The First Cause was not God.

[Thief]

If you mean that God is the totality of everything that exists naturally, then I can accept that. One of my favorite quotes...

"I am the light that shines over all things, I am everything. From me all came forth and to me all return. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find me there." TGOT

Apparently HE is able to speak.

 

[nash8]

There was a First Cause. That First Cause was not something supernatural or spiritual. It was not God. It was a naturally existing force or interaction. A Fundamental Force even more fundamental than gravity or electromagnetism. Someday science will find a way to unify the four Fundamental Forces into a single, all-encompassing force. This will be the origin of the universe, the First Cause, the First Interaction.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force..." Max Plank

There is in fact something behind the existence of those Fundamental Forces. That "matrix of all matter" is not God, nor is it a conscious or intelligent mind. I believe it is another naturally existing Fundamental Force or Fundamental Interaction that science just hasn't figured out yet.

I would agree with this for the most part, but instead of a force, I would qualify it as a frequency. A force is simply the measured effect that one frequency exerts on another frequency. Gravity for example is simply a measurement that results when certain frequencies of matter act upon other frequencies of matter.

Secondly I would say that it is conscious and intelligent, but not in the sense that we like to think of in the modern world. It is not conscious in the sense of being sentient, which is how we define conscious and/or intelligence in the modern day, but it is conscious or intelligent that it can react to a stimuli, but it only has the ability to act in one way, in response to it stimulating itself. I believe we had this discussion on another post of yours regarding "quantum animism".

Consciousness or intelligence to me, is simply a reaction to a stimuli. We measure consciousness or intelligence by how many different ways an organism has the ability to react to stimulus. This fundamental particle or "frequency" only reacts in one way in response to its own stimulus effecting itself.

Or conversely, you could look at it from the opposite perspective that it has infinite consciousness. Considering that this fundament frequency/particle composes everything in the universe, than it literally contains the consciousness of the entire universe. But that's a matter of perspective.

 

[idav]

I would agree with this for the most part, but instead of a force, I would qualify it as a frequency. A force is simply the measured effect that one frequency exerts on another frequency. Gravity for example is simply a measurement that results when certain frequencies of matter act upon other frequencies of matter.

Secondly I would say that it is conscious and intelligent, but not in the sense that we like to think of in the modern world. It is not conscious in the sense of being sentient, which is how we define conscious and/or intelligence in the modern day, but it is conscious or intelligent that it can react to a stimuli, but it only has the ability to act in one way, in response to it stimulating itself. I believe we had this discussion on another post of yours regarding "quantum animism".

Consciousness or intelligence to me, is simply a reaction to a stimuli. We measure consciousness or intelligence by how many different ways an organism has the ability to react to stimulus. This fundamental particle or "frequency" only reacts in one way in response to its own stimulus effecting itself.

Or conversely, you could look at it from the opposite perspective that it has infinite consciousness. Considering that this fundament frequency/particle composes everything in the universe, than it literally contains the consciousness of the entire universe. But that's a matter of perspective.

Force s the affect of what it takes to be able to do the work of being from point a to point b. The fundamental particle, asfik is the work, the frequency created by the momentum and as such there is no material.

 

[averageJOE]

I don't know what more you want...I already said the Trinity view of the Christian God, who is the supernatural Creator of the universe and everything in it...who is omni-everything.

Don't know what more you want.

Sooo...is that the Witness's god Jehovah? Or the god of the Westboro Baptist Church? Or the Calvanist god? You gotta be a little more specific because your description fall into all three.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I would agree with this for the most part, but instead of a force, I would qualify it as a frequency. A force is simply the measured effect that one frequency exerts on another frequency. Gravity for example is simply a measurement that results when certain frequencies of matter act upon other frequencies of matter.

Secondly I would say that it is conscious and intelligent, but not in the sense that we like to think of in the modern world. It is not conscious in the sense of being sentient, which is how we define conscious and/or intelligence in the modern day, but it is conscious or intelligent that it can react to a stimuli, but it only has the ability to act in one way, in response to it stimulating itself. I believe we had this discussion on another post of yours regarding "quantum animism".

Consciousness or intelligence to me, is simply a reaction to a stimuli. We measure consciousness or intelligence by how many different ways an organism has the ability to react to stimulus. This fundamental particle or "frequency" only reacts in one way in response to its own stimulus effecting itself.

Or conversely, you could look at it from the opposite perspective that it has infinite consciousness. Considering that this fundament frequency/particle composes everything in the universe, than it literally contains the consciousness of the entire universe. But that's a matter of perspective.

I pretty much agree with your post.

Response to stimuli is a form of interaction. The more complex those interactions become over time, the more ways things respond to stimuli. That is all consciousness is...a complex form of interaction. I don't know whether the First Cause could or should be called a force or not, but definitely something happened, there was an occurance...I call that interaction.



---

 

[Sonofason]

If you mean that God is the totality of everything that exists naturally, then I can accept that. One of my favorite quotes...

"I am the light that shines over all things, I am everything. From me all came forth and to me all return. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find me there." TGOT

I mean, I am not willing to limit God to being just a manlike being. I don't know all of what God is, or what exactly He can be. But I'm not going to attempt to put limits on what He is, or is capable of being.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I mean, I am not willing to limit God to being just a manlike being. I don't know all of what God is, or what exactly He can be. But I'm not going to attempt to put limits on what He is, or is capable of being.

So why limit God to a "He"?

 

[Sonofason]

So why limit God to a "He"?

I don't.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
(Genesis 1:27)

 

[Ouroboros]

So why limit God to a "He"?

Or even limit God to an "it".

 

[Alt Thinker]

Or even limit God to an "it".

Interesting...goes with your signature.

To make God an "it" would mean defining God, putting limits on God.

Georg Cantor, founder of Set Theory, showed that for any given set it was always possible to make a larger set, even for a set that was already infinite. This means that there is no such thing as the Set of All Sets, since a larger one could always be made. The ultimate infinity containing all possible sets, which Cantor called the Absolute, is not a set.

So what?

So…Cantor once called a set “the form of a possible thought”. This means that a set is something we can think about not only in itself but as separate from other sets. The set of cold cuts in my fridge. The set of counting numbers. They are definable. We can think about them and know what it is we are thinking about. You may not know what specific cold cuts are in my refrigerator but you know it is something definite.

Cantor’s Absolute is not, cannot be, a set. It is not something we can think about and know what we are thinking about. Cantor believed that the Absolute was God, the unlimited totality above all definable things, the potential behind everything that can be. Note that this is compatible with panentheism. The universe is contained in God but God is more than the universe.

There is something in Set Theory called the Reflection Principle. Anything we can coherently and consistently say about the ‘class of all sets’ (what Cantor called the Absolute) is true of a set which is not the Absolute. By applying a coherent definite attribute we are defining a set. And the Absolute is not a set.

According to all this, it is not possible to think coherently and consistently about God, When we try we are really thinking about some other idea. Or to put it another way: The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

 

[Ouroboros]

Interesting...goes with your signature.

To make God an "it" would mean defining God, putting limits on God.

Georg Cantor, founder of Set Theory, showed that for any given set it was always possible to make a larger set, even for a set that was already infinite. This means that there is no such thing as the Set of All Sets, since a larger one could always be made. The ultimate infinity containing all possible sets, which Cantor called the Absolute, is not a set.

So what?

So…Cantor once called a set “the form of a possible thought”. This means that a set is something we can think about not only in itself but as separate from other sets. The set of cold cuts in my fridge. The set of counting numbers. They are definable. We can think about them and know what it is we are thinking about. You may not know what specific cold cuts are in my refrigerator but you know it is something definite.

Cantor’s Absolute is not, cannot be, a set. It is not something we can think about and know what we are thinking about. Cantor believed that the Absolute was God, the unlimited totality above all definable things, the potential behind everything that can be. Note that this is compatible with panentheism. The universe is contained in God but God is more than the universe.

There is something in Set Theory called the Reflection Principle. Anything we can coherently and consistently say about the ‘class of all sets’ (what Cantor called the Absolute) is true of a set which is not the Absolute. By applying a coherent definite attribute we are defining a set. And the Absolute is not a set.

According to all this, it is not possible to think coherently and consistently about God, When we try we are really thinking about some other idea. Or to put it another way: The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

Exactly! :yes: :bow:

The only thing I don't know how to respond to is "so what?" The question is "what is God?" Then that's it. So the answer to "so what" is "that's it."

