A wise deity would manifest a world which would make sense in and of itself. Which means that dwellers of said world would be able to observe how it works, and there wouldn’t be any ‘magic’ to that. Or in other words the design would be reasoned through, and we wouldn’t find ‘magic’ in it’s existence.
This means that either:
1.There is a God [or other deities] but the world exists by itself ~ such to make sense.
2.There is no God and the world is the same as if the above deity exists.
3.That there is a God, but s/he only made it such to make sense in part, and we will ultimately find there to be ‘magic’, and that the world doesn’t make sense [isn’t of it’s own reason or order].
And in all of those possible cases, the whole She-Bang is just for the benefit of entities whose reasoning works in just this particular way -i.e. anthropoid apes.
Wonder how many of those are scattered about the Cosmos?
Because a study of the world from the perspective of any equivalent intelligence to humans [or greater], will yield the same truths.
Secondly, this argument is detracting from the original philosophy; the world does make sense or it does not, if either, then the respective argument stands. learn how to debate properly.
Life is self ordering…the more order, the more consciousness…
There couldn’t be a life that didn’t make much sense, because the consciousness would be so low, time would travel really fast, and the organism wouldn’t be intelligent enough to question itself.
There was no wise deity who created the sensible the world. Whatever was there, became wise later by learning through trial and error. It is a journey from omnipotence to omniscience, and deities and humans are necessary parts of that process.
Let’s put it another way.
Suppose all the intelligent species that exist, have ever existed or ever can evolve in the universe have the same kind of “sense”. In that case, the universe - its ubiquitous laws, materials and processes - will have formed all of the intelligent entities in the same way, with the same biology, and eventually, a similar nervous system. In that case, how could the universe, its laws, materials and processes, not make sense to any of those entities? Their very notion of “sense” derive from those same processes.
Whether they have the imagination to invent gods or not.
Interesting, but that which lies existentially beyond a given universe, would already contain the full information set from previous incarnations of universe? Equally, the place prior to universe is the same place as what is there post universe [is eternal time]. In which case it would contain the full knowledge/info/wisdom set from the universe before the universe occurs.
ergo whatever is there, is eternal time + has omniscience.
As for omnipotency, or a creator God, for the universe to make sense it must existentially hold it’s own means [force + info] and essence [energy] of being.
The whole thing feels like the Tao to me, but also it must have intelligence such to be omniscient. …unless it doesn’t know anything but contains information a bit like a computer?
For that to be true we would have to assume that it doesnt have intelligence in at least what we humans have. If we consider that the eternal is the fundamental metaphysical [outside of universes] stateless nature of existence, then it must contain everything as a oneness [so, being, consciousness, subconsciousness etc].
humunculus
Interesting point! I like the idea that the only thing which survives is the means to our existence in the first place. But can all of that derive from something which doesnt have any of those qualities? How can we intelligent beings derive from non-intelligence? I mean i know about the science, but we cannot look at any of that and see what and who we are, what we see/hear/experience, so there are non-physical things and there is a greater reality to universe [so non-’physical’too].
Don’t you think time must have an eternal quality, such to remove the problem of origins? [prime mover etc]
_
That was an implied and necessary condition to your caveat that “sense” is the same from the point of view of all sentient being. The only way you can posit such a universal apprehension is to posit also a universal basis for intelligence. That could only be the universe itself…
… because the only intelligence we actually know first hand is all one species, and in that tiny sample of all the possible intelligences, there are a thousand variations on the creation story, but all stone axes and cooking pots look pretty much alike.
I don’t see the logic. If you know the science, you do see what we are objectively, while “who” we are is an introspective question, which can only be answered subjectively. Why does either of those self-preoccupations require a non-physical external reality, and what would make that reality “greater”, on what scale of size?
No. I think H. sapiens is altogether too fascinated by his own belly button.
A truer statement would be that all animals have intelligence, just in varying degrees and lesser than that of humans. I’ve seen walruses solve logic puzzles i would struggle with at first. They are as alive as we are, some are as aware and perceptive as humans, they have languages e.g. Of smell, & only lack in some comparative tools of the intellect.
