whereas experience is limited to the senses, which is basically ourselves, reason is not. Of course reason is based on observation and we may say that in some ways, experience is the foundation of reason, but reason is ultimately a thing existing beyond all things and all definition.

I wanted to introduce reason in such a way so to show it as being evolutionary and having an evolutionary beginning. Meaning this to represent any one cause preceeding any one effect and in so doing, forming the basis for logic as existing apart from being merely a system of thought used in discipline. In the way of Chris Langan's CTMU, such would mean reason is an existence capable of evolving on its own.

Logic has the importance of saying what follows from what. To many it is only a contextual difference away from reason, and although, in some contexts, inductive reasoning can be called logic, there is, or may be, a fundamental way to tell them apart.

We have a diametrically opposing stance, that of the concept of something and of nothing. So we have the concept of something passing into identity equally as much as the concept of nothing, and that identity passing into difference. To exist means "TO BE" is a first principle of no definition, it is not something, but rather the entity that of nothing, it is pure immediacy, which is indeed something that is the very foundation of everything, that of which existence is yet immediacy itself. A self-resolving paradox. That nothing is indeed something is infinitly in diametric opposition and yet for the sake of existence, not. The question becomes: Why?


Nicholas I. Hosein
nickhosein@msn.com

 

[Zero]

I hope that's not your real name.

Bad idea to give out your real name and email out in a public discussion forum. You should've heard the stories about WellCookedFetus stalking people.

 

[Raithere]

reason is ultimately a thing existing beyond all things and all definition.

I disagree. A thorough definition is likely to be self-referential but that does not make it ineffable nor does it demonstrate that is 'beyond all things'. Sorry but this just sounds like a gross attempt to insert the supernatural.

I wanted to introduce reason in such a way so to show it as being evolutionary and having an evolutionary beginning. Meaning this to represent any one cause preceeding any one effect and in so doing, forming the basis for logic as existing apart from being merely a system of thought used in discipline.

What else would it be?

In the way of Chris Langan's CTMU, such would mean reason is an existence capable of evolving on its own.

Ah, I knew I smelled something. Stop reading Langan, he's confusing you.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30739&page=2&pp=30

Logic has the importance of saying what follows from what. To many it is only a contextual difference away from reason, and although, in some contexts, inductive reasoning can be called logic, there is, or may be, a fundamental way to tell them apart.

Sure, logic is a formal system. Reason is typically left undefined, a bit of logic, a bit of presupposition, and a lot of subjectivity.

We have a diametrically opposing stance, that of the concept of something and of nothing. So we have the concept of something passing into identity equally as much as the concept of nothing, and that identity passing into difference.

Beg pardon? Are you speak of creation ex nihilo?

To exist means "TO BE" is a first principle of no definition, it is not something, but rather the entity that of nothing, it is pure immediacy, which is indeed something that is the very foundation of everything, that of which existence is yet immediacy itself. A self-resolving paradox. That nothing is indeed something is infinitly in diametric opposition and yet for the sake of existence, not. The question becomes: Why?

It seems you've been infected with Langan's struggle with duality, not to mention his confused loquacity. Here's a hint; duality is a conceptual problem not an existent one. The resolution lies in the redefinition of the concepts in opposition; reexamine your premises.

~Raithere

 

[Nicholas I. Hosein]

Apart from the increasing evidence suggesting that the universe is infinite, to pronounce the concept of omnipotence by definition it is necessary that we demonstrate that the universe be infinite. There is no direct way of percieving this and so if it were, we will never know. However, with a little earnest thought, if we were to question what a hypothetical boundary were to consist of, we would find that percieving the appearance of a boundary is less logically absurd than that of an actual boundary.

There are countless galaxies. These galaxies are suspect of lending credence to the comfort zone of human egocentricity. Mounting evidence is showing that the universe is very much empty much like a vacuum.

So if the universe is indeed infinite, from where did the laws of physics and the necessary prerequisite conditions for life emerge?

In an infinite universe, randomness occurs as does order. But that is not to say that anything can happen. For instance, can there exist a planet of unicorns in which one can disobey the laws of physics? No. However, where the laws of physics obey the laws of geometry, the laws of other mathematics have an opportunity to rule over physics in an infinite universe.

