Who designed the designer?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I have tried to answer some of your objections below.

Many thanks! I have divided my response into two posts, one on the more formal problems and the other on the more conceptual, metaphysical, and similar problems.

Would not the cause then not be the formulae governing the dynamics, and the effects the actions of the two photons?

The mathematical models in their general form don’t describe actual effects, and the specific formulations used in experiments are

1) not complete until after the fact and

2) have no influence on the photons.


In a similar manner, Einstein’s equations that almost are General Relativity theory describe how matter curves spacetime and simultaneously how spacetime curvature “moves” mater, these are descriptions. Even if completely accurate, they cause nothing.

If there is no space, is it not the case that there is no space-time? Please give an example of your latter point which you have not explained.

Every “point” in space in pre-relativistic physics could be exactly determined by values given to 3 coordinates x, y, & z. This space was 3D Euclidian space. Spacetime is not 3-dimensional but 4-dimensional (neither the geometry nor the possibility of extra dimensions affects my argument and discussion of them is therefore omitted). Every point in any 4-dimensional space, regardless of geometric structure (Euclidean, Minkowskian, Riemannian, complex, etc.), requires four coordinates. Another way of saying this is that while you can have planes and lines in 4D space, they are defined by how they span “space” along 4-dimensions and can only be described thus. What we experience as “space” is 3D, but relativity theory (and its empirical support) tell us that no such “space” exists. Spacetime is “space”, but unlike most mathematical spaces it has the unique property of also being the actual “space” we inhabit (though it does not seem like we do to us). In this 4D “space”, there cannot exist any 3D space, every point is defined again by 4 coordinates, and thus to the extent by “space” in “if there is no space, is it not true that there is no space-time” the answer is “it is not true.” What we call spacetime is convenient nomenclature: it distinguishes the physical, Newtonian space of classical physics from the “space” of relativistic physics (in which this classical space doesn’t exist and neither does time).

I am familiar with the mathematics you refer to.

Yet you use notation and terms unique to such mathematics, specifically relations and the “mRn” notation used to indicate a relation, it arguments, and its arguments “order”. It seems strange to not be familiar with the mathematics you use. However, luckily this isn’t too much of a problem. It suffices to say a relation of the type you refer to has certain properties your use doesn’t adhere to. An example your definition of a relation in terms of two “rules”.


The use of set theory in general is more problematic as the whole of your mathematical presentation depends upon it and much of your explanation relies on it. Also, it is so very related to formal logic that the founding work on symbolic/formal logic by Frege, a monumental achievement, came crashing down because of a problem in the ways it allowed sets to be defined (a problem pointed out to Frege by Russell in a letter). As it is an example of how vital seemingly trivial nuances are in proofs & mathematics in general (as well as logic & set theory), I will briefly summarize the problem Russell noticed.


A set, as you know, can be described simplistically as a collection of elements or objects. However, not every collection can be a set, and Frege did not adequately address a particular constraint. Russell showed him that his system allowed one to define the following set: “the set that contains all and only those sets which do not contain themselves” (this is really just the classic Barber’s Paradox).


Let S be Russell’s set and assume that S doesn’t contain itself. By definition, S contains all sets that don’t contain themselves, so S must contain itself. Yet if it contains itself, it contains a set that contains itself, again violating the definition. Thus Frege’s system allowed for paradoxes that defeat the entire purpose of formal languages/systems.


Your use of sets depends heavily on concepts that you do not define even informally (such as “concepts”). So not only do you rely on arbitrary set-theoretic notions for your proof, you misuse these.

Given the set F of all fathers and the set C of all children c, fRc means "f is the father of c where c is the cousin of Peter"?

For the same reason that a + b = c doesn’t mean a + b =c – d. Given any relation R and at least one well-defined set on which R is defined, for any elements a & b the relation aRb can have one and only one meaning/value and that must be because there can exist 1 and only 1 interpretation of R in terms of its arguments (the symbols/letters on either side of R)


Symbols (and their variants) such as +, -, /, ^ , *, etc., are usually relations. Take the set N of natural numbers. For any elements of N (x,y), we can define a relation xRy s.t. the result is some natural number z equal to x + y. What we can’t do is define xRy to be “x + y – a”.


Another way to think of the problem is in terms of piecewise functions. I can define f(x)= x/y except when y= 0, in which case the function equals 0.


However, even if I didn’t use the right notation I would have to specify exactly what the function is equal to for all values of x & y including specifying the otherwise undefined case in which y = 0.

