That which we are seeking to explain . . .

In another discussion website,
Dana pointed out that, when we are seeking
to explain consciousness,
that which we are seeking to explain
is that which is doing the seeking.

Ultimates and Absolutes

The center of a circle has no center.
It IS the center.
It is not the center of itself, because then the center would not be the center.

The beginning has no beginning.

The origin has no origin.

God was not created.
He did not create Himself.
God is the Creator.

= = = = =

How Many Finite Integers are There?

.

An integer is a whole number, like 1, 3, 99 and so forth.  Non-integers are fractions, such as 1/3, 5/4, and 99.5

No matter how large a finite integer is, you can always add one to it, without reaching infinity. 

This fact can be expressed as “Let X = X+1,” in repeating form, so that X continues to increase endlessly.

Simply stated, it is, in effect, counting from one, toward infinity, but never getting there.

As a consequence of this recursion, it is stated by experts that there must be an infinite number of finite integers.

But this makes no sense.  It sounds like a self-contradiction.  How can we make sense of it?

Let’s start with the title of George Gamow’s seminal (and short) book, 1,2,3. . .Infinity.  The title itself brings up the question, how high do we have to count to reach infinity?

The answer, of course, is that no matter how high we count, by ones, we never reach infinity.  If we count by twos, we get the same result, never getting there.  If we count by millions or trillions, the same.  If we multiply by the square of the previous number—if we raise any finite number X to the finite power of Y—no matter what we do with finite numbers, we never, ever, reach infinity.

But the paradox remains.  How can there be an infinite number of finite integers, without ever reaching infinity?  It seems nonsensical.

Let’s look at the problem from a different angle.  Let’s consider a line segment of finite length.  You can easily draw one on a sheet of paper with a pencil and a straight-edge ruler.  Any convenient length will do.

Next, let us begin repeatedly dividing that line.  First, divide it in half, and then divide the half into halves, then one of those halves into half, and so forth.  What you get are line segments of ½, ¼, 1/8, 1/16 and so forth.  How many times can the line be divided?  You can quickly see that (in principle) there is no end to it.  You never get a line segment so small that to divide it again would result in a length of zero.

But wait.  If you could (but you can’t) divide the line an infinite number of times, you would get a length of zero.  In fact, according to geometry, any finite line segment consists of an infinite number of geometric points, each of which has a length of zero.  Confused?  Yeah, me too.

Perhaps this will allow us, then, to (at least in principle) count from one, two, three, . . . all the way to the end of the line, to infinity.  Will it?

No.  Here is why.  To count, point by point, from one end of the line to the other, one would have to bear in mind that the length of each point is zero.  Therefore, any finite number of zeros adds up to zero.  Five times zero is zero.  Five kazillion times zero is still zero.  Since zero is the length of the first (endmost) point, one never gets past the first point.  Traveling a length of one point, two points, ten, a million or any finite number of points, never gets you past point one.  Never.

However, you can get to point infinity.  You do it by moving a finite length, either part way along the line, or all at once.  Each finite length of the line contains an infinite number of points, but never a finite number of points (which as we said, is zero length).

If you have trouble picturing this, you are in good company.  Nobody can fully understand it.  Some people think they can, but they are just too embarrassed to admit that we are as smart as they are, because they have degrees and titles, and what good are those if they are no smarter than you and me?

In my humble (haha) opinion, there is a way out of the paradox.  It is to make a distinction between the words, “infinite” and “endless.”  In the dictionary, they are the same, but in math and geometry, they have different implications, subtle but important.  The word, “infinite,” carries the implication that you got there, you got to infinity, simply by moving any finite distance along a line.  Any such movement travels an infinite number of points.  You got there.  But “endless” means you are never done, you always have further to go, as in “Let X = X + 1.” 

Is there any practical point to all this?  Scientists think so, and so do philosophers.  You see, there is a question as to whether space is continuous, or grainy.  Is space analog, or digital?

The ancient Greeks gave this some thought, and they came up with an ingenious answer to the question of space.  It’s grainy, that is, there is a unit of space that is of finite size, but so unimaginably small that, because of the very nature of space, no smaller size exists. It is called, the Planck Length.

How did they figure this out?  They took the example we used, of a line segment with an infinite number of zero-length points, and realized that, if space were like that, we could never move.  No matter how many points of length we might move, the distance moved would add up to zero.  Even if, somehow, we could move an infinite number of points at a time, then the finite distance we moved could be any distance at all, since an infinite number of points includes a line of one inch, one meter, or a kazillion miles.

