Ludicrous theory about God, spirits etc.

Great Debates
1

OK, in another thread about the odds of life evolving, another poster said poster, who can identify himself is he wishes, said

The implication being that no matter how ridiculously improbable something is, it must happen an infinite number of times in an infinite universe. Maths is not my strong point, but intuitively this isn’t true. An infinite series doesn’t have to be infinitely large. In an infinite universe something can be infinitely improbable.

But if I’m wrong, follow me here.

We know that energy of any kind should disperse, but according to quantum theory that’s just probabilistic, not a hard and fast rule. And we know that energy can interact with other energy to set up interference, feedback, amplification, modification of propagation etc.

And we know that once you have a capacity to have feedback, amplification and interference you have the basic requirements intelligence and data processing.
So, in our infinite universe, what if “energy” of various forms (em, gravity etc) got arranged into a sentient form, just by random chance, and didn’t disperse, just by random chance. Sure the odds of this are ludicrous, but it’s an infinite universe, right? And what if this happened in our hubble constant?

This is a half arsed theory come up with in 10 minutes. Of course I don’t buy it. And of course there is the lack of actual evidence for such phenomena.

But if the “infinite universe, infinite monkeys, anything can happen so long as it’s not impossible” school of thought is viable, does this provide a valid, scientifically sound (albeit silly and evidence free) basis for spirits?

2

What is the debate here? If you had a proposed mechanism that the energy beings could interact with humans with, then sure, it could be a theory for spirits.

…

3

Firstly, I want to debate the logical conclusion that it is probable that gods and spirits exist in our universe. If my logic is correct and nobody can point out any flaws, then the odds of the universe containing one or more gods is pretty close to unity.

Doesn’t that rather kill the constant cries from atheist that there are no god? Don;t we need to start conceding that there almost certainly is at least one god?

The mechanism is inherent. We know that the human brain can be controlled by application of EM radiation. I posit that my energy being can directly interact with human minds by what amounts to telepathy, by altering the membrane potentials of individual neurons. This neatly sidesteps the evidence issue (which is convenient, since I have none) sine the changes would only by present at a microscopic level, and only within the skull.

4

OK, if you’re alright with the assumption of infinite mass and energy in the universe. So then we no longer allowed to say things don’t exist I guess, because everything that isn’t logically forbidden would.

I still don’t understand what’s being debated.

5

Except that your concept of God is inconsistent with the standard Christian conception of God, which is that He is radically other than the created universe. If if we accept that the universe may well have given rise to beings of the kind you describe, they are not [Christian] God, since God is apart from the created universe. He is uncreated.

The most you can say, therefore, is that the odds are that the universe contains beings who could be labelled God. But if a being is “contained” by the universe, that being is not the God that Christians postulate. It is impossible that the unverse contains such a God.

6

The debate, I guess, is that when we say that there are no gods, we know that we are lying. We know that in fact there are almost certainly gods.

Similarly when we claim that their is no mechanism for the existence for the existence of ghosts and so forth. Once again, my logic seems to dictate that an infinite number of mental patterns of dead people must be floating around as intelligent energy.

But what I really want to debate is the logic. The god angle is just an argument to show how ridiculous the conclusion are if that logic is valid. I was kinda hoping someone would show me a flaw in it.

If the logic is sound, then we really need to accept that almost anything that isn’t provably physically impossible is almost certain to exist in large numbers. I can’t help but thinking there’s got to be a flaw here somewhere.

7

We’ll ignore the omnimax god for the purposes of this thread.

ETA. Though we can probably come awfully close to him. Omnipotent and omnicogniscent, for all intents and purposes, seem logically doable under this model.

8

The assumption that an infinite universe must contain God (or anything other particular thing) is trivially refuted: The set of even numbers is infinitely large, yet contains no odd numbers at all. Something can be “infinite” without containing everything.

9

I don’t see why. You get weird results when you assume infinities. Using your assumptions, then yes, logically there is another earth out there somewhere that’s exactly the same except for purely random patterns of energy interacting with people in such a way as to make them believe they are gods/angels/ghosts.