It should be m causes n or vice versa.

That may be what you meant. It isn’t what you wrote. You would have been better of simply stating something like this:

"there cannot be two uncaused causes, since, as stated, for every two things, there is a

relationship between the two things"

Even then, though, this is an assertion. You haven’t proven it, but you do rely on it for your proof.

can I not rephrase it as follows (implying two relations)?:


Given the set A of all ancestors a and the set D of all descendants d, aRd means "a is a female ancestor of d" or "a is a male ancestor of d".

No. You are now including in your set properties of its elements that the set does not “contain”, which is to say you are essentially using an entirely different set. Given the sets A & D and any pair (a,d) whatsoever, I have no way of knowing whether aRd describes a female or male descendent.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Part II (cont. from above)

The concept “chair” exists in reality in a metaphysical way, but the concept "invisible chair" (lets suppose) does not exist in reality in a metaphysical way. In relation to your chair example, think about whether the law of gravity exists in reality, or is it simply that gravitational forces exist between two concrete things in reality? What is reality?

And here we come to the heart of the problem. It isn’t just about mathematical notation that could be fixed or avoided entirely and only words used. You are stating certain things about causes and concepts without even informally defining either. So not only is your “proof” a series of claims resting on both stated and unstated assumptions, as it stands it leads to results that are clearly not true. You don’t really mean concepts but rather something like “things that exist”. Also, there are many definitions/models of causation. Lewis & possible worlds semantics provides us with one: counterfactual causality (for x to be a causal factor of effect y, it must be that had x not happened then y wouldn't have happened). Correlations give us a way to relate effects and causes: if x & y are correlated then either x causes y, vice versa, or z causes both. Chance-raising, probabilistic causal models, and other accounts abound. Nor are these mere philosophical debates without any real import. Counterfactual causality fails to hold for quantum physics.

I take this to be self-evident.

There are two counter-examples that don’t require reference to quantum physics and are wide-spread (and related). The first is nonlinear causation, and some problems are outlined in the following quote. Although the points are made in the context of reductionism, because reductionism requires that effects have causes in the way that you do for all “things” except God, all points address the problems with your assertion, particularly those bolded:

"there are several reasons for questioning reductionism in the context of classical (nonquantum) dynamics. First, although the reductive program asserts that all higher-level dynamics can “in principle” be causally explained in terms of physics and chemistry, reductionism does not imply constructionism. This is because there is an immense number of possible emergent entities at each level of both the biological and the cognitive hierarchies, so what actually occurs depends largely on happenstance...that is consistent with but not constrained by the laws of physics and chemistry.

Second, reductionism does not explain how the various types of Aristotelian causality (material, formal, efficient, and final) are to be sorted out. Under nonlinear dynamics, even the threads of efficient cause become interwoven, and downward action of formal causes makes lower-level dynamics depend on higher-level phenomena, at variance with reductive assumptions.

Third...the nature of time differs at higher and lower levels – the “arrow of time” being bidirectional under energy conservation and unidirectional under the energy-consuming dynamics of biology. This is problematic for biological reductionism because a system with unidirectional time is asked to be described in terms of bidirectional time.

[4th point irrelevant for our purposes and so removed]

In biological and cognitive systems, finally, myriad closed causal loops and networks with positive feedback obscure the relationships between cause and effect, leading both to the emergence of new dynamic entities with unanticipated properties and to chaotic interactions among them.”

Scott, A. C. (2006). Physicalism, Chaos and Reductionism. In J. Tuszynski (Ed.) The Emerging Physics of Consciousness. Springer.


Now, what does that all mean and why is it relevant? The best way to sum up all that is relevant is with the term/concept “nonlinear causation”. “Efficient causes” are those closest to the most common usage of “cause” and the author of the above defines it as follows:

“Efficient cause. For something to happen, according to Aristotle, there must be an “agent that produces the effect and starts the material on its way.” Thus, a golf ball moves through the air in a certain trajectory because it was struck at a particular instant of time by the head of a club. Similarly, a radio wave is emitted into the ether in response to the current that is forced to flow through an antenna. Following Galileo, this is the standard sense in which physical scientists use the term causality."


