Infinite Regression & You

Mathematically, .9 repeating is equal to 1. Here's the proof: two-thirds (.6 repeating) plus one-third (.3 repeating) is equal to 1 (.9 repeating) You can think of the 1 as an infinite whole and the .9 repeating as an infinite regress of 9s, yet they are equivalent.

You, in your body, exist in this moment. When did you exist before now? The moment before. These moments regress back to when you were conceived. Before that moments regressed back to the Big Bang. Moments, as I'm using it, is shorthand for any length of time you'd like--seconds, minutes, days, whatever.

Before the Big Bang it gets more complicated because it seems as though space and time as we understand them originated in same singularity as all the matter and energy of the universe. It isn't technically correct to say anything precedes the Big Bang, but that isn't going to stop this thought experiment. After all, believers assume something (God) came before the Big Bang and they won't simply give up that belief because of y'know, physics. So we need to imagine another, greater spacetime-like dimension the singularity is within...or something.

I've already written about possible causes of the Big Bang that don't involve the Almighty. Religious apologists say any non-God cause is only pushing the need for God back a step. "What caused the cause?" they say. The answer, "the cause before that." That's what infinite regress is in terms of religious debate, an infinite chain of causes with our universe as an effect (and perhaps a cause) on said chain.

Back to God. According to believers, God doesn't have a moment of origin, but can still be understood as existing at every moment. When did God exist before this moment? The moment before, ad infinitum. What caused the cause? The cause before that, ad infinitum. God is in the exact same boat as an infinite causal series. One can't argue that one is impossible without arguing that both are impossible.

You can think of God's existence as infinite, eternal, or forever--it's all semantics. God is described by apologists as indivisible. They obviously don't describe God this way because they are informed by evidence, they describe God this way because they want God exempt from the perceived infinite regress problems of secular explanations. To them I ask, if God doesn't exist every moment into the past, at what moment does God stop existing?

Put another way, to avoid the apologist's denial that God's existence can be segmented the same way as literally everything else, let's talk about God's actions marking points on a line. We can pick a point for a reference--in universal apologetics creating the universe is the best choice. So universe creation is point X. Actions after, like creating life or sending his son can be represented as points X1, X2 and so on. Points before X can be represented as -3X, -2X, -1X. This assumes God can act before he created the universe, which he can if he is omnipotent.

Now, when could he act before -3X? Well, -4X. When could God act before -1000X? -1001X! This either regresses infinitely making apologetic objections to secular infinite regress hypocritical and invalid or the apologist must admit there is a point in which God cannot act, just as there is a point in which God cannot exist, making their deity limited and finite. Which begs the question, what caused God?

God Argument Power Rankings

The following is my personal assessment of the validity of popular apologetic arguments. The list goes from most valid to least valid.

The Fine Tuning of the Universe: Could be valid, currently based on assumptions.

1. There are a vast number of physically possible universes.
2. A universe that would be hospitable to the appearance of life must conform to some very strict conditions. Everything from the mass ratios of atomic particles and the number of dimensions of space to the cosmological parameters that rule the expansion of the universe must be just right for stable galaxies, solar systems, planets, and complex life to evolve.
3. The percentage of possible universes that would support life is infinitesimally small (from 2).
4. Our universe is one of those infinitesimally improbable universes.
5. Our universe has been fine-tuned to support life (from 3 and 4).
6. There is a Fine-Tuner (from 5).
7. Only God could have the power and the purpose to be the Fine- Tuner.
8. God exists.

This argument, had we just a little more supporting knowledge, could make me deist. It says that the physical laws and constants that allow for a life-sustaining universe lie in a very small fraction of the possible spectrum of values and the fact that our universe is within that unlikely range is evidence that it was designed with us in mind. Many atheists argue the anthropic principle here, which says that we can only come to this conclusion because we are, in fact, here. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t. Obvious, I know. The anthropic principle is worthwhile when arguing against the fine tuning of earth specifically, but we don't have enough information for it to be meaningful in terms of the fine tuning of the universe.

The difference is that the variables that can vary widely and affect the possibility of life on a planet (such as distance from a star, having a moon/asteroid belt to deflect impacts with space objects, the presence of water, etc.) are most likely all fulfilled throughout the universe. There are enough planets that one can say, “sure, we are alive on this planet because we couldn’t be alive elsewhere.” However, we can only account for one universe. If this universe is all there has ever been, and if the aforementioned laws and constants can vary to the degree apologists claim, then I agree that we are such a coincidence that a designer is a better explanation than chance. I’m just not convinced because those "if"s are not answered. I tend to think that the laws and constants can vary, but that enough other universes either have, will or currently exist to make the anthropic principle meaningful--but that’s just personal speculation.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Invalid, only replaces one mystery with another.

