tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post6271422195796246024..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: God and Science: The Ironic TheophanyBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-11589138113914662042013-06-15T11:50:12.166-04:002013-06-15T11:50:12.166-04:00Fair enough. The point about myths, then, would be...Fair enough. The point about myths, then, would be that whichever scientific model we accept, we should have a bigger worldview that includes myths that cohere with the science. The undead god myth can be changed to suit different interpretations of quantum mechanics. After all, the myth is unfalsifiable because it's unscientific; all it takes is some imagination to rework the fiction to make it relevant to how we think the real world works. But the trick is to make the myth aesthetically compelling as well as relevant. <br /><br />The problems with the premodern myths of Christianity, Islam, etc, are that they're irrelevant and in some cases aesthetically weak for our time, as I argue here:<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2012/06/christian-crudities-aesthetic.htmlBenjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-83179788797101220912013-06-15T11:30:34.146-04:002013-06-15T11:30:34.146-04:00I’m not sure whether what follows affects your mai...I’m not sure whether what follows affects your main point, which seems to be that we need an edifying myth of the world as presented by modern science, but it’s worth pointing out a couple of things: First, the quantum multiverse and the Copenhagen Intepretation are fundamentally at odds. If one is right, the other is wrong. If the multiverse (Many Worlds) idea is correct, then the universe is deterministic, local and mind-independent – all the things that Einstein sought in a good theory. This would mean that quantum non-locality (“spooky action at a distance”), indeterminism and the metaphysical idealism seemingly implied by Copenhagen are actually not there at all. Also, current inflationary theory holds that the Big Bang is only a “start” to our own “bubble universe,” and that there are countless other universes inflating into existence, and always have been: space and time, matter and energy have always existed and always will. <br /><br />An immediate problem with QM interpretations is that, while Copenhagen and Many Worlds are fundamentally at odds, there is no way to tell which is right, because they make the exact same predictions. There are those who contend (some disagree) that there can never be a way even in principle to tell which ontology is correct. If so, science, at least at this level, becomes fully instrumental, and we must abandon any conceit to determining how things “actually are.”<br />davidmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-10744001269562881982013-01-02T21:17:40.627-05:002013-01-02T21:17:40.627-05:00I explain what I mean by the metaphor of nature...I explain what I mean by the metaphor of nature's undeadness, and thus of its decay, in my Oct 2012 article, "Darwinism and Nature's Undeadness." See also "The World's Creation as God's Self-Destruction."<br /><br />The metaphor is a way of making sense of entropy and the Big Rip. There are other cosmological predictions, of course, but those ones interest me the most. And the idea is that, given philosophical naturalism, there are no immaterial, supernatural spirits. We personify ourselves and each other when we explain intuitively the intelligent, creative, and purposeful aspects of our behaviour. And although, given atheism, we shouldn't explain, say, biological design as having an intelligent cause, we should appreciate that the cosmos is far more creative than us, since the cosmos creates itself through complexification and evolution. Thus, nature is neither living (intelligent and personal) nor dead (inert, uninspiring); instead, I submit, nature is best intuited as being undead, and so we arrive at a sort of naturalistic theology of pantheism. <br /><br />What does an undead thing do? Does it improve itself by its self-creative contortions? No, ultimately it falls apart and we mistake the awesome method of nature's eventual self-destruction for one of pure creation. There can be apparent design even in a drawn-out act of self-destruction, and complexification and evolution are the mereological and temporal developments of that creative destruction. In Mainlander's theology, the universe is God's undying body left behind after God's suicide. God turned himself into something that could be destroyed, and time and mereology are some of the dimensions God works in to achieve that end. The zombie metaphor seems apt to this disturbing theology, no?Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-70190886579492038452013-01-02T16:02:39.440-05:002013-01-02T16:02:39.440-05:00"Nature creates its infinite patterns by comp..."Nature creates its infinite patterns by complexification and evolution; the undead god decays."<br /><br />Could you explain what you mean by this? Why would complexification and evolution lead to decay?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-77378448362443425472012-11-19T01:08:52.364-05:002012-11-19T01:08:52.364-05:00Ryan, if you haven't read it, Ben's articl...Ryan, if you haven't read it, Ben's article "From Theism to Cosmicism: Toy Gods and the Horror of the Supernatural" gives much useful background on the reasons for the similarities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-77327079614840291062012-11-19T00:52:51.841-05:002012-11-19T00:52:51.841-05:00Ben, thank you for your comments. I ask because I ...Ben, thank you for your comments. I ask because I too notice conceptual similarities and sometimes I wonder if I should keep pursuing his work. I'm merely a Hermetically inclined mystical layman tackling this beast. I keep at it like a moth and a porchlight for two reasons: 1) the more I read A Thousand Plateaus the more it comes into focus as something like a 20th century Hermetic manifesto/treatise and 2) unlike all the other heavy-hitting mystical metaphysicians of the past, Deleuze has witnessed the fractal age of ever-proliferating objects (Laozi had a cakewalk with ten thousand things) and he drew on modern science and math for an unprecedented variety of metaphors for explanation (for which he has been criticized). One thing I see in his work that I'm trying to understand is an ever-affirming, lack-free conceptualization of desire and imagination. Out of it I hope to find something beyond tried-and-true asceticism, although he has been interpreted that way. Not because "I" want to per say, but because I don't think ascetic detachment and disengagement is viable for saving psychopathic/narcissistic society from itself. Maybe it can help me to stay afloat or even surf this tidal wave of creativity that Nature's unleashing.<br /><br />Regarding obscurantism, from what I have garnered much of his pre-Guatarri work is recognized as "real philosophy". In my opinion when he teamed with Guatarri they started doing "sorcery" and they weren't at all concerned with addressing philosophers. Anti-Oedipus was mainly a polemical version of Deleuze's previous work written for the popular Freudian-Marxist context of post-May 1968 Paris. ATP has numerous hints and outright declarations of sorcery. The forward suggests reading it like listening to a record, skipping "what's cold" and repeating favorite cuts. "The authors' hope, however, is that elements of it will stay with a certain number of its readers and will weave into the melody of their everyday lives." As for what audience could grasp the unity of the bizarrely diverse context of ATP, I wonder how serious this line in "The Geology of Morals" is: "His dream was not so much to give a lecture to humans as to provide a program for pure computers."<br /><br />I had to share my thoughts here with anyone who may be drawn to his work. Thanks again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-19745172005552121892012-11-17T22:06:08.778-05:002012-11-17T22:06:08.778-05:00Thank you for your reply. It's somewhat amazin...Thank you for your reply. It's somewhat amazing to me how similar or maybe parallel would be a better word) your philosophy is to Hinduism, in its monism and its focus on seeing past a world of illusions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234846958193327264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-10437948499595691182012-11-17T08:54:34.608-05:002012-11-17T08:54:34.608-05:00Thanks, Ryan. I haven't yet addressed your que...Thanks, Ryan. I haven't yet addressed your questions exactly, but some of my blog entries that are relevant are "Scientism: Modern Pagan Religion," "The Curse of Reason," "Existential Cosmicism and Technology," and "Morality and the Aesthetic Conception of Life."<br /><br />Cosmicism doesn't prescribe anything, but existentialism certainly does. I'll be writing soon directly on existentialism as opposed to cosmicism. Nietzsche, for example, values creativity in overcoming our depressing knowledge and our tendency to retreat to comforting delusions. Another existential value is authenticity, or personal integrity, which means courage in facing the truth, avoidance of hypocrisy and easy, politically correct, feel-good answers.