One comment though, I get the feeling that Cantor considered the Absolute to be God, independently of the Universe. Panentheism is more of God being both that Absolute as well as all things that come from it. But I might just misunderstand a little, so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Thief]

Interesting...goes with your signature.

To make God an "it" would mean defining God, putting limits on God.

Are you willing to say God is Spirit?
(it might not discern a sex....but does not negate person)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

By applying a coherent definite attribute we are defining a set.

Shall we apply to a set the definite attribute that it is the set which contains all sets that do not contain themselves? Is "the set which contains all sets that do not contain themselves" an attribute? Yes. Is it definite? Yes. It is it coherent? Under most interpretations, yes. Did it topple set theory and formal logic thanks to a single letter from Russell to Frege? Yes. Does it mean that we cannot define sets simply by "applying a coherent definite attribute"? Yes.

There is only one null set and it is necessarily contained in every set. Without requiring a uniquely defined empty set which is a member/element/contained in every set, set theory collapses.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Shall we apply to a set the definite attribute that it is the set which contains all sets that do not contain themselves? Is "the set which contains all sets that do not contain themselves" an attribute? Yes. Is it definite? Yes. It is it coherent? Under most interpretations, yes. Did it topple set theory and formal logic thanks to a single letter from Russell to Frege? Yes. Does it mean that we cannot define sets simply by "applying a coherent definite attribute"? Yes.

There is only one null set and it is necessarily contained in every set. Without requiring a uniquely defined empty set which is a member/element/contained in every set, set theory collapses.

To begin with, these days the term 'null set' is generally restricted to measure theory. Historically it was used to indicate a set with no members (other than itself). The current convention is to say ‘empty set’.

Russell’s Paradox applies mainly to naïve set theory, as conceived by Cantor. Much work has been done since then by Zermelo, Church, Von Neumann and many others. Axiomatic Set Theory of the ZFC or NBG type avoids Russell’s Paradox but requires elaborate formalities. NBG also deals with the ‘set of all sets’ issue (and Russell) by formally defining ‘class’. A ‘proper class’ is a collection that is not a set.

Gödel and others have shown that there are limitations to the use of logic such as Gödel’s theorems and the undecidability of the Axiom of Choice and the Continuum Hypothesis. (Both of the latter turn out to be the same problem.)

But I was simply drawing parallels between Cantor’s notions and those of Lao Tzu. The limitations of formal logic would seem to tie nicely into that.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Interesting...goes with your signature.

To make God an "it" would mean defining God, putting limits on God.

Are you willing to say God is Spirit?
(it might not discern a sex....but does not negate person)

I am not willing to say that God is anything. The issues of existence and specificity require addressing at the metaphysical level. Why anything? Why this something? But a personal God raises all sorts of problems. The answer lies elsewhere I think.

If there is some kind of existential imperative that leads to a necessary being, why cannot that imperative simply realize all possibilities? An omniverse of all possible universes may be the answer. It would address the issues of existence and specificity without raising the problems of unexplained personality.

 

[Alt Thinker]

The only thing I don't know how to respond to is "so what?" The question is "what is God?" Then that's it. So the answer to "so what" is "that's it."

One comment though, I get the feeling that Cantor considered the Absolute to be God, independently of the Universe. Panentheism is more of God being both that Absolute as well as all things that come from it. But I might just misunderstand a little, so correct me if I'm wrong.

The ‘So what?” was rhetorical. It was simply a segue to my explanation of why I had provided the necessary but not yet seemingly relevant background.

It is not totally clear how Cantor thought of God. There are those who claim he was advocating pantheism, or that it was obviously the Christian God he was talking about. It has even been claimed that he had the Ein Sof of the Kabbalah in mind. (Cantor was part Jewish.) Regardless of what Cantor really thought, I find the Ein Sof idea to be an interesting comparison. This is the Infinite God, having “no static, definable form”, being the source and activity of creation as well as every part of creation. Sound famiiar?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

To begin with, these days the term 'null set' is generally restricted to measure theory.

.

Yet I teach it to undergrads in courses like linear algebra or (when I am allowed) multivariable mathematics courses based on texts like those by Hubbard & Hubbard, Shifrin's text by that title, etc. It's literally littered throughout Springer's UTM & GTM series, has next to nothing to do with measure theory compared even to abstract algebra (let alone set theory), and as measure theory involves functions on sets and extend set theory which can't exist without a 100+ realization that every set must contain the null set and all sets must be defined carefully to avoid the kind of errors Frege made, how do you restrict a fundamental, essential component of set theory and all extensions thereof with "restricted to measure theory"?