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
3. Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. (Implied) God is that cause.

This argument is at least based on something that is most likely true--the Big Bang Theory. So, I won't argue premise 2. As much as they like the Big Bang, apologists stop paying attention to the science after it can be used to support their beliefs. Traditional causation could very well not apply in general at the quantum level in which we find the singularity, and especially in the case of the universe with no prior time or space for a cause to occur or God to exist. The Big Bang, after all, isn't just the beginning of our universe, but also space and time as we understand it. To posit otherwise is merely an "of the gaps" argument. The implication of 4 is hasty now that there are more hypotheses than ever for possible causes of the universe and likely others that haven't occurred to us. In the end, the biggest weakness is that the argument establishes a rule because a lack of counter examples and then arbitrarily makes what they want to believe an exception. If we say that everything that begins to exist has a cause because we have no examples of things that exist without a cause, then we can also say everything that exists is within time and space because we have no examples of things that exist outside time and space. Since apologists require their God to be outside time and space for this argument to work, they would have to explain why the first statement is legitimate while the second it not.

The Ontological Argument: Invalid, basically it's just wordplay.

1. Nothing greater than God can be conceived (this is stipulated as part of the definition of “God”).
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3. If we conceive of God as not existing, then we can conceive of some-thing greater than God (from 2).
4. To conceive of God as not existing is not to conceive of God (from 1 and 3).
5. It is inconceivable that God not exist (from 4).
6. God exists.

"Greater" is a value judgement that can vary from person to person, which is problematic to this argument. However, the real problem is that the argument works for any concept that includes the linguistic trick of including "must exist" in it's definition. For example, if one said the Fly Spaghetti Monster exists, by definition, then it exists. Somehow I doubt many Christian apologists would accept that definition. Nor should they, because existence isn't a property one can prescribe conceptually. Neither is "greatness" for that matter.

The Argument from Moral Truth. Invalid for a variety of reasons.

1. There exist objective moral truths. (Slavery and torture and genocide are not just distasteful to us, but are actually wrong.)
2. These objective moral truths are not grounded in the way the world is but, rather, in the way the world ought to be.
3. The world itself—the way it is, the laws of science that explain why it is that way—cannot account for the way the world ought to be.
4. The only way to account for morality is that God established morality (from 2 and 3).
5. God exists.

I don’t know if this is the worst argument for God in my book, but it is certainly the worst of those still popular in the apologetic community. Why? Because it has so many points of failure. There is Euthyphro’ Dilemma that shows that God is a redundant factor if objective morality is valid. There is the impossibility of ascertaining exactly what the objective morals are if they exist, unless. of course, they are defined by humans in relation to social interactions which would discount a need of a supernatural law giver. There is the question if morality is objective at all (I see morality as a broad concept including the possibility for a variety of moral codes--which may be applied objectively but are hardly transcendent.) There is evolutionary biology that suggests moral instincts are selected traits which are passed down genetically. I feel apologists over estimate the argument’s power because the opposition can seem scatter brained when refuting it because the number of ways to refute it makes one’s mind spin out. That, and it’s the one argument that allows them to both claim there is a god and take the moral high ground in one fallacious move.

Gaps All The Way Down

“God of the gaps” is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. (from Wikipedia) History has shown us that many gaps can and have been filled as scientific knowledge grows. So much so, in fact, that it is perfectly reseasonable to assume that there is a natural explaination for our remaining gaps. Theists tend not to come to this conclusion, for obvious reasons, but I wonder how long this conclusion may be avoided.

The best example of a closed gap is Darwin’s shutdown of the argument from design. Of course, I realize there are still individuals and backward denominations that dismiss evolution as a valid explainer of the world’s biological complexity, but if the slow-to-come-around Catholic Church is on board, it’s safe to say that the others are simply in denial. From most of my interactions with honest theists, their main beef with “evolution” is that it is incomplete--meaning that it doesn’t take into account life’s ultimate origin. We should recognize this for what it is: a misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution’s scope, a moving of the goal post from the argument of design to entirely different argument, and a detour from one closed gap to another open gap.

Darwin closing one of the biggest gaps unintensionally converted many theists across the world. Atheist favorite, Richard Dawkins, wrote that he would still be swayed by life’s apparent design if not for the Theory of Evolution. However, explaining the complexity of life doesn’t explain the existence of life. Our biological origin is still an open gap. Science calls it abiogenesis. We have some ideas how it could have happened, but no reproducable experiments to prove which hypothesis is correct. Like the other gap of note, the ultimate origin of the universe, we are unsure. Whether you’re in the quantum foam camp, the violation of causality camp, or any of the other camps that could all be possible from what we see at the quantum level, there’s no smoking gun...yet. My question to theists is this: would settling your lingering questions allow you to let go of God? Humanity is crazy smart. I used to think some answers would be forever beyond our grasp, but now that I have a clearer sense of where science is going, I wouldn’t take anything off the table. My advice? Don’t take atheism off the table. It’s already the most reasonable worldview, and it’s getting more reasonable everyday.

