chekmate

Seeing the thread about Occams Razor made me think of this question. What is really the simpler explanation? That there IS a supernatural god, or that everything is infinite, time or universe included?

tronvillain

Why are those the only hypotheses?

sidewinder

I'm happy with the second option that everything is infinite. It doesn't matter to my day to day life how the universe started. The natural world is all I see and have to deal with on a day to day basis. It's my only framework for understanding humans, our planet, and the rest of the universe. The bottom line is that there is not one shred of solid evidence that the supernatural exists at all.

Philosoft

This does seem to be a false dichotomy, but one can still use Occam's Razor to determine relative merit. The key is the number of unsupported, or weakly supported assumptions present in each hypothesis.

A simplistic summary of some major assumptions, starting with the 'infinite universe' hypothesis:

A1 The universe has no conscious cause or purpose. This is actually a counter-assertion, non-existent but for the positive assertion that the universe is designed.

A2 The universe has infinite duration. This is essentially an oscillating universe assumption. There is empirical support, but there are better-fitting models.

A2' The universe has finite duration, but a time-independent quantum cause. This has empirical support and theoretical favoritism.

Now, the 'God' hypothesis:

A1 There is a conscious, willful, creative entity that is not bound by the parameters of the universe. This entity suffers from several initial problems, e.g. that it requires a contradictory definition of 'exist.'

A2 The universe is the purposeful product of the aforementioned entity. This assumes a coherent definition of the entity in question to even be meaningful in addition to its own lack of empirical support.


The two assumptions that I indicated for the 'infinite universe' hypothesis are independently verifiable. The assumptions for the 'God hypothesis' are co-dependent, and any additional assumptions depend on the truth of the initial assumption, which is internally contradictory as stated. I didn't even mention that the 'God hypothesis' must account for the empirical evidence that supports the 'infinite universe.'

In a case like this, when we have a roughly equivalent number of 'entities,' Occam's Razor suggests that those assumptions which are least empirically supported be discarded (they are unnecessary).

Note that there are many assumptions that can be used on both sides but for my limited purpose, simplicity is preferrable.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

Draygomb

How about, The Universe loops around through finite Time and starts its self.

Jamie_L

To me, the options seem to be:

1) The universe "just is".

OR

2) The universe is the result or part of some supernatural entity or entities. The entity/enties "just are".

It seems to me that 1) is simpler than 2).

Jamie

Malaclypse the Younger

An even simpler way of looking at it is this.

It is true that scientific theories fit the evidence. It is thus warranted from a philosophical view to commit to some sort of ontological existence of the things that these theories represent (i.e. the relativistic quantum field (RQF) exists and acts in the manner described by RQF theory).

Thus then we are committed that some fundamental ontological 'things' { T1, T2, ... Tn } axiomatically exist as "brute facts." We will call such a system an agnostic* scientific ontology.

It is important to note that the 'god' hypotheses must still propose these fundamental things exist to explain the world. However, these things are proposed as "part of a god's 'nature'". For instance, we might say, it is a god's nature to instantiate the RQF (or act in the manner described by RQF theory). We express the statement in implicative form, i.e. G-&gt;T1. And, of course, we must axiomatically hold the ontological existence of a god, G.

So a theistic scientific ontology that accounts for scientific theory will commit to an ontology the corresponds to the agnostic ontology, but must add the ontological axiom "god exists", as well as express all the scientific ontological axioms in implicative form:

{ G, G-&gt;T1, G-&gt;T2, ... G-&gt;Tn }

It is important to note that there must be at least n+1 ontological axioms in such a theistic system. If the theistic system contained fewer axioms and were equally explanatory, we could simply reduce the corresponding axioms of the agnostic system to match.

Therefore, any agnostic scientific system will have one fewer axiom, and express the remaining axioms in simpler form (consisting of a simple term rather than an complex term). Both of these conclusions are determinable merely by counting the terms and symbols.

Therefore an agnostic scientific ontology is always simpler than its corresponding theistic ontology.

It is important to note that this analysis is silent on whether the ontological existence of a god is determinable under a scientific ontology, in the same way that the existence of planets is determinable (and not assumed) under scientific ontology.

----------

*agnostic in the sense that it makes no axiomatic commitment either to G or ~G

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

HRG

Not necessarily oscillating. An infinite time-evolution need not be periodic. There are cosmological models (e.g. Smolin) where new sub-universes "bud off" older ones, without a beginning.
Regards,
HRG.

eh

But doesn't such a fractal universe have a beginning much the same as ours in the classic BB model, in a singularity of sorts?

HRG

AFAICT, yes. But the point is that only the subuniverses have beginnings.

Regards,
HRG.