Historically it was used to indicate a set with no members (other than itself). The current convention is to say ‘empty set’.

Sure. Empty set is common too. Historically, the first realization that null/empty sets were essential to enable any definition of sets within mathematics were expressed in German. Is such trivial terminology really important? More importantly, does anything I said about your post change had I exchanged "empty" for "null"?

Russell’s Paradox applies mainly to naïve set theory, as conceived by Cantor.

It is so vital it permeates mathematics from elementary linear algebra & introductory analysis to advanced mathematics.

Much work has been done since then by Zermelo, Church, Von Neumann and many others.

And much that was done by Frege, Boole, etc., was already done by Leibniz although (as Russell noted) he decided not to publish his work. However, this is irrelevant:
"Axioms such as the Power Set Axiom, although providing us with new sets, require the existence of sets before they can function, and as such do not in themselves guarantee that our set-theoretic universe, V, will be nontrivial. Only two of our axioms do this: the Null Set Axiom and the Axiom of Infinity."
Devlin, K. (1993). The Joy of Sets: Fundamentals of Contemporary Set Theory (2nd Ed.). Springer.

Axiomatic Set Theory of the ZFC

I quoted the above from chap. 2 entitled "The Zermelo-Frankel Axioms".

Gödel and others have shown that there are limitations to the use of logic such as Gödel’s theorems and the undecidability of the Axiom of Choice and the Continuum Hypothesis.

This is blatantly obvious. Why point it out?

(Both of the latter turn out to be the same problem.)

Wrong. Completely, entirely, utterly wrong.

But I was simply drawing parallels between Cantor’s notions and those of Lao Tzu.

Yes, but doing so the way that many draw parallels from or come to conclusions based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem: by misunderstanding what these entail, what they are, and why they are relevant while making connections that fail.

 

[Ouroboros]

The ‘So what?” was rhetorical. It was simply a segue to my explanation of why I had provided the necessary but not yet seemingly relevant background.

Ah. It was the transition to the next part. Makes sense.

It is not totally clear how Cantor thought of God. There are those who claim he was advocating pantheism, or that it was obviously the Christian God he was talking about. It has even been claimed that he had the Ein Sof of the Kabbalah in mind. (Cantor was part Jewish.) Regardless of what Cantor really thought, I find the Ein Sof idea to be an interesting comparison. This is the Infinite God, having “no static, definable form”, being the source and activity of creation as well as every part of creation. Sound famiiar?

Oh, yes.

I looked a little into Ein Sof in the past, and it resonates quite well with my views. Can't say that it's a perfect fit without me spending some deep study into the topic, but generally speaking, I think I'm in an agreement with it.

 

[Thief]

I am not willing to say that God is anything. The issues of existence and specificity require addressing at the metaphysical level. Why anything? Why this something? But a personal God raises all sorts of problems. The answer lies elsewhere I think.

If there is some kind of existential imperative that leads to a necessary being, why cannot that imperative simply realize all possibilities? An omniverse of all possible universes may be the answer. It would address the issues of existence and specificity without raising the problems of unexplained personality.

The realization of self awareness would be the only thing holding people back.

Very simply put....Someone had to be First, in mind and heart.

Unexplained?.....of course.
We can ask Him how He managed the words.....I AM!....when we get there.

For now....we CAN be sure....
Someone had to be First.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Yet I teach it to undergrads in courses like linear algebra or (when I am allowed) multivariable mathematics courses based on texts like those by Hubbard & Hubbard, Shifrin's text by that title, etc. It's literally littered throughout Springer's UTM & GTM series, has next to nothing to do with measure theory compared even to abstract algebra (let alone set theory), and as measure theory involves functions on sets and extend set theory which can't exist without a 100+ realization that every set must contain the null set and all sets must be defined carefully to avoid the kind of errors Frege made, how do you restrict a fundamental, essential component of set theory and all extensions thereof with "restricted to measure theory"?

Sure. Empty set is common too. Historically, the first realization that null/empty sets were essential to enable any definition of sets within mathematics were expressed in German. Is such trivial terminology really important? More importantly, does anything I said about your post change had I exchanged "empty" for "null"?

I was not restricting anything. I was talking about terminological conventions. The term ‘empty set’ was not yet in use when I went to college. (But I am not even going to say how long ago that was!) My grandniece jumped on me about saying ‘null set’, saying that these days the term properly applies to a measure-zero set. She jokingly said that someone with a mathematically oriented background should be more careful about precise nomenclature. Truthfully, my math background is of the practical engineering sort and really only incidental to my computer background. But theoretical math has been more or less a hobby since I got Gamow’s “One Two Three … Infinity” for my 13th birthday.

It is so vital it permeates mathematics from elementary linear algebra & introductory analysis to advanced mathematics.

And much that was done by Frege, Boole, etc., was already done by Leibniz although (as Russell noted) he decided not to publish his work. However, this is irrelevant:
"Axioms such as the Power Set Axiom, although providing us with new sets, require the existence of sets before they can function, and as such do not in themselves guarantee that our set-theoretic universe, V, will be nontrivial. Only two of our axioms do this: the Null Set Axiom and the Axiom of Infinity."
Devlin, K. (1993). The Joy of Sets: Fundamentals of Contemporary Set Theory (2nd Ed.). Springer.


I quoted the above from chap. 2 entitled "The Zermelo-Frankel Axioms".

For those interested in the Empty Set Axiom, here is a link. And no it is not Wiki.

Gödel and others have shown that there are limitations to the use of logic such as Gödel’s theorems and the undecidability of the Axiom of Choice and the Continuum Hypothesis.
This is blatantly obvious. Why point it out?

The discussion began with Cantor’s Paradox, that the collection of all sets is not itself a set. These are some other ways that demonstrate the bounds of logic, at least as it is currently formulated. And I was unaware that Gödel’s undecidability and incompleteness theorems and that the validity of the Axiom of Choice and the Continuum Hypothesis cannot be determined in any Set Theory we presently have were “blatantly obvious”.

the Axiom of Choice and the Continuum Hypothesis … turn out to be the same problem
Wrong. Completely, entirely, utterly wrong.

Gödel’s 1937 paper linked the two together, showing that they are compatible with the axioms of ZF. Cohen’s 1963 paper also linked them, showing that they are independent of the axioms of ZF. It is not difficult to see that they are intertwined.

The generalized continuum hypothesis (CH) is that the cardinality of every infinite set is a Cantor Aleph with each successive Aleph being the powerset of the previous Aleph. Zermelo discovered that to prove this he needed a well-ordering theorem, that every set can be well ordered. This in turn required that there always be a selection function to select one member out each of a set of sets. For finite sets this is not a problem. However in the case of sets of infinite cardinality, this was viewed as problematic, since it was not clear that a finitistic method could always be available. Zermelo therefore established the Axiom of Choice (AC), which simply asserted that this was the case. As it turned out, AC is necessary but not sufficient to address CH.

Determining whether CH is the case requires AC. If CH is indeed the case, then a well-ordering principle is necessarily in effect for all infinite sets and AC is the case. (Recall that it is already the case for all finite sets.) AC and CH are mutually interdependent. Solve one and the other is solved.

Yes, but doing so the way that many draw parallels from or come to conclusions based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem: by misunderstanding what these entail, what they are, and why they are relevant while making connections that fail.

True. One must be careful in extrapolating from difficult mathematical theorems to other areas. But in this case I do not see a problem. Cantor’s statement that “a set is the form of a possible thought” still holds. We can say the words “the set of all sets that are not members of themselves”. But it is not possible to coherently think the concept because it contains a contradiction. Cantor’s Absolute is not a thinkable thought. If we try the Reflection Principle defeats us. We fall short of the mark. The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

By applying a genuinely coherent, definite attribute we do indeed define a set. If something leads to a contradiction, such as Cantor’s paradox or Russell’s antinomy, it is not coherent in any genuine sense. It is a semantic construct that does not refer to an actual set. But in the formalism it is in general not possible to see that there is a contradiction. And logic is about formalism. So address the problem by changing the formalism. NBG introduces the proper class, which is not a set, and bypasses those problems. Not all the situations dealt with by the use of proper classes would necessarily lead to contradictions if considered as sets. But entire classes are ruled out from being sets. It feels like the original problem of being able to state non-obvious contradictions has not really been addressed. It feels like the baby has been thrown out with the bath water.