The universal constants are precisely balanced such that the laws of physics remain consistent throughout the universe. But, if it is possible for the universal constants to vary even by a billionth of a decimal place, it inevitably does and the variation gives rise to a new universe of physical laws. This would mean that the infinite universe is actually a multi-verse of constants. If so, then it is possible for unicorns to exist. It would also be possible for an omnipotence to exist. If an omnipotence can exist in one logically possible universe, it exists in every logically possible universe.

I posit that the big bang was merely an initiation of the galaxies, not the universe. It has been said that during the big bang, the universal constants varied. Hence, we have an argument for omnipotence.

1. We know that randomness is logically absurd.

2. If physical laws gave the appearance of consistency or time-dependency, they would still be consistent independently of time.

3. If this is true, then randomness or "change" takes place "defining time".

4. Since randomness defines time, and the physical laws are time-independent, then where did they come from?

5. The laws of physics are a set of organizing principles.

6. The only example of an organizing principle we have is that of a "MIND".

7. The universe is of MIND.


Nicholas I. Hosein
nickhosein@msn.com

 

[Cris]

Nic,

So if the universe is indeed infinite, from where did the laws of physics and the necessary prerequisite conditions for life emerge?

This presupposes that the laws of physics had to emerge from somewhere, why? If the universe is infinite then the most logical assumption is that the laws of physics have always existed. And why isn’t the theory of abiogenesis good enough to explain life?

…if it is possible for the universal constants to vary even by a billionth of a decimal place, it inevitably does and the variation gives rise to a new universe of physical laws.

No I don’t think that is a logical conclusion. It would seem more logical to argue that this universe exists because of the exact nature of these so called universal constants. The implication is that if they were any different then the result would not represent a viable universe.

This would mean that the infinite universe is actually a multi-verse of constants.

But the combinations would be limited and not infinite. If too many constants were different then we have again the issue of viability. For example if one code in DNA is changed then that could result in disease and if too many are changed then the human would not have sufficient coherency to survive.

If so, then it is possible for unicorns to exist.

No not really. You haven’t really shown possibility and you haven’t overcome improbability.

It would also be possible for an omnipotence to exist.

The crux of your argument and I don’t believe your premises are adequately valid to make this conclusion.

If an omnipotence can exist in one logically possible universe, it exists in every logically possible universe.

That is a non-sequitur. If the omnipotence exists in one universe it is because of the changes in the constants according to your argument. It doesn’t follow that it could survive in any of the other different universes.

I posit that the big bang was merely an initiation of the galaxies, not the universe.

How do you generate an infinite universe from this?

It has been said that during the big bang, the universal constants varied. Hence, we have an argument for omnipotence.

Yes but these constants changed as the universe cooled down, if your omnipotence depends on a particular set of constants in the early stages then it would not be viable in the later stages. At best you would only have a temporary omnipotence.

1. We know that randomness is logically absurd.

We do? At the quantum level randomness and chaos are normal even to the extent that effects can precede their cause.

2. If physical laws gave the appearance of consistency or time-dependency, they would still be consistent independently of time.

That doesn’t seem to make sense. Are they consistent or only appear to be consistent but are really not consistent. And why would they be consistent independent of time? And what does that mean anyway?

3. If this is true, then randomness or "change" takes place "defining time".

Whoosh! Where the heck did that conclusion come from? I don’t see that you have laid down an argument for that.

4. Since randomness defines time, and the physical laws are time-independent, then where did they come from?

I think you’ve missed some major parts to your argument here.

5. The laws of physics are a set of organizing principles.

No not really. The laws of physics simply tell us how the universe behaves.

6. The only example of an organizing principle we have is that of a "MIND".

The mind is not an organizing principle. The human mind is the result of an evolutionary process that has used the laws of physics and the fabric of the universe to produce its undirected product.

7. The universe is of MIND.

Nonsense. The universe is a fabric of basic building blocks connected by laws and within that paradigm continually changing evolutionary processes operate. It has no inherent organization or intelligence.