I realize this is my second post directed towards theists in a couple weeks and I'm fully aware that mostly atheists read this blog. I am trying to engage some believers so that I'm not always preaching to the choir (ironically.)

Whether you are theist or atheist, I'd be interested in your opinion of the truth of this statement:

Theists accept that there are some things are beyond our understanding while atheists accept that there are some things we don't yet understand.

Thanks for reading.

Sylogisming

I've been asking theists which argument for God they find most compelling. So far, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is leading the pack. I find this sad. I've already said why, then I said why again, but I'll try a different way of looking at it today.

Again, here is their argument.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

Maybe apologists just like arguments formulated as obvious sylogisms. That's fine. Here's one.

1. Everything that exists is finite.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore the universe is finite.

From this argument we can conclude that God, defined as an eternal being, doesn't exist.

Admittedly, this argument has a few problems. Apologist Glenn helped me hash them out in the comments of his blog. I'll post what is relevant, but you're welcome to view the original exchange here.

• The premise 1 is not demonstrated. You would have to show that it is true that everything in existence is indeed finite. One of the main points we are trying to demonstrate is whether or not all things are indeed finite, and this sylogism assumes it from the start.
• If this sylogism is trying to be used to conclude that an eternal creator cannot exist, then the conclusion is assumed in premise 1, and is therefore circular. It would then be saying, ’1: Everything in existence is finite, therefore a non-finite does not exist.’ A tautology at best.
• The conclusion 3 does not contain the conclusion that an uncaused effect can happen, nor that an infinite string of causes is possible, or that a creator cannot exist. 3 merely says that whatever is assumed in “universe” in 1 is finite.
• This sylogism does not negate the fact that everything that has a beginning is caused. Even if we call it valid, it merely concludes that the universe is finite, not that a finite thing does not need a cause.

Smart guy, Glenn, he just doesn't apply his keen mind to arguments he agrees with. His first and second points can be applied almost word-for-word to the Kalam. “Everything that has a beginning has a cause” is an assumption, exactly as “everything in existence is finite.” They are both somewhat justified assumptions. They are both generalizations taken from what we know about reality and applied to what we don’t know. How is “everything in existence is finite” any less demonstrated than “everything that has a beginning has a cause?”

Glenn's third and fourth points are valid, but my sylogism doesn't set out to disprove a creator or the Kalam, only an eternal creator, which it does. If God is not eternal, then he needs a cause according to the Kalam Argument. Either both arguments both work here or (as I show below) neither do.

The law of conservation of energy shows something is not finite. If energy cannot be created nor destroyed within a closed system, that implies it is eternal within the closed system. This only tells us that individual quantum particles could be eternal, while the chemistry or biology or whatever they eventually form can't be. I've already discussed how quantum mechanics breaks the classical logic that both these sylogisms really on. The second problem is that eternal in this case can only be defined as lasting as long as the universe. The law of conservation of energy only works for closed systems, in this case that's the universe. Just as causality only works in relation to our perception of time, this law only works in relation to a predefined space. Before the Big Bang, there is no time or space, so both arguments are void.

Thanks for reading, I wish you all a happy and healthy armageddon. I'll see you in hell.

...or more likely in a couple days.

The Grundist Manifesto

As much as I’d rather we live in a world where claims are based on observable reality and people feel fulfilled without the need for a higher power, humanity just isn’t there yet. In the midterm, I propose a stopgap religion that isn’t entrenched in an out-dated culture and is far more likely to be true than any of the crap we have now. I call it “Grundism.”

Before I get into my narcissistically named faith, first let me expand on why it is better than any of our Abrahamic options. Judisim, Islam and Christianity are all based on the Torah and assorted sequels written when slavery, racism  and sexism were the order of the day. We’ve had civil rights and enlightenments since then, so the bigotry of yesteryear need no longer apply. It was also a time of mysticism and superstition where stories were used to fill in the considerable gaps of human knowledge. Starting fresh, Grundism isn’t forced to either deny reality or convert failed “truths” from holy books into allegories. In short, my religion can take into account current science and make new speculations. While these speculations may be debunked in the future, I hope that by then religion will be universally denied and we can proceed to mankind’s destiny among the stars.

Okay, so what is Grundism?

Grundism is based on the simulation hypothesis. According to the S.H., we are artificial intelligence living out our “lives” within a Matrix-like program--however, the A.I. bit is an important distinction from the movie. We are not humans in pods feeding power to the machines, we are the machines. More specifically, we are computer programs. This seems like a crazy idea, but I submit that it is far less nuts than the ideas sold in church and I’ll tell you why. We can and do already simulate a bunch of stuff in order to learn, teach and play. If you don’t think World of Warcraft is an achievement, then consider that we can model the physical laws as accurately as human senses can perceive--albeit on very small scales. With Moores Law still in affect and quantum computing on the horizon, it’s conceivable that we will be able to simulate four dimensional space over long distances in the relatively near future. If a simulation indistinguishable from reality is possible, then A.I. as a function of a simulated human brain should also be possible. And if it is possible, then it will happen--our ability to find innovative uses for new technology has been true since the discovery of fire. In fact, as tech progresses and these simulations become easier to run, it will happen exponentially often. The point is, if this is possible, we have to assume that we are currently in a simulation. For every one physical universe, there could be trillions of digital universes. Odds are, we aren’t in the real one.

In Grundism, the Simulator (capital “S”) of our universe is, for all intents and purposes, God. He is the entity running the computer that runs us. Other sects of Grundism may break off defining the Simulator as the company that originally wrote the software, the hardware on which the software runs or the computer that simulates the universe in which our personal Simulator lives. Hopefully, Grundism doesn’t splinter too thinly, because I’m counting on church donations to put my kids through college.

The Simulator is the creator of our universe whether or not He or She first developed the software. He or She initialized the relevant program and that’s all that matters to me. And yes, the Simulator can be man or woman or transsexual or asexual or alien or whatever. There is no way for us to supersede what the software allows us to perceive. This is a philosophical quandary similar to the “brain in a vat” problem and something we all have to deal with whether you subscribe to Grundism or not.

Many of the hallmarks of religion apply to Grundism. One could pray to the Simulator and He or She may “hear” the prayer by means of a Google-like alert that monitors more than the Internet, but also every living thing’s words and thoughts. This would be far too much data for the Simulator to parse in real-time, but He or She is likely only looking for searchable keywords. Once heard, any prayer could be answered if it pleases the Simulator or serves the simulation. A “miracle” from our perspective could easily be accomplished with a new line of code.

Already believe in Noah’s flood, Moses’ sea parting and Jesus’ rise from the dead? That’s fine. These “miracles” could also be accounted for by one-time code executions. Hell, you could even say Jesus was the simulator entering His simulation to experience it first hand via a virtual reality interface. Grundism makes what was supernatural, natural--just digital. Belief in the Bible isn’t warranted, simulation or not, but I’m assuming the only people who have a need to adopt a new faith are those who already have one, so I welcome, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, Scientologists, Wiccans, whatevers--Grundism is for you!

Grundism Features

• Grundism solves evil! There is no “problem of evil” in Grundism. No one is saying the Simulator is benevolent. He is probably a scientist learning from the introduction of variables that, in His or Her mind, are neither good nor evil. Or he could be a bastard, there’s no telling.
• Grundism is compatible with any moral code! There is no baggage in Grundism. There is no guilt or shame associated with original sin. You can act however you like without regret. However, your actions have consequences within our world that may affect the continuned execution of your program and/or that of others. If you must believe morality is God-given, you can keep on believing this as a moral if/then statement...but I don’t feel like I have parameters on my life.
• Grundism's gods have gods! Grundism is not, strictly speaking, monotheistic. Our universe may be created and/or guided by one Simulator or many, but either way there are other Simulators running other universes.
• Grundism says you may not cease to be! Grundism allows for an afterlife, but doesn’t guarentee it. Unlike in Christian Apologetics, Grundists don’t presume to know anything about God's (the Simulator’s) motives. After we stop perceiving our time of earth, we may start perceiving another realm...or our program may no longer serve a purpose.

Grundism Bugs

• Grundism doesn’t account for the ultimate origin of the Simulator. We can’t assume He is eternal like most monotheistic traditions. The best we can do say what science shows us about the origin of this universe is true for the universe of the Simulator. We can only guess as to the ultimate origin, much like an eternal deity is a guess.
• There is probably an upper limit to processing power where either Moore’s Law breaks down or technology stops progressing due to heat death (or some other end) of the physical universe. This means that there isn’t an infinite number of simulated universes, just an awful lot. For this reason I don’t consider infinite regress as a possible “origin” of the Simulator. It also means that simulations within simulations may eventually crash the system.

That’s Grundism as I know it. It will take a while for this post to earn holy book status, but I can wait. If you can think of any reasons why Grundism is not superior to all other religions, please let me know in the comments. If you can’t, it’s only rational to convert or, better still, give atheism a shot.