Only by moving a finite number of Planck Lengths can we ever move at all.

So, how many finite integers are there?  We never get to the answer.

-
-
-

Why is the Universe as it Is?

 “Explain, as you would a child.”

--General Sarris, brutal commander of a space-battle-ship crewed by Fatu-Krey soldiers, in the movie, Galaxy Quest.

http://extraterrestrials.wikia.com/wiki/Sarris

 

= = = = =

 

The world is not flat.  It is a sphere.  Nobody knows why.

 

Oh wait, you say.  Of course we know why.   Scientists have explained it to us, as would they, to a child.  But they are wrong.  They have no idea why the world is round.  Their explanation is based on after-the-fact discovery that the world is indeed round.  Once you know that what you are explaining is certainly a fact, it is relatively simple to gather more facts, and then claim that these “more” facts explain the first fact.

 

But then, how do you explain the “more” facts, except with even more, “more” facts?

 

Now all this may seem silly, at first, but it is not.  It is simply a child-like way of explaining to adults how to answer a child’s simple questions.  Why is the sky blue?  Why is grass green?  Why do we fall down instead of up?  The more we explain, the more the child questions those explanations.

 

We never get to the final answer.

 

When scientists explain to us why the world is round, they explain to us that gravity attracts atoms to each other, and these atoms clump together into a ball shape.  The ball gets bigger and bigger, until it forms into a star or a planet or some other body.

 

Of course, all this is brilliant as far as it goes, but then, how far does it really go?  Why does gravity attract instead of repel?  Why is gravity as strong as it is, and neither stronger nor weaker?  And then there is the even bigger question, why is there gravity at all?  Why can’t there just be no gravity?

 

Why is there a universe?  Why is the universe the way it is?  Why is it exactly, precisely the way it is?  Could it have been any different?   A little?  A lot?

 

Scientists tell us that the universe is the way it is because it is governed (or shaped) by something called physical constants.  These physical constants seem to be nothing more than numbers.  There is a number for the strength of gravity.  It is written as 6.674×10⁻¹¹ N·kg^–2·m².

 

These physical constants have to be within exceedingly narrow limits in order for there to be life, civilization and technology.  Even the tiniest variation in the cosmological constant would make it impossible for atoms to exist, and therefore of course, humans.

 

There are two possible explanations for why the universe appears to be fine tuned to support us.  One explanation is Intelligent Design (or God).  Another is random chance.

 

Neither of these explanations is acceptable to physicalist scientists.  The “God” theory, or anything similar, is rejected for reasons that seem unclear to us, unless it is simply an insurmountable bias.  The random chance theory is, by its very nature, too unlikely to be plausible.

 

So then, what is left?

 

Scientists have found a way to make the random chance theory work—or, so they think.  Instead of depending on chance to make our one universe as it is, they have supposed that there are vast numbers of universes—so many, in fact, that no matter how small the chance of a universe like ours, there are so many chances that at least one of them is almost sure to happen.  Roll the dice enough times, and all combinations will eventually appear.

 

But wait.  Why does the universe have constants at all?  Why does it have twenty-seven of them, instead of three, or three thousand?  Why are the values of the constants what they are?  Could each of them be any value at all?  Is there no limit?

 

A die roll may land any number from one to six.  No, not really.  If the die is four-sided, it can never land a six.  If it has hundreds of sides, it will rarely land a six.  Dice are not randomly manufactured with random numbers of sides.  The point is, randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters.  Those nonrandom parameters must be established by—designed by—by whom?  Cosmic intent?  God?

 

If scientists must improvise to explain away Fine Tuning of our one universe, then how do they explain the constants of the multi-universe which they suppose gives rise to all other universes plus ours?  The many universes hypothesis explains nothing.  It simply adds to the problem.

 

So the challenge to science is, “Explain, as you would a child.”

 

What if Reality Isn't Real?

What follows is my response to an entry in an online discussion forum.
Misha references an article at

https://medium.com/s/story/what-if-reality-isnt-real-1161d7b12256

 

I responded:

First, Misha, I like the title of the original post.

Not only is it philosophically startling, it reveals a great deal about the nature of conjecture.

There are many conjectures masquerading as hypotheses or even, as theories.