Which makes intelligence a global!
An observation of an electrical signal doesn’t yield music, thought or colour etc. So yes i am in fact looking right at it!
‘Who’ includes ‘what’, or it is referring to nothing. An objective look at what we are will tell us something about who we are, but we have to include metaphysical factors, like awareness, perception and qualia, all being experienced. Otherwise you would be saying that music or colour qualia doesn’t exist, or that there isn’t something of you observing.
It’s a question concerning what ‘real’ means, primarily i’d say that; ‘what is observable, is a real’. Reality itself is greater than the universe, and it doesn’t make sense for the greater reality to be less-real or not at all real.
Ergo; reality is more than physics!
Of course they do; of course it is. But consider the globe.
The point I was trying to make is that your knowledge is limited to the inhabitants of one single planet in an insignificant corner of one single galaxy - and even there, the notions of a creator vary, while the notions of reality do not. From that, I infer that reality is external, while deities are in the imagination of the humans who make stories.
The fact that hominids are like walruses is obviously the effect of deriving from the same original clump of ambitious RNA in a puddle on Earth. That commonality cannot inform you about all the intelligent life-forms on all the habitable planets in all of the cosmos -
therefore, the presupposition that they would all have the same sense of “making sense” must be based on some commonality of all possible biospheres: an external reality.
No, it doesn’t. ‘What’ precedes, but does not anticipate, ‘who’. ‘What’ refers to all things.
A crystal of salt is a what, but not a ‘who’ - unless it used to be Lot’s wife, but the woman was not in the salt originally.
It might, if we have sufficient information to make a framework for the new information we gain.
If that block of salt were brought into the laboratory, much would depend on its condition upon arrival. For example, is it intact? If so, the forensic technicians could see that it’s the shape of a human female, but might assume that it had been sculpted. In order to know that it had once been a living person, the remains would have to be organic. If an un-transubstantiated, but macerated human corpse arrives, they can tell that what age, size, sex it had been, no more. If it’s in perfect condition, they can tell quite a lot more about the person’s style of life and manner of death.
‘Who’ must include a ‘what’, because we can’t perceive disembodied personality. But there are a great many things in the world that have physical properties, but no personality.
Those questions all relate to an intelligence, of which the existence is a given and the characteristics are assumed. They can’t be tested in the same way as light and sound: the devices for measuring the effects of e.g. awareness on experience haven’t been invented (?yet).
That sounds like an unprovable opinion with its own built-in conclusion.
It depends on your definition of the universe. If my definition is “everything that exists” then my ‘ergo’ is “nothing can be greater”.
Einstein’s all-time is greater than the present, and it includes historical things which the current universe no longer possesses. > if the universe is cyclic and there was something prior to it [otherwise infinite 0 to begin with], then that or a cyclic universe presents a greater reality.
In any case of containing sphere’s, there will logically be a third container for every two or more sets. Unless you are saying that historical things and all-time don’t/haven’t exist or aren’t real, then we have to conclude their to be a greater reality than universe!
As to the rest; patterns and behaviours are the only things which survive. Intelligence will always occur, because the means by which it came into existence are causal.
Do the containing spheres stop at three or do they go on to six, nine and all further multiples of three? If that’s the case, is the universe inside the first sphere, or are all containing spheres that contain containing spheres part of the universe? Is there an authoritative ruling on this, or do we choose definitions of “universe”?
I might say that with some conviction.
You can, but we don’t have to.
Survive what? The death of the body? The end of history? The universe? All-time?
But the causal means by which a particular kind of life-form came into existence are not guaranteed to be present together at any given place. Most of the planets within our field of observation have no life on them at all. The only one that we know for sure did give rise to life did so only once (as far as we know), even though all the necessary elements were known to present on this planet. How do you know that it would ever happen again, anywhere - let alone evolve into intelligence, let alone evolve into the same kind of intelligence?