Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Free Will

[Kyriakos]

Ahh I see. Would you say that the Fibonacci sequence or any other sequence of integers (i.e. 1,2,3,4,5,6,etc. or 1,4,6,8,10,12,etc.) falls under this "existent pattern in teh cosmos" or do you see something even more special about integers?

The prime numbers are the best example due to Eratosthenes

(yeah, you or i could have used a different existent pattern in math, for the same argument, although just the sequence of integers, or a sequence of integers with a non-apparently significant pattern causing the alternations between them is obviously a different phenomenon)

 

[Souron]

Prime numbers can indeed be argued not to be part of the "creation", but they can also be argued to be part of it. If they weren't, that would relegate a creator god to something still bound by the natural laws. A programmer is not really bound to use a specific code though, and if he is a very notable one, he might even create his own coding language

If God is said to be a part of what physically exists, then he is part of nature and by definition bound by natural laws. That doesn't mean that he's not omnipotent or in anyway limited in what he can do. It just means that whatever his relationship and interaction with the rest of what exists is, we can describe it.

If God doesn't physically exist, then how can he do physical things?

I recognize the desire to ascribe to God everything that is not evil. So without thinking too much about it, it's easy to say that things like prime numbers show the marvel of God. Especially since there is beauty in mathematics. But to create the universe and to "create" the prime numbers are very different things. The universe was allegedly created at a particular time. Mathematics is timeless.

As a programmer myself, I don't get the programmer analogy. I suggest you use analogies to things you understand better yourself.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's ok, i just thought it would be easier for others to see, if i used some analogy involving a term everyone here is familiar with. Besides, already from your first sentence you limited the scope of the possible understanding of what a god may be like to something entirely insignificant. In my thread where i posed the question of the various main different possibilities for relations between a god and a cosmos, the idea that a god was part of the cosmos was just one of the possibilities, not the end-all.

So in general it appears your point reveals at least a similar lack of understanding than the one it possibly was built to climax in accusing another of

FYI the notion that a god would have to be bound by physical laws, is so old that even Descartes specifically dismissed it in his own philosophical work as pretty much a harkening back to the popular idea of pagan gods who were mostly super-beings in the world.

 

[Souron]

It's ok, i just thought it would be easier for others to see, if i used some analogy involving a term everyone here is familiar with. Besides, already from your first sentence you limited the scope of the possible understanding of what a god may be like to something entirely insignificant. In my thread where i posed the question of the various main different possibilities for relations between a god and a cosmos, the idea that a god was part of the cosmos was just one of the possibilities, not the end-all.

So in general it appears your point reveals at least a similar lack of understanding than the one it possibly was built to climax in accusing another of

FYI the notion that a god would have to be bound by physical laws, is so old that even Descartes specifically dismissed it in his own philosophical work as pretty much a harkening back to the popular idea of pagan gods who were mostly super-beings in the world.

You're reading more into the words I say than what I mean by them. I'm not saying that God must be bound or limited by the law of gravity. What I am saying is that the nature of Nature is utterable, and that utterance would be called the laws of Nature. It's a dismissal of the distinction between spirits and physical things, because I think such a distinction confuses things. My semantics requires God be part of Nature if God is to be said to exist in the same sense that physical things exist.

In your definition of the cosmos, it may be possible to exist outside of it. And saying that may underscore a particular point that you think is important enough to make that distinction. But my saying that God must be part of the cosmos is not necessarily a contradiction to that.

The reason I suggest this definition is to point out the difference between that kind of existence and Creation, and the "Creation" of prime numbers. I cannot class the pattern of primes in the same category as physical things.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't see much interest in a deity that is supposedly linked to "matter" (moreso in the strict sense of it, which does not clearly echoe the possibility that matter itself is something different to a non-human observer, let alone a deity) but not to mathematical patterns. Surely if a deity exists, it would have to be linked to any pattern that is meaningful in the cosmos, otherwise why should it be seen as a deity? I mean i can use a computer well, it doesn't mean i made the computer. The computer is not aware of me, but i am aware that the object termed "computer" in front of me exists. Still doesn't mean i am a deity to the computer. But if i had created the computer, i would be its creator. Still wouldn't mean i am a deity to it. But if i had created everything in the cosmos, yeah, i would tend to think this would suffice for me to be termed its deity, regardless if my own status was outside the cosmos, where i might be something again not deity-like to other objects in my outer-cosmic environment.

Keep in mind that a deity can be conscious, non-conscious, or anything in between. It is not just some supposed super-being that has amazing powers next to a human.

 

[timtofly]

I don't see much interest in a deity that is supposedly linked to "matter" (moreso in the strict sense of it, which does not clearly echoe the possibility that matter itself is something different to a non-human observer, let alone a deity) but not to mathematical patterns. Surely if a deity exists, it would have to be linked to any pattern that is meaningful in the cosmos, otherwise why should it be seen as a deity?

There could be a deity that chooses not to reveal itself, yet still "holds together" everything physical. Just because humans have figured out certain things about the universe, does not make them that special. It just means they have a knowledge other living things do not. Trying to find a deity that one understands, would leave out all deities that can not be understood.

