Anon Genie wrote
"n the CTMU (www.ctmu.org), God is the universe and the universe is a self-creating entity. This is from some one of Chris Langan's posts:
"...when it comes to explaining the origin and evolution of the universe, there are just the following possibilities:"
Dumb. Even Yes and No are known to be subunits.
Those possibilities he mentions are not even well- defined. Ick.
They are okay if just a creative list, but they're represented as THE list of possiblities on the
Super-Smart Guy's site. This guy might be a wonderful humanitarian some day, but I think he needs a foil to develop his supposed intelligence.
John Stuart Mill was super smart; he explored and communicated ideas which addressed immediate problems faced by kindred intelligences among his fellow (and female) humans. He persuaded with extensive reasoning. But he believed someone would read it. In our hurried age, we're given the feeling we have about 15 seconds to say what we're going to say before the reader wanders away. But
only the abstract should be 15 seconds long...like what you're asking from Dr. Dick's paper. I have a copy on my other hard drive, copied before his site moved... so I don't know where he's keeping his paper now.
" 1. The universe was not created; it simply always was and always will be."
A change in state caused by volition would be a creative act. This happens in our world.
If part of something changes, that changes the thing. We change the universe with our creating.
X out #1.
"2. The universe arose randomly, but despite its random nature, somehow manages to hold itself
together across vast reaches of time and space."
Silly, silly, silly. That web site must be a joke. Obviously part of the universe is quasi- random and part is not even quasi-random.
" 3. The universe is just one universe among countless universes floating around in a "multiverse", from one of which it may initially have "budded"."
This is certainly not a step in the scientific method. It appears to be possible for #3 to be true or false in combination with the rest of the choices. But It is also possible to make other fun assertions without suggesting a way to test them...such as: The universe is part of Aunt Eldorado's dog's spleen.
"4. The universe was created by an external Maker."
I like this one for the question of "where did the Maker get the Material for the Universe" if it was not part of the Maker already? If it was part of the Maker, then we're made out of the Maker's own stuff!
"5. The universe is self-creating."
And I am that universe! Why did I not know all the details. Perhaps it was that giant dose of poison given me by an ignorant part of the universe! I will avenge myself against the terrible actions of myself ?!?!?!?!?!
"1, 2, 3 and 4, which come alone and in various combinations, explain nothing."
I've always wanted "nothing" explained. That's neat!
"In fact, 1 and 2 can be proven logically absurd,"
Something can be true while not meeting Aristotle's approval.
"while 3 and 4 merely push the problem of existence back a step without
I can feel the hall go hush at the brilliance of this step! :)
"5 is the only one that *even has a chance* of explaining *anything*. Since science is about
explanation, 5 is the only scientifically valid choice."
Don't give me that stuff. 5. is just as mushy as the others. You remind me of the weather man. In school they tell you,"Don't say 'high temps in the 60s.' Say 'the high temperature will be 62!'"
Like you really know!