I think the issue just has to do with our inability to grasp infinity. We derive a result like that and think “but that’s ridiculous” because by thinking of it it’s almost like we place it ‘just over the corner’ as far as universes go. I think if we could actual imagine what an infinite quantity of something would be, things like this would just be boringly obvious.

10

As for the Drake equation, it’s a series of probabilistic factors multiplied by each other. If any one of them is zero while discounting our own existence since we’re calculating the odds of someone else being out there (e.g., “the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space”), then N is zero.

There was another model proposed a few years ago that I don’t recall the specifics of, but went like this: rather than the universe going to maximum entropy, and starting from maximum order, the universe hums along in a kind of statistical steady state with occasional deviations from the statistical mean due quantum fluctuations or whatever. As the OP states, when you have fluctuations, amplification, interference, etc, you have order emerging from the baseline randomly, and some randomly emergences will be more stable (i.e., last longer) than others.

It goes on to attempt to calculate the odds that order would emerge of a particular type that would lead to sentience for an appreciable amount of time. This then leads to a paradox: The necessary conditions in the universe for sentience to arise are statistically much simpler than for us to arise–basically, sentience should have occurred already in much simpler form. As sentience is one of the strongest stabilizing effects available, the universe should have “locked in place” in a much simpler form than we see now, so we shouldn’t be here.

I’m sure the PhD who came up with makes a much more impressive presentation that seems far less handwavey. If anyone knows what I’m talking about, please refer to it.

11

So, the idea that there must be life on other planets because the universe is infinite is provably, mathematically invalid?

There seems to be a flaw with your analogy here. Something can be “infinite” without containing everything, sure. But can something can be “infinite” without containing everything that it *logically *can hold? Obviously an infinite set of even numbers logically can’t contain odd numbers, but does it contain all even numbers?

Because the universe can logically contain life… and gods.

12

The flaw in this reasoning is that you are comparing one phenomenon for which we know (as far as science is able to “know”, and disregarding the more esoteric philosophical questions of life and thought) there is a bigger than zero probability (intelligent life) with another phenomenon for which don’t know the probability (the existence of a god). The probability of the latter may very well be zero.

Logical fail.

13

Explanatory fail.

Tell us how the probability my version of a God could possibly be zero? It’s ridiculously improbable, but how can it possibly be zero? For something to actually have a probability of zero it needs to be actually, physically impossible. How can my god be physically impossible? What aspect leads you to conclude that it could never occur?

If you can’t answer that then your assertion that it “may very well be zero” is nonsense and betrays a gross ignorance of both probability and physics.

14

If you assume an infinite universe, then the possibility that it contains life forms which have capacities that we do not have and have not so far imagined is high. There is no reason to preclude the possiblity that some of these life forms may be pure energy.

But assuming an infinite universe is a fairly big assumption. I’m no cosmologist, but is the mainstream view not that the universe is in fact finite?

And, leaving that point aside, labelling these hypothetical life forms as “spirits” and/or “gods” seems to me unwarranted. It brings in a whole bunch of implications, evocations and associations which you have made no attempt to support.

15

What the theory states (although, as I will mention later, it’s not clear what it’s saying) is that anything that is scientifically possible will happen somewhere in an infinite universe. It doesn’t mean that anything that is logically possible will happen. There’s a difference.

To say what’s scientifically possible in a universe, it’s necessary to completely understand the physical basis of the universe. That is, it’s necessary to understand how all the particles of the universe interact with each other, how all the energy forces work, etc. If it were possible to completely understand the physics of a universe (although, again as I’ll mention later, it’s not clear whether this is possible), then that doesn’t mean that a supernatural being could exist because it’s logically possible to imagine one. A supernatural being by definition violates the scientific rules of the universe.

I don’t personally think that the theory is worth much. We don’t really know if the universe is infinite. Even if the universe is infinite, all this would show is that somewhere any scientifically possible thing exists. So what? It could be so far away that (in an expanding universe like ours) it’s so far away that we could never be in communication with it.

