| LAPIDOCENTRIC |
| "The rabbit that is eaten by the fox might wish this could be otherwise, but this is because the rabbit adopts a lapidocentric view of the world" |
|
This essay first postulates that omnipotence is equivalent to having infinite power and thus argues that there is an infinite number of universes in existence: each being a manifestation of an omnipotent entity; each omnipotent entity being present on an infinite spectrum (containing both the infinitely different and infinitessimally similar, and everything inbetween). |
This article suggests that the idea that we have free will and the idea that the universe is governed at every level by mathematics are two mutually exclusive paradigms. This may be an obvious conclusion, but it was personally useful to have made it. |
Here it is suggested that a stream of random distributions fuels the ocean of quantum phenomena that in turn creates the macroscopic universe we see. However, it must be taken into consideration that this conclusion is far from logical inevitability. |
|
On The Implications Of Omnipotence Postulate One: "Omnipotence" means "the ability to carry out any act imaginable from any situation"; it is infinite power. Omnipotence is a superlative, not just an adjective; there is no greater power. The laws of nature, or possibility, or whatever else may contest it do not have as much authority as infinite power. It is often considered that there are two possibilities when one defines omnipotence: either the omnipotent being in question is capable of doing absolutely anything it desires, or it is simply able to do anything within the laws of nature, bound by what is or is not possible. The latter was proposed by Thomas Aquinas whilst trying to reconcile the paradox associated with omnipotence, which is most concisely and frequently demonstrated by the question "can God make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?" However, within this argument the former definition will be used - that is, in disagreement with Thomas Aquinas. Postulate Two: An omnipotent entity is either in a state of existence or a state of non-existence. It might seem unnecessary to postulate this; in other words it is intuitive that this statement is true. However, intuition frequently leads logic astray, and it is the author's desire that this article be as thoroughly logical as possible. Therefore it has been included as a postulate. It might be argued that this postulate previously assumes that there can be such a thing as an omnipotent entity, or else the statement could not be made (or, perhaps, that the postulate assumes that such a concept is a viable one). However, "omnipotent" is an adjective and "entity" is a noun. Together they make a concept whether real, possible or neither of these things; like a pink elephant or an underwater city. Furthermore, arguably, for an adjective to even be a concept it must be possible to attach it to a noun, and in this case it is irrelevant to which noun the adjective "omnipotent" is attached. Consider the latter of the two possibilities in Postulate Two - that the omnipotent entity is in a state of non- existence. This does not matter to an omnipotent entity - it is capable of doing anything from any situation. Whether it is in existence or non-existence it can perform any feat imaginable, and this does not exclude the (irrelevant) act of putting itself into a state of existence. Indeed, one could simply proceed Postulate One by saying "a conceivable act (though not necessarily possible) might be to create oneself from nothing". In this way it can be seen that Postulate Two itself is not necessary. Whether this postulate is true or not; ridiculous or intuitive; it does not matter to an omnipotent entity that is capable of performing absolutely any act. Even if it is impossible for an omnipotent god to exist, he still has the power to create himself from non- existence. One might also argue that it is an assumption that this god was in existence before anything else was. This may be true, but it is not an assumption that has been made here. At this point in time, when nothing was in existence, he was not either. But he is able to create himself as he is omnipotent. This may be seen as a paradoxical way of thinking; how can a being perform an act when that being does not exist? But the omnipotent being is able to get past paradoxes of this, or any other kind. Therefore there is an omnipotent entity in existence. The argument stated previously is not exclusive to one omnipotent entity. Why would it be? To say that it is the exclusive right of one being alone would be to make an unecessary assumption. It is no great leap of faith (provided the previous argument is accepted) to imagine that many beings would follow this path of self-creation. But how many? There are only three numerical concepts of any real importance here: zero, a finite number or an infinite number. However, please note: that is not to mean "number" in its accepted, colloquial or superficially mathematical sense; rather, it is to mean "magnitude". This is because I would like to avoid the logical and philosophical minefield of having some negative number of omnipotent entities, and also to suggest that this argument is not restricted to an integer number of entities. Crucially, it is irrelevant whether this magnitude is 1 or 100; large or small. There is always an infinite number of other possibilities both greater and smaller than any real, finite number. Each of these three concepts (zero, finite and infinite) is entirely external to the other two; one cannot have a concept of zero using only the concepts of one and infinity (without introducing operators, which are further concepts themselves). The purpose of this slightly tangential discourse is to try and suggest that if it is possible for an omnipotent entity to create itself from nothing, then it follows that there should be an infinite number of such beings in existence. An assumption would be required in order for us to say that the number of gods in existence is anything less than this. To say there are none we would have to introduce a reason why this is the case. To put a limit on the number at, for example, 700, or At this point it is important to point out that benevolence is not a given in this scenario; there is no reason why we might assume that the god who created himself is entirely good, or entirely bad. He may be anything between these two polar opposites. Given only the concept of an omipotent entity whose desire it is to be in existence we cannot presume anything about that god. He may be anywhere along the spectrum from good to evil. Indeed there is no reason why good and evil should define the nature of this spectrum - there would be any number of different spectra of varying qualities, and any number of different dimensions describing the infinity of gods, defining any quality that gods may possess. Therefore there is an infinite number of omnipotent entities of infinitely different (or infinitessimally similar) characteristics to one another. We can assume that all omnipotent entities, whether infinitely different or infinitessimally similar, create themselves at the same rate as one another. That is to say that it is a constant, uniform stream of creation: an infinitely long straight line advancing linearly on all the multiple planes of divine variety. We can make this assumption on the basis that each of these potential gods has an equal power, and so there would be no characterisic favoured in any way. It would be impossible for any one being to progress further than another as their power is of infinite equality. In addition, these beings have complete and ultimate control over time (and any other dimension), and so it makes little sense even to discuss an uneven emergence across different characteristics of the community of gods. Therefore the divine emergence into the world of existence would be of the strictest uniformity. As with having a cap on the number of entities that are able to bring themselves into existence, for there to be any particular quality favoured above another would require that some additional postulate be made. Consider a sceario in which a baby is dying, its life hanging in the balance: like any human being at any moment in time, it will either live or die. Watching over this baby are an infinite number of omnipotent beings that would like to save the child, and an infinite number who would like to see it die. Infinity for and infinity against, and therefore it would be out of the control of any single one of them to affect this baby's chances. They entirely balance the scales of good and evil, and to quote the mathematician, if we sum the series from - In any situation we could only possibly feel an effect if there is a majority of gods in agreement. But in any situation, no matter what the details, there will never be a majority of gods. They cannot agree, and therefore we can never feel an effect from them. One might say that, as far as we are concerned, to all intents and purposes, there is no difference between this community of perfectly balanced gods and there being no god at all. No act can ever be performed as nothing can be agreed, so nothing can ever be felt from this active, yet absent, ambivalent set. This poses a problem: how can the universe exist if it is not to every god's agreement? Imagine the community of omnipotent entities as a spectrum, and for simplicity consider just the characteristics of good versus evil. It is therefore a one-dimensional spectrum. This spectrum would consist of an infinite number of gods spread from pure, infinite evil at one end to pure, infinite benevolence at the other. Every point between these two would be filled as they are; by an infinite number of gods. Imagine now the perspective of a god at some point on the spectrum - a god who would like to save the aforementioned baby. He has an infinite number on either side of him: an infinite number who would like to save the baby and an infinite number who would like to kill it. These two balance each other out, and he controls the casting vote. He is therefore able to save the baby, if that is what he chooses. To use an analogy: imagine an infinitely long seesaