Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!ut-sally!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: God and Occam (was Re: the cosmological argument)
Message-ID: <252@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Sep-86 02:13:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: promethe.252
Posted: Sat Sep 20 02:13:08 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Sep-86 02:24:25 EDT
References: <496@tekfdi.UUCP> <165@grc97.UUCP>
Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222
Lines: 109
Keywords: super hyper nature Occum counting 'causes

In article <165@grc97.UUCP> hurst@grc97.UUCP (Dave Hurst) writes:
>> In article <3542@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, Brian McNeill writes:
>>> If we assume that not everything is causal, the first causers don't have a
>>> leg to stand on, since it is more likely (Occam's razor) that the universe
>>> doesn't need a cause

See below  Stone blunts razor

>In article <496@tekfdi.UUCP>, Bob Bales writes:
>> I disagree. I contend that Occam's razor choses God as being the simpler
>> explanation. We have two competing explanations: an uncaused universe, and
>> an uncaused God.

See below  Stone blunts razor

>We have no need to postulate any extraneous entity to create the universe!
>Now, you are saying that an explanation based on two entities is simpler 
>than an explanation based on one.

Occam's Razor can't be applied here!!
The universe was "caused" at least according the the basic principles 
of science.  There was a time when it appeared that it had an infinite
past and then that it had a infinite series of disconnected past histories,
but those concepts aren't supported by the preponderance of the evidence.  

So it seems that "science" throws out the "uncaused" universe.  To 
apply Occam's razor to a scientifically determinable fact is rather 
bizarre.   By Occam's razor I suppose it would be simpler if we all
had but one parent that cast his sperm in the primordal ooze, but
that's just not the case for most of us.  It is nice that those few 
that may be of the one-parent-type can count to two..     :-)

There are the  "conservation laws"  which may some day be reduced
to a simpler form growing out of information theory but including
expanding concepts of "information operators".   The order does seem
to hold up when we take the time to measure carefully. 

>Let me attempt to make an analogy. In the set of all integers, each integer
>certainly must have a predecessor. If you want to think about the set of
>integers as being constructed inductively, from any given integer, the
>succeeding one can be constructed by adding one. In this sense, one might
>say that each integer is 'caused' by it predecessor. Does this mean that
>the entire set of integers must have some 'first integer' from which it is
>created? No, of course not. The set of integers is infinite in extent. To
>talk about the entire set in terms of the 'cause' of a succession of
>integers is ridiculous. The entire set, as such, has no cause at all. It is
>causeless, all by itself. It exists as a logical necessity. There is no
>need for some external entity to create it.

Now there are mathematical models of the universe which assume for 
simplicity that space is infinite and point wise continuous.  Real 
physical space is is not, however, so care must be taken to avoid 
"giving it more reality than it deserves".   

The set of integers are not "real entities". If they were, then they could
not be contained in our universe because of its limited information content.  
For you mis-Occam types:  Think of this way, you don't have enough fingers 
to count that far. 

Numbers are abstract and they potentially exist.   Of course the universe 
could enumerate to some really, really, big numbers, it couldn't get to
really, really, really big numbers.    

>> everything we can tell) is natural. In other words, "supernatural."
>
>I'm always amused by people who must resort to using the term
>'supernatural'. As usually defined by people, this word means, "an event
>occuring which is outside of the natural order of things." Unfortunately,
>such can never exist or occur. I must digress for a moment and present my
>definition for the term 'universe'. Universe is the sum total of all
>experiences. 
>
The universe of which you speak is a incredible microcosm of the universe, 
since it seems to be rather egocentric.  Experiences can be pretty 
disordered, even though the underlying elements and function have a great 
deal of order.    Most people understand that supernatural refers to 
"causes" beyond the laws and purview of the natural sciences or 3 space.
The only exception which touches on the first cause of our physical 
universe, is the "Big Bang" = 3 space matter creation/injection. That is 
a problem for physics, however, I would suggest a "solution".  I'm sure
your concept is exclusive of the following cosmology, since you don't 
seem to be aware of it by your description.  

My cosmology says that GOD is a single infinitely dense entity occupying 
one space in its entirety, and  the stuff we observe of three space came 
from a decay of a small chunk of "two space matter" (hypermatter - because 
of its energy density).   Now if beings of hypermatter could pop "energy" 
into and out of three space, or maybe "after sparks" to the big bang could 
set up "quasars"  then we have really got some neat ways to "extend" the 
natural sciences to the "supernatural" sciences of hypernature.

Anyway, without imagination, intelligence and logic is pretty useless.  
Who knows maybe science and religion will once AGAIN merge.  Some day 
we'll travel to distance parts of our universe on the proverbial 
shoulders of a Saint Christopher hyperbeing (Just suck in here and
"booombo" pop out there).   

Now let see  hmmmmmm, that's right the world is flat...  right, otherwise
would not we be falling off on the otherside at night time?..  :-)
Darn,  where'd I put that razor?

    Atheists and those without the grace for hyper-transfer 
          Use PLASMAK(TM) fusion engines to power you 
       On that megalight year journey to a distant galaxy
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+