Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:45 pm
There is first a fundamental distinction between natural experiencing (what is) and ontological experiencing (that it is). One must make that distinction in one’s own experiencing.
Then one must understand how ontological experiencing and natural experiencing occur, again in one’s own experiencing. Specifically, one must understand how temporal symmetries result in conservation (Noether) and how certain conserved quantities, temporal symmetries that we can loosely call structure, occur in nature (what is). Then one must understand how temporal symmetries are assigned ontological experiencing through the introduction of nothingness into the “plenum of being” (Sartre, Parmenides) and how this nothing that establishes boundaries and excludes experiencing result in objects in cognition, in imagination, in perception, in geometry and in the physical sciences as well as other areas of experiencing. Further one must understand the nature and ontology of action and force. Again, the profound nature of symmetries asserts itself and the evolution of ensembles of objects is constrained to the “physically possible”. Possible and probable become more precisely interpreted as notions of action are assigned, ultimately, in a kind of quantum Bayesianism that is, through those interpretations of nature infected with ontology, “causality”. The “potency” of “act” is constructed and its ability to create facts established as logical set theoretic statements. One must understand how, once action is constructed, this ontological experiencing itself is noticed to be dependent on natural events. And we have our acting. To put it clearly, a gunshot to the head affects both natural and ontological experiencing, and sex, a physical act, can result in an experiencing whether through coitus, a petri dish, or presumably in the future, an AI lab assembly. Experiencing itself is then assigned as a property of a subclass of the structural assemblies within the ensemble we call the universe. The overall roll of information in nature becomes determined and the notion of a “survival advantage” and the structural evolution of life is understood. In this one must conjecture, for we do not have the science, on how knowing is caused. Neural networks of some kind perform processing of signals and can, in and of themselves, confer survival advantage to structures and be described as “intelligent zombie”. The emergence of consciousness, may be doubtable in some absolute sense that calls into question all of science as being falsifiable (Popper) but the fact of experiencing cannot be doubted for the doubt itself would resolve the issue (Descartes), and there is the correspondence principle used so effectively by Einstein – new theories must correspond with the results of old experiments. If we further conjecture that the random evolution of consciousness conferred some kind of survival advantage then we see that three things are required to be produced: 1) A desire to survive, 2) an ability to influence survival advantage, 3) a desire to reproduce. We can see how mystical ontological experiencing is an aspect of the production of the desire to survive implemented as a love of Being experienced full on as experience of the Tao, St Paul-like, or St Teresa- like, or in some dark night of the soul perhaps, but also in a simple love of being in the sun, or on a beach, or by a stream. From pleasure to ecstasy the patterns engender experience that “motivates”. Desiring is understood. This same also is associated with sexual attraction and romantic love as well as the darlingness of our children all of which together result in an urge to act to preserve the existence of the physical structures that engender their experiencing. What parent will choose to save the foot of their child at the cost of their head or fail to save the head of their child at the cost of their foot? This desire is coupled with the objective experiencing and the experience of causal structure to confer “survival advantage” whether interpreted causally, or if one wants to accept Hume, remaining as temporal symmetry of the pattern with action merely supervenient.
So, we come down to the “proofs”. Now it is clear that a proof based on the meaning of the term is impossible to deny. It fails only by accessibility of the premises as no one who has failed to experience God will be able to know what experiencing one is describing and so also has no access to the infallibility of a description of the necessity inherent. Perhaps there is some wiggle room here if ontology itself falls. One cannot establish such fundamental experiencing further.
However, the association of “greatness” or “goodness” with Being as known ultimately only through the transcendent experiencing of Satori or whatever name your culture calls it, does not share this necessity. Is it accidental? Is it part of our mammalian heritage possibly? That is the question. And further is it someone? But accidental properties cannot be assigned to pure Being. The necessity of being, if it is transcended forms a contingent fact which is in need itself of founding, and so we have infinite regress or else, God, and then another created god in the form of a separate creature. If God has any unnecessary properties, then god, at least those properties are not the Creator but rather a creature.
However, the experiencing of this creature could be solely coincident with ontological experiencing in a given organism or class.
In a way you can ask whether, assuming some insect or other “Borg” or machine becomes ontologically aware are they necessarily aware of the Good of God or is the necessity of that Good relative only to our mammalian biology and “dis-connectable” in a neurology not doped with hormones perhaps.
So, the “perfection” on which this proof rests must pass the test of necessity. That is its biggest problem. It looks like this perfection is in fact the origin of all human desire or love possibly with certain exceptions having to do with food and noxious poisons for example.
To put it simply: If the greatest good is not to be then the proof fails miserably. The proof assumes that the greatest good is to exist. This is consistent with our mammalian heritage, our love of our children, our spouses, God, a fine day etc. But is it necessary? We will have to ask the intelligent insects (...alternatively we can ask certain politicians... )
“There is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that” (Camus).