“Closed causal loops” are, simplistically, when causes are effects and effects causes, and are the most challenging to what you “take…to be self-evident”, but as the next example covers this (closure to efficient causation) I’ll describe it there. What is most important, other than such loops, is the idea that effects are always determined by some cause or set of causes that precede the effect and “cause” it in that given this cause or these causes we will get the effect in question. In the first challenge above, I’ve bolded a sentence concerning outcomes determined in part with “happenstance”, and which even in a world where everything is governed by physics outcomes/effects can occur which are probabilistic. This rules out many models of causality because it means that given x is causally implicated in y effect, it is not true that x cause (or any series of causes x1, x2,…xn) will result in y.

Sandpiles provide my favored example. Given a sandpile in a particular configuration state (i.e., the position and orientation of each grain) and a transition from a metastable state caused by e.g., a wave crashing on a beach, the final configuration state of the sandpile is determined somehow not just by the wave or the physics involved but an emergent, non-physical “memory” of the initial conditions that is uncaused yet is an essential causal factor in the effect: the final configuration state.

The “higher-level” & “lower-level” bit described in the quote adds other layers: “Even in quite large numbers army ants may demonstrate behavior that is essentially aberrant. For example, if 100 army ants are placed on a flat surface, they will walk around in never decreasing circles until they die of exhaustion. In extremely high numbers, however, it is a different story. A colony of 500,000 Eciton army ants can form a nest of their own bodies that will regulate temperature accurately within limits of plus or minus 10 C. In a single day, the colony can raid 200 m through the dim depths of the tropical rain forest, all the while maintaining a steady compass bearing. The ants can form super-efficient teams for the purpose of transporting large items of prey.”

Franks, N. R. (1989). Army ants: a collective intelligence. American Scientist, 77, 138-145.

Locally, each ant is extremely “dumb” and incapable of doing much of anything. In a large group too (e.g., 100 as described in the paper), the group of ants is “dumb” and will mindlessly travel in circles until death. At some point, though, the colony becomes large enough that interactions between ants become not just complex but hierarchical. The problem is that there is no actual hierarchy: there is no ant directing others to form into a bridge, nor a team leader directing other ants to carry prey. The “high-level” causes emerge from low-level interactions, causing the ants to act as a group. However, these low-level interactions are what cause the high-level “structure” that causes the behavior of individual ants. In other words, the actions of any given ant are part of the cause of those actions, because they are part of what causes the emergence of the high-level “structure” that causes the ant's actions.

This becomes far more intricate and far more radical when we replace the ants with parts of living systems. One reason has to do with the point about the direction of time, but it will be simpler and shorter to move on to the next example.

Robert Rosen, the biologist so influential to systems biology and founder of relational biology, developed a model that is also an argument that living systems are closed to efficient causation. He considered something as “simple” as metabolic-repair, even within a single cell. This process causes much if not most of the activity in cells. However, it is a functionally emergent process, which is a fancy way of saying that it is caused by the dynamics of (most of) the constituents of the cell and that, as a functional property of the cell, it causes the dynamics of the cell’s constituents. This is extreme (classical) circular causality (non-classical include closed time-like circles in which a system can actually go back in time and effect it’s causes; while permitted in modern physics it is almost entirely theoretical- permitted because the mathematical models say it can happen, not because it does). With ants and sandpiles and similar examples of complexity in which cause/effect blur, thermodynamics plays a very different role. As the basis for the “arrow of time”, even when we have to artificially choose what we wish to think of as cause vs. effect, having fixed both we can then model the dynamics linearly unfolding in time. In other words, once we’ve decided to call hierarchal structure of the ant colony the cause and the actions of the individual ants the effect, and we “let the system run” (we observe the ants do stuff for a while), the “bidirectionality” allows us to “run the system in reverse” (not literally, but using a model which describes how the system evolved in time and takes into account our choice of what is or are cause(s), if this model can describe the actual outcome of the system over time, then we can run it backward and get the initial conditions). Living systems are open systems, and the ways in which functional processes and energy transfer work in such systems do not allow us to do even this. The line between cause/effect is truly blurred and we cannot even arbitrarily decide what to fix as cause. We have describe the effects as being products of themselves.

 

[mainliner]

Why do the laws of physics become untrue in a lucid dream ?

 

[Blackmarch]

The prophets only tells us what profits them.

for many quite likely. for every genuine example there will be a million fakes. For those that are genuine the profit of such is generally a burden, sometimes even death.

Who knows what God actually told them. We all are humans, even the prophets, and words are highly imprecise. Knowledge of God doesn't come by actually listening to the words of the prophets, but listening to what's behind the words. The hidden message. And that you can hear anywhere and from anyone.

fair enough, they are as the man on the watch tower- ultimately they are trying to get their fellow man to get to such a state where they would have the same visions, revelations, visitations, and etc… and would not have need of a prophet.