Furthermore, it’s not clear what it means to say that something is scientifically possible in a universe. It’s possible that we could understand the scientific laws of the universe on a local basis and yet not understand some huge overarching laws that prevent certain things from happening. I don’t know how we could ever claim that we completely understand the science of our universe.

Even if in some (to me inexplicable) way we could state that we know all the scientific laws of our universe, that wouldn’t say much. Maybe there are other universes. Maybe above and beyond all universes there is a God. How could we prove anything about this? There’s no way from simply logical arguments to establish what exists.

16

Which is why i avoided the term supernatural.

That makes two of us.

This would seem to equally be a criticism of the claim that in an infinite universe life must have arisen multiple times. Yes?

I’m using that term because my hypothetical meets the precise definition of a spirit. Definition of your choice, but it’s basically non-corporeal, sentient and communicates with people via telepathy.

17

If the universe is infinite and therefore produces all possible minimally ‘god-like’ beings, then it follows that at this moment, there is an angel sitting next to me who will make me a cup of tea. Since there isn’t, there is a flaw in the argument. I suspect both the assumption of an infinite universe, and the possibility of “god-like” beings are wrong.

18

The OP seems to be talking about “energy beings,” as they are sometimes called in science fiction: sentient beings that are somehow made of energies and/or fields of force, etc, rather then of matter. Whether such beings are a genuine possibility, I do not know, but I see no reason to equate then with the gods, spirits etc. postulated by various religions and superstitions. The defining feature of gods and spirits is not their immateriality* but the fact that they are somehow above the ordinary laws of nature, and can produce effects that cannot or normally do not come about by natural means. “Energy beings” would not be able to transcend the laws of physics, any more than material beings such as humans can. Indeed, I see no reason why energy beings should be expected to be more powerful, in general, than material ones. Suppose an energy being had powers on a par with, say, a mouse; should we fear it, or worship it, or be in awe of it any more than we fear, worship or are in awe of mice?

*Gods and spirits are often considered to be immaterial, but by no means always. Jesus, according to Christians, had a human body during his incarnation, and to consider the “real” Jesus to be a divine spirit that temporarily inhabited that body would, I think, be considered quite seriously heretical by most Christians (those who actually know anything about the history and theology of their religion, anyway). I think the Greek gods were also generally held to have material bodies, and as I understand it, at least some idol worshipers consider the physical idol itself to be the god. The notion that what they “really” believe is that some powerful, immaterial spirit inhabits (or is symbolized by) the idol, is probably (more often than not) just an attempt by westerners to rationalize the alien belief system in their own terms.

19

You’re correct that the set of all even numbers contains any even number.

But your initial argument is that 1) if the universe is infinite, it contains all possible things, and 2) if it contains all possible things, it contains Gods. 1 is either empirical or tautological, meaning it’s either observably true or logically true.

If it’s logically true–if you’re defining “infinite universe” to mean just that the universe contains all possible things–then 1 is basically “if the universe contains all possible things, then it contains all possible things”, which is obviously fallacious.

If 1 is empirically true, then 1 argues that the universe is observably infinite, and therefore it contains all possible things. My point with the set of even numbers is that something can be observably infinite and not contain all possible things. A universe with only us in it and no gods (or alien species) is as consistent with observed reality as a universe full of gods and alien races.

My argument doesn’t exclude the possibility of gods or aliens, but you’re essentially making a modal argument that “is possible” = “must” in a universe of infinite possibility. You can google the modal argument for the existence of God and find any number of refutations of it.

20

Blake writes:

> Which is why i avoided the term supernatural.

Then what did you mean by the terms “God” and “spirits” in the OP? The only meaning I can put to those terms is something that violates the physical laws of the universe. If that’s not what you mean, explain just what you do mean. If, as njtt mentions, you mean “energy beings,” I don’t know what that means and I don’t know if that’s scientifically possible. What are you talking about?

> This would seem to equally be a criticism of the claim that in an infinite universe
> life must have arisen multiple times. Yes?

Um, I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that it may be possible that while life doesn’t violate any local physical laws, it may be possible that there is some huge overarching law that says that life can only arise once? Or just what are you saying?