I mean i can use a computer well, it doesn't mean i made the computer. The computer is not aware of me, but i am aware that the object termed "computer" in front of me exists. Still doesn't mean i am a deity to the computer. But if i had created the computer, i would be its creator. Still wouldn't mean i am a deity to it. But if i had created everything in the cosmos, yeah, i would tend to think this would suffice for me to be termed its deity, regardless if my own status was outside the cosmos, where i might be something again not deity-like to other objects in my outer-cosmic environment.

Try forming the computer from your own attributes and then give it awareness, tell it that it can only exist within you, but that you choose to let it figure everything out on it's own.

Keep in mind that a deity can be conscious, non-conscious, or anything in between. It is not just some supposed super-being that has amazing powers next to a human.

How would a human know a deity, unless they create it? There is also a deity that we know nothing about, yet still exist, because this deity created all things, and without this deity nothing would exist, seen or unseen. We know nothing about this deity, unless this deity reveals it to us. I am sure that this makes no sense, because there is nothing to hold as proof. It is true that being self aware comes with the question why am I even aware. Not to mention all the other why's that can be asked. I suppose we could just default to what exist came into existence out of nothing.

 

[Kyriakos]

^ I surely agree that it is highly likely we can only define a deity (whether it exists or not) in human terms, whereas there is no reason to believe that if a deity exists it has to be presentable with human definitions.
But then again we cannot define natural laws in any other way than in human terms. It still makes perfect sense to study them, since that leads to new discoveries, which in turn may provide a different model that will further increase our understanding of the cosmos. Which is why i am idealistic but non-nihilist, in the sense that i am of the view we cannot escape a human way of thinking, moreover that the cosmos does not really appear to be limited to it, and finally that this should not disable us from continuing the study the cosmos. Progress is made in human thought, regardless of where it may lead (probably it won't lead to a 'non-human' thought anyway, nomatter how it expands).

 

[Souron]

Trying to find a deity that one understands, would leave out all deities that can not be understood.

This is only true if it's possible for something to be indescribable. That within infinite domain of mathematics there isn't a vocabulary that describes the particular physics of God and everything else. That there is a pattern that cannot be described but is still somehow a pattern, and not trivial chaos.

Now it's true that there are consents that are hard to get your head around, but that does not make them incomprehensible. About 100 years ago, quantum theory was thought to be incomprehensible to all but the genius theoretical physicists. But today undergraduates are taught to apply and do math with those same mechanics. And the same can be done with any phenomenon as long as we can formally describe it in the language of mathematics. What phenomenon could be beyond such description?

 

[Kyriakos]

^I too think that, as you said, the domain of mathematics is infinite. But then again there is an infinity of numbers, they never end, but also there is an infinity between any two numbers as well. So, in some way, perhaps our own infinity is not enough to really examine the other types of infinity, although i see no reason why we cannot form theories and patterns which would try to make up for this possible separation

 

[Souron]

^I too think that, as you said, the domain of mathematics is infinite. But then again there is an infinity of numbers, they never end, but also there is an infinity between any two numbers as well. So, in some way, perhaps our own infinity is not enough to really examine the other types of infinity, although i see no reason why we cannot form theories and patterns which would try to make up for this possible separation

Set theory does a decent job of describing the different kinds of infinity, and numbers in general. The largest finite number ever described in a formal context is perhaps "The smallest number bigger than any number that can be named by an expression in the language of first order set-theory with less than a googol (10¹⁰⁰) symbols." And that's just one way of reasoning about numbers. Even if there is some quantity that cannot possibly be described in terms of set theory, there ought to be an alternate mathematics that does describe it.

 

[Kyriakos]

I was talking about infinity both as a term, and a metaphor, which i think is poignant in this discussion since we are dealing with human accounts of a possibly non-human reality. A metaphor is a special pattern as well, part of which is about building a model with familiar materials, of something that is not as easy to define in its own reality and form

 

[timtofly]

^ I surely agree that it is highly likely we can only define a deity (whether it exists or not) in human terms, whereas there is no reason to believe that if a deity exists it has to be presentable with human definitions.
But then again we cannot define natural laws in any other way than in human terms. It still makes perfect sense to study them, since that leads to new discoveries, which in turn may provide a different model that will further increase our understanding of the cosmos. Which is why i am idealistic but non-nihilist, in the sense that i am of the view we cannot escape a human way of thinking, moreover that the cosmos does not really appear to be limited to it, and finally that this should not disable us from continuing the study the cosmos. Progress is made in human thought, regardless of where it may lead (probably it won't lead to a 'non-human' thought anyway, nomatter how it expands).

It could be said the more that God reveals himself, the more one knows about God?

This is only true if it's possible for something to be indescribable. That within infinite domain of mathematics there isn't a vocabulary that describes the particular physics of God and everything else. That there is a pattern that cannot be described but is still somehow a pattern, and not trivial chaos.