<br /><br />Given what's called the naturalistic fallacy, science can't legitimately prescribe values. However, there's a modern ideology or philosophy that science-centered people tend to adopt, which is called secular humanism and which I've called scientism. According to this science-centered philosophy, technoscience is of ultimate value because it's instrumental to social progress. According to Durkheim's theory of religion, secular humanism counts as a religion, because it's based on identifying something as sacred, or as what Paul Tillich calls ultimately valuable. Existentialists tend to reject science-centered religion. <br /><br />Anyway, feeling that science is stunningly useful, a breath of fresh air, or admirable because of its elevation of us isn't necessarily a religious act or objectionable. Cosmicists should value science for showing us the truth of nature, but whether this is a positive or a negative value is another question. I speak of reason in general as a curse, because although it gives us the opportunity to grow up in an existential sense, that opportunity is simultaneously a threat to our peace of mind or sanity. Just look at how Christian and Muslim fundamentalists flee not just from the social consequences of modernism but from the philosophical implications of scientific theories.<br />Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-88449990238987541562012-11-17T02:36:58.310-05:002012-11-17T02:36:58.310-05:00So let me ask you a question. I admit upfront I ha...So let me ask you a question. I admit upfront I have not read all of your blog posts yet, so you may have answered this somewhere, but assuming I am a cosmicist (which I take to mean that I recognize our fragile, tragic condition in the universe as such), should I value scientific knowledge for its own sake, for practical reasons, or both, or neither? Or does cosmicism even have anything to say about values? I do know that I personally value scientific pursuits, and feel like this is a key component of my identity, although I couldn't exactly explain why I feel this way. I guess I'm asking, does existential cosmicism allow us to choose our own values, or do certain values naturally flow from the philosophy, or what?<br /><br />I admit I have only rudimentary knowledge of philosophy, so I apologize if my questions are tedious.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234846958193327264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-55078011854621935892012-11-17T02:24:58.457-05:002012-11-17T02:24:58.457-05:00I see. That makes sense, and I do doubt that we wi...I see. That makes sense, and I do doubt that we will ever discover the "why" of quantum mechanics (we haven't even figured out what an electric field really is, when you get right down to it).<br /><br />Great blog.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234846958193327264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-39401723790113155092012-11-16T20:34:56.365-05:002012-11-16T20:34:56.365-05:00Thanks very much for your comment, Ryan. Your comm...Thanks very much for your comment, Ryan. Your comment isn't at all irrelevant; on the contrary, when it comes to physics I'm only an interested layman, so you'll know much more than I do about QM. However, I think we've got a couple misunderstandings here.<br /><br />We've got to distinguish between understanding QM in terms of being able to use mathematical tools to predict with great precision certain aspects of what happens at the quantum level, and the more philosophical issue of understanding QM in terms of interpreting the metaphysics of quantum events. My point is about the latter, not the former, whereas I assume that in physics classes the philosophical issue of interpreting quantum theory takes a back seat. <br /><br />Now, as to whether particles exist before they're measured, my understanding is that Heisenberg and Bohr differed on this point. Heisenberg adapted Aristotle's distinction between potential and actuality. Before they're measured, particles "exist" in only a semireal way, as potentia. But Bohr was pretty firm in denying that there's any deep quantum reality. I take that denial to follow from severe empiricism. <br /><br />The point I was trying to make, though, isn't so much that we'll never be able to understand the metaphysics of quantum events, but that doing so--and thus finally grasping the ultimate nature of reality and our place in it--may not be what's best for us. This is the point of Lovecraft's cosmicism, at any rate. I know cosmicism (or mysterianism) may seem to come out of left field when talking about QM, but it seems to me that the metaphysical strangeness of quantum events nicely confirms those philosophical warnings about the curse of reason and how curiosity killed the cat.<br /><br />Thanks for reading.<br />Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-79580713017150468682012-11-16T16:55:32.708-05:002012-11-16T16:55:32.708-05:00"Quantum mechanics proves, among other things..."Quantum mechanics proves, among other things, that we’re alienated by the limits of what we’ve evolved to do best: biologically speaking, we malfunction when we pretend that we’re more than animals, that we can apply our evolved skills to the unnatural task of fathoming quantum reality, and that we’ll necessarily continue to succeed biologically as a consequence."