 

[Ageha]

If an eternal designer can just simply exist- why not the universe?

Because then, the usiverse would (create itself )1 (before the "time" of its creation = it made itself move from the nothingness = it existed and didn't exist at the same time)2

 

[Ouroboros]

If an eternal designer can just simply exist- why not the universe?

Because then, the usiverse would (create itself )1 (before the "time" of its creation = it made itself move from the nothingness = it existed and didn't exist at the same time)2

Sounds like the description of God. God, existing before time before time, in a place that was nothing. Then God had to create time first, and then space, then matter and energy. But how could he? He didn't have time and no place to do it in, and he had no energy to do it with.

 

[Ageha]

Well, God is the (creator) that's why he could create enargy and matter from the nothingness.
As for the time, you have to define it.. is it the time in your mind or the sequence of events?
Before the moment of creation/big bang.. there were no laws of physicas.. no space, no matter.. simply what was "there" is something we cannot imagine/ we don't know.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Before the moment of creation/big bang.. there were no laws of physicas.. no space, no matter.. simply what was "there" is something we cannot imagine/ we don't know.

Then why do we need to posit a god/creator to explain the big bang?

 

[Johnlove]

First cause arguments usually employ the premise that complex things like the universe need a designer and cannot simply just exist. Well then let us ask- would not the designer be much more complex, assuming one for the sake of debate? Who designed the designer? Did that designer also need a designer?

Jesus once told me to stop trying to figure him out and just follow him.

 

[Ouroboros]

Jesus once told me to stop trying to figure him out and just follow him.

Hard to follow something you can't figure out though. In the end, you're most likely following yourself (hint: you're Jesus incarnate, we all are. )

 

[Johnlove]

Hard to follow something you can't figure out though. In the end, you're most likely following yourself (hint: you're Jesus incarnate, we all are. )

Not hard to follow God. Jesus lets one know him, and makes it very clear that he is God.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The issue becomes clarified when one considers Cartesian dualism.
The physical universe is quite distinct (though not absolutely) from the spiritual universe.
In the physical universe, logic and cause and effect are paramount, and easy to understand.
The spiritual universe is mystical, and meta-logical. That is, it contains logic, but also that
which is beyond mere logic: Creativity.

To try and 'understand' creativity is to try and apply math to aesthetics. One needs to instead
'overstand' Creativity. The easiest way to do this would be to try to create beautiful art...

 

[Ouroboros]

Not hard to follow God. Jesus lets one know him, and makes it very clear that he is God.

I was Christian for 30 years.

 

[Johnlove]

I was Christian for 30 years.

In my opinion one is only a Christian if he or she does as Jesus does/did.

Jesus obeyed the will of the Father.

A Christian does as the Holy Spirit dictates.

In my opinion there are very few people who allow the Holy Spirit to direct his or her life.

I doubt there are many who have any idea of what it even means to be taught by the Holy Spirit.

(1 John 2: 27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you; the anointing he gave teaches you everything: you are anointed with truth, not with a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”

(1 John 2:6) “But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did”

(1 John 3:5-6) “Now you know that he appeared in order to abolish sin, and that in him there is no sin; anyone who lives in God does not sin, and anyone who sins has never seen him or known him.”

 

[Ouroboros]

In my opinion one is only a Christian if he or she does as Jesus does/did.

Jesus obeyed the will of the Father.

A Christian does as the Holy Spirit dictates.

You don't know me, yet you judge me. I had the same conversation with another True Christian(tm) just a week ago. I have no interest in doing it again. You're simply wrong.

In my opinion there are very few people who allow the Holy Spirit to direct his or her life.

Yeah. One. You, if I understand you right.

I doubt there are many who have any idea of what it even means to be taught by the Holy Spirit.

(1 John 2: 27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you; the anointing he gave teaches you everything: you are anointed with truth, not with a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”

(1 John 2:6) “But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did”

(1 John 3:5-6) “Now you know that he appeared in order to abolish sin, and that in him there is no sin; anyone who lives in God does not sin, and anyone who sins has never seen him or known him.”

I'm not going to explain to you how much of my heart and soul I gave to my faith in those days. I gave up the world to live for Jesus, but I feel that it all failed me. It didn't work. And it didn't explain the world properly. The world works differently than the ancient traditional Christianity. You have to find a new faith that fits reality.

 

[Johnlove]

You don't know me, yet you judge me. I had the same conversation with another True Christian(tm) just a week ago. I have no interest in doing it again. You're simply wrong.


Yeah. One. You, if I understand you right.


I'm not going to explain to you how much of my heart and soul I gave to my faith in those days. I gave up the world to live for Jesus, but I feel that it all failed me. It didn't work. And it didn't explain the world properly. The world works differently than the ancient traditional Christianity. You have to find a new faith that fits reality.

First I don’t know you, and in no way was I trying to judge you.

What I believe is that people say they are Christian, and in my opinion saying one is a Christian has no validity, unless he or she lives God’s Word, and Jesus taught.

I believe a Christian is one who lives as Jesus lived, and taught.

I don’t know what you believe, or how you lived, so can’t be judging you.

God’s Word is one’s judge.

 

[Ouroboros]

First I don’t know you, and in no way was I trying to judge you.

What I believe is that people say they are Christian, and in my opinion saying one is a Christian has no validity, unless he or she lives God’s Word, and Jesus taught.

Which is what? How do you live God's word right now?

I believe a Christian is one who lives as Jesus lived, and taught.

So you mean that someone is Christian based on their actions, not their faith or belief? Paul was wrong?

I don’t know what you believe, or how you lived, so can’t be judging you.

Based on my own journey, I see religion, faith, spirituality, Jesus, and Christianity from a very different perspective now. If any form of Christianity would be somewhat compatible with me now, it would be Process Theology rather than the traditional evangelical. We all are Jesus, and we know him by knowing ourselves. Following Jesus is to follow your heart, which everyone does without knowing it. The problem is that people think they're following some magical external force, when in reality they're following their own internal force.

God’s Word is one’s judge.

By insinuating that I didn't live by God's word is to judge me. You personally are making a judgment by making that statement. You're drawing the conclusion that because I was (in my words) Christian and I'm not anymore, it must be because I wasn't a "True" Christian in your mind. That is a matter of judgment, i.e. judging. You've made your position clear what you think of me. You don't trust me, so how do you think your proselytizing will go when you don't trust people but make judgments about them without knowing them?

 

[McBell]

In my opinion one is only a Christian if he or she does as Jesus does/did.

Jesus obeyed the will of the Father.

A Christian does as the Holy Spirit dictates.

In my opinion there are very few people who allow the Holy Spirit to direct his or her life.

I doubt there are many who have any idea of what it even means to be taught by the Holy Spirit.

(1 John 2: 27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you; the anointing he gave teaches you everything: you are anointed with truth, not with a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”

(1 John 2:6) “But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did”

(1 John 3:5-6) “Now you know that he appeared in order to abolish sin, and that in him there is no sin; anyone who lives in God does not sin, and anyone who sins has never seen him or known him.”

don't wretch your shoulder out of socket patting yourself on the back...

 

[Ouroboros]

don't wretch your shoulder out of socket patting yourself on the back...

LOL! "socket patting" Never heard that expression before.

 

[Johnlove]

Which is what? How do you live God's word right now?


So you mean that someone is Christian based on their actions, not their faith or belief? Paul was wrong?


Based on my own journey, I see religion, faith, spirituality, Jesus, and Christianity from a very different perspective now. If any form of Christianity would be somewhat compatible with me now, it would be Process Theology rather than the traditional evangelical. We all are Jesus, and we know him by knowing ourselves. Following Jesus is to follow your heart, which everyone does without knowing it. The problem is that people think they're following some magical external force, when in reality they're following their own internal force.


By insinuating that I didn't live by God's word is to judge me. You personally are making a judgment by making that statement. You're drawing the conclusion that because I was (in my words) Christian and I'm not anymore, it must be because I wasn't a "True" Christian in your mind. That is a matter of judgment, i.e. judging. You've made your position clear what you think of me. You don't trust me, so how do you think your proselytizing will go when you don't trust people but make judgments about them without knowing them?

No Paul did not get it wrong, but people’s understanding of what Paul wrote is wrong.

(2 Peter 3:15-16) “Think of our Lord’s patience as your opportunity to be saved: our brother Paul, who is so dear to us, told you this when he wrote to you with the wisdom that is his special gift. He always writes like this when he deals with this sort of subject, and this makes some points in his letter hard to understand; these are the points that uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way as they distort the rest of scripture a fatal thing for them to do.”

Jesus told us what one has to do to enter the kingdom of heaven.

(Matthew 7:21-23) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”