Now it's true that there are consents that are hard to get your head around, but that does not make them incomprehensible. About 100 years ago, quantum theory was thought to be incomprehensible to all but the genius theoretical physicists. But today undergraduates are taught to apply and do math with those same mechanics. And the same can be done with any phenomenon as long as we can formally describe it in the language of mathematics. What phenomenon could be beyond such description?

God would be indescribable to most. That seems to be a major theme of the Bible. I can only assume that like understanding mathematics, understanding God would unfold in just the same way.

Set theory does a decent job of describing the different kinds of infinity, and numbers in general. The largest finite number ever described in a formal context is perhaps "The smallest number bigger than any number that can be named by an expression in the language of first order set-theory with less than a googol (10¹⁰⁰) symbols." And that's just one way of reasoning about numbers. Even if there is some quantity that cannot possibly be described in terms of set theory, there ought to be an alternate mathematics that does describe it.

Can a person get mired in thinking a certain way, that even mathematics comes to a halt and nothing more can be learned, unless such a person can get past the sticking point?

I was talking about infinity both as a term, and a metaphor, which i think is poignant in this discussion since we are dealing with human accounts of a possibly non-human reality. A metaphor is a special pattern as well, part of which is about building a model with familiar materials, of something that is not as easy to define in its own reality and form

Can a metaphor ever become reality? If one is stuck in just metaphors where does that leave reality?

 

[Kyriakos]

Can a metaphor ever become reality? If one is stuck in just metaphors where does that leave reality?

I think that this is a great question

Most of the time metaphors are only in a relatively small part accurate at depicting the pattern or relation that they refer to, which belongs to another system of objects, or something far more abstract.
Although a metaphor can, in theory, become so intricate that it no longer really presents something in the world it is still a metaphor in, i am not sure if it can be said that such a metaphor would actually be part of the reality of that to which it refers.

Maybe, to use another metaphor, it would be a bit like feeling one is falling inside an abyss, by imagining it or remembering some dream where that happened, and then trying to examine through that feeling how it would be to really be falling in an abyss. Maybe the two won't have to be experienced in widely different ways, but the fact remains that the first are something constructed, the second is a reality of an abyss and a fall there.

 

[Souron]

I was talking about infinity both as a term, and a metaphor, which i think is poignant in this discussion since we are dealing with human accounts of a possibly non-human reality. A metaphor is a special pattern as well, part of which is about building a model with familiar materials, of something that is not as easy to define in its own reality and form

Perhaps what can be said of the metaphor can be said about the real thing. That is the point of a metaphor after all. The vastness of Divinity may not be in the domain of set theory precisely, but like numerical infinity it's properties may be described.

 

[Kyriakos]

Perhaps what can be said of the metaphor can be said about the real thing. That is the point of a metaphor after all. The vastness of Divinity may not be in the domain of set theory precisely, but like numerical infinity it's properties may be described.

It is very rare (if not existent only in theory) that a metaphor will actually capture the reality of the other object or objects, or state it refers to. Most of the time the point of using a metaphor is to present a more familiar environment, while alluding to something different which by itself is a lot less evident or easy to examine.

That said, people who use metaphors often, and moreso people who are involved in literature that relies heavily on symbolism, may indeed try to find more precise metaphors.
However it is my view that you can never convey the reality of that which the metaphor is about, something more obvious when that which the metaphor is about remains in some more theoretical realm. (Then again, a complicated web of metaphor, known as an allegory, can act in a different way, but that is another issue...)

So yes, using the term "infinite", can utilise allusions to the mathematical examination of infinite sets (which i was taught many years ago, and vaguely recall). It also can refer to the sense of there being no end in something. Finally, the term "infinite" can even allude to an expansion of something that is so incredibly vast in relation to the capacities of the person who examines it, that it can be put to rest in his mind more easily if the singural term "infinite" is used, no matter that perhaps the expansive entity is not by definition an infinite one. Most of the time writers focus on some parts of the possible allusions. But all of the different allusions are active in any word.

 

[strijder20]

The prime numbers are the best example due to Eratosthenes

(yeah, you or i could have used a different existent pattern in math, for the same argument, although just the sequence of integers, or a sequence of integers with a non-apparently significant pattern causing the alternations between them is obviously a different phenomenon)

Why do we consider those prime numbers to be an omnipresent pattern in the cosmos? This might sound odd, but it possible isn't - maybe we're fooling ourselves and mathematics is a human construct with few applications beyond our limited knowledge horizon.
Not that I believe that.

 

[Kyriakos]

It is not out of the question that mathematics (or parts of them) are indeed only existent due to the particular human observer who notices such rules and patterns.
On the other hand this does not mean they are not significant for the cosmos on account of that alone, since humans are obviously part of the cosmos.

I am not sure if they are an omnipresent pattern, but then again i tend to think that there are thousands of omnipresent patterns around that we just have not even noticed yet, while in theory we do have the ability to do so, even if only from the human perspective (which again does not have to be the entire phenomenon there is in the cosmos, but it will be part of it, or a translation of it to our own human language/science).

 

[Kyriakos]

Is this thread dead? It was one of the more interesting ones here

 

[timtofly]

Have we not settled in our minds the quest of the OP?

 

[Linkman226]

I would say so.