<br /><br /><br />I am a bit confused by this statement. Do you mean to say that you believe we will never truly understand quantum reality because of our biologically-defined mental limits? I hope I don't sound like I'm deluding myself when I say this, because I certainly don't harbor any grandiose sentiments about the "godliness" of human creativity or mental power or what have you, but as someone who is about to finish a bachelor's degree in physics, I do think that the discoveries made in the area of quantum mechanics are deep, profound, and not to be taken lightly. Also, in reference to the Copenhagen interpretation, it is my understanding that prior to taking a measurement, a given quantum system does in fact exist in a "distribution" of states simultaneously, and it is only the act of taking the measurement that "forces" that system to "choose" one state to inhabit. This is all to say that it seems to me that our inability to understand quantum mechanics on the same level as classical mechanics (which is, in principle, completely deterministic) does not stem from a peculiar deficiency in our brains (though many deficiencies do in fact exist), but rather is a consequence of the fact that the outcome prior to measurement is unknowable because it literally does not yet exist (at least in a way that is intuitively understandable for us). <br /><br />The classic example is radioactive decay. It is a truly random process. No amount of information about the nucleus can tell you when that nucleus will decay. Empirical observations will easily yield the probability that a nucleus of that type will decay, and the timeframe over which it is likely to occur, but there is no way to tell when or even if any particular isolated nucleus will decay.<br /><br />Sorry if this seems irrelevant, I just feel compelled to defend the progress made in this area (not that I take you to be anti-science at all, or anything like that).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234846958193327264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-40257316841236984102012-11-13T14:22:33.982-05:002012-11-13T14:22:33.982-05:00This isn't to say that I think Deleuze is an o...This isn't to say that I think Deleuze is an obscurantist. Like I said, I haven't read enough of him to tell. <br /><br />It strikes me that there may be a similarity also between what he says about the "territorialization" of material flows, and the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-51617853156388573082012-11-13T09:50:35.044-05:002012-11-13T09:50:35.044-05:00I haven't read much Deleuze. Generally, I'...I haven't read much Deleuze. Generally, I've stayed away from continental, postmodern philosophy because I don't like the pretentiousness of an overly literary style. I know my blog has a literary style too, but I try not to take refuge in all-out obscurity. (My background is analytic philosophy.)<br /><br />From what I understand, though, there are some similarities between Deleuze and what I've been calling existential cosmicism. He has a process metaphysics, as in Whitehead, and a Nietzschean view of knowledge as being subject to aesthetic standards. I don't go in much for Marx, on the social end of things, although we'll agree on some criticisms of capitalism and consumerism. I think the biological treatment of oligarchy is socially fundamental.<br /><br />My next blog entry will be on the death of art, addressing Camille Paglia's recent comments, and later I'll elaborate on my use of Mainlander (the speculative role of "difference," that is, complexification, evolution, and the quantum mechanical multiverse, in exhausting divine infinity so as to systematically obliterate God). This touches on Deleuzian themes, but I don't know whether Deleuze sees the existential implications of this sort of metaphysics. <br /><br />My uninformed criticism of Deleuze would be that his philosophy provides an excuse for the worst, most obscure postmodern philosophy, because he compares philosophical arguments to art works, creativity as opposed to rationality being the chief epistemic value. I appeal to Nietzsche in regarding key *life choices* and myths/fictions as the creation of artworks, but I don't eliminate rational standards when it comes to evaluating arguments. On the contrary, I speak of reason as a curse because it leads us to the Niezschean and cosmicist insights which postmodern existentialism should overcome.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-62728440543904222132012-11-13T06:39:39.217-05:002012-11-13T06:39:39.217-05:00I've been meaning to ask this for a while: any...I've been meaning to ask this for a while: any brief comment or lengthy opinion on Deleuze?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com