However, a conjecture is more a question than an answer.
That is where the, "what if?" comes in.

Whether it be the Simulation Conjecture, the Many Universes Conjecture, or

the Panspermia Conjecture, among others, they are all questions, not answers.

All of them kick the can down the road.
They all pretend to offer answers as to the origin of reality, the origin of
species, the origin of consciousness and so forth.

So they propose that life comes from alien planets, but without considering where

alien life came from.  They propose that our unlikely universe is the product of an even
LESS likely multi-verse.  They propose that we are constructs within a computer,
without considering where the computer came from, where the programmers came from,
and perhaps most curiously of all, are the simulators themselves simulations???

How many layers of simulations are producing simulations of simulations ad infinitum?

How many levels of ever less likely multi-verses are there?
How many levels of origins of origins are there?

These conjectures would be interesting questions if those who make the

conjectures would acknowledge these factors.
Instead, they pose as original thinkers,
when instead they reveal themselves as shallow dabblers in philosophy.

Like me :)  LOL

-
-

 

 

Superposition of Theories?

I will assume that everyone reading this is familiar with the double-slit (DS) experiment, which is perhaps the most often-repeated experiment in quantum physics.

(If not, there are excellent videos on you-tube which even I can understand--the videos, not quantum physics.)

 

The article linked at the end, refers to several and conflicting theories which attempt to explain the experiment, and more importantly to this forum, speak about how these theories cross the line from physics to metaphysics and philosophy.

 

The central core question concerns consciousness.  According to some, the DS experiment demonstrates that human consciousness governs the behavior of subatomic wave-particles.  According to others, the experiment demonstrates no such thing.

 

Continuing research is being done in an attempt to resolve the conflicts, but these are hampered by the inability to clearly define basic terms such as "consciousness" and "measurement."  These two words at first may seem clear and straightforward, until we think more deeply into them, whereupon the very word, "think," become problematical.

 

The bottom line is that, as of now, there is no bottom line.  One is reminded of the maxim, "It's turtles all the way down."

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=space&utm_content=link&utm_term=2018-09-13_featured-this-week

-

Faith

Faith in God is for some, elusive.  “If only I could be sure.”  Why doesn’t God simply make it undeniably plain and clear that He exists?  Why are we left to doubt, even to deny?  And yet, for some, their faith is more valuable than life itself.

Why, then, this dichotomy between believers and unbelievers?

 

For those who espouse reason as their basis for belief or disbelief, in anything, faith is often decried.  To believe something without proof seems the utmost folly.

 

The late Bishop Fulton J Sheen stated that faith cannot be arrived at through reason, but that once faith is used as the starting point, it enhances reason.

 

A loose analogy can be made between faith and romantic love.  One does not arrive at love through a process of reason.  To be sure, reason can play a useful moderating role, but one does not begin from a neutral start and then reason his way to falling in love.  A man may list certain requirements that a prospective wife must have, but he does not compile a list of candidates, review their résumés, and then without meeting any of them, select one, and sight unseen, fall in love with her.  There is a necessary emotional component, a compulsion to love one’s spouse that arises from intangible factors, not from a structured format.  This love can even develop over time in the context of an arranged marriage.

 

Granted, no analogy is perfect, and this one surely has its weaknesses, but the comparison can be useful.  Faith is more than just an academic belief that, there must be a God.  It may begin with that, but along the way there must develop a relationship, a continuum of experience that either reinforces or else undermines one’s faith.  For those who live their faith, they find that it does not violate reason, but rather that it transcends reason; it imbues their lives with a sense of purpose and value that neither violates mathematics, nor can be formulated by it.

 

This explains much of the chasm between faithful people and unbelievers, for they speak two different languages, neither of which can be readily translated into the other.  The reasoning person may become frustrated at his inability to communicate his skepticism to a believer, while the believer suffers from an inability to persuade the doubter, an inability that is increased by attempts to persuade by means of reason alone.

 

There is no shortcut.  People of faith do well simply to attest that they believe in God, to bear witness to the fruits of their faith, but then to leave it at that.  The unbeliever will, when he is ready, observe how his own life is going, observe the lives of the faithful, and then make his own decision.

 

That decision may disappoint us, but as our faith increases, we come to understand that God allows each individual to freely choose for himself.  As Joshua in the Bible said, as for me and my family, we will serve the Lord.