The answering of this is like a worm in the heart of the proof.
Then one must understand how ontological experiencing and natural experiencing occur, again in one’s own experiencing. Specifically, one must understand how temporal symmetries result in conservation (Noether) and how certain conserved quantities, temporal symmetries that we can loosely call structure, occur in nature (what is). Then one must understand how temporal symmetries are assigned ontological experiencing through the introduction of nothingness into the “plenum of being” (Sartre, Parmenides) and how this nothing that establishes boundaries and excludes experiencing result in objects in cognition, in imagination, in perception, in geometry and in the physical sciences as well as other areas of experiencing. Further one must understand the nature and ontology of action and force. Again, the profound nature of symmetries asserts itself and the evolution of ensembles of objects is constrained to the “physically possible”. Possible and probable become more precisely interpreted as notions of action are assigned, ultimately, in a kind of quantum Bayesianism that is, through those interpretations of nature infected with ontology, “causality”. The “potency” of “act” is constructed and its ability to create facts established as logical set theoretic statements. One must understand how, once action is constructed, this ontological experiencing itself is noticed to be dependent on natural events. And we have our acting. To put it clearly, a gunshot to the head affects both natural and ontological experiencing, and sex, a physical act, can result in an experiencing whether through coitus, a petri dish, or presumably in the future, an AI lab assembly. Experiencing itself is then assigned as a property of a subclass of the structural assemblies within the ensemble we call the universe. The overall roll of information in nature becomes determined and the notion of a “survival advantage” and the structural evolution of life is understood. In this one must conjecture, for we do not have the science, on how knowing is caused. Neural networks of some kind perform processing of signals and can, in and of themselves, confer survival advantage to structures and be described as “intelligent zombie”. The emergence of consciousness, may be doubtable in some absolute sense that calls into question all of science as being falsifiable (Popper) but the fact of experiencing cannot be doubted for the doubt itself would resolve the issue (Descartes), and there is the correspondence principle used so effectively by Einstein – new theories must correspond with the results of old experiments. If we further conjecture that the random evolution of consciousness conferred some kind of survival advantage then we see that three things are required to be produced: 1) A desire to survive, 2) an ability to influence survival advantage, 3) a desire to reproduce. We can see how mystical ontological experiencing is an aspect of the production of the desire to survive implemented as a love of Being experienced full on as experience of the Tao, St Paul-like, or St Teresa- like, or in some dark night of the soul perhaps, but also in a simple love of being in the sun, or on a beach, or by a stream. From pleasure to ecstasy the patterns engender experience that “motivates”. Desiring is understood. This same also is associated with sexual attraction and romantic love as well as the darlingness of our children all of which together result in an urge to act to preserve the existence of the physical structures that engender their experiencing. What parent will choose to save the foot of their child at the cost of their head or fail to save the head of their child at the cost of their foot? This desire is coupled with the objective experiencing and the experience of causal structure to confer “survival advantage” whether interpreted causally, or if one wants to accept Hume, remaining as temporal symmetry of the pattern with action merely supervenient.
So, we come down to the “proofs”. Now it is clear that a proof based on the meaning of the term is impossible to deny. It fails only by accessibility of the premises as no one who has failed to experience God will be able to know what experiencing one is describing and so also has no access to the infallibility of a description of the necessity inherent. Perhaps there is some wiggle room here if ontology itself falls. One cannot establish such fundamental experiencing further.
However, the association of “greatness” or “goodness” with Being as known ultimately only through the transcendent experiencing of Satori or whatever name your culture calls it, does not share this necessity. Is it accidental? Is it part of our mammalian heritage possibly? That is the question. And further is it someone? But accidental properties cannot be assigned to pure Being. The necessity of being, if it is transcended forms a contingent fact which is in need itself of founding, and so we have infinite regress or else, God, and then another created god in the form of a separate creature. If God has any unnecessary properties, then god, at least those properties are not the Creator but rather a creature.
However, the experiencing of this creature could be solely coincident with ontological experiencing in a given organism or class.
In a way you can ask whether, assuming some insect or other “Borg” or machine becomes ontologically aware are they necessarily aware of the Good of God or is the necessity of that Good relative only to our mammalian biology and “dis-connectable” in a neurology not doped with hormones perhaps.
So, the “perfection” on which this proof rests must pass the test of necessity. That is its biggest problem. It looks like this perfection is in fact the origin of all human desire or love possibly with certain exceptions having to do with food and noxious poisons for example.
To put it simply: If the greatest good is not to be then the proof fails miserably. The proof assumes that the greatest good is to exist. This is consistent with our mammalian heritage, our love of our children, our spouses, God, a fine day etc. But is it necessary? We will have to ask the intelligent insects (...alternatively we can ask certain politicians... )
“There is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that” (Camus).
The answering of this is like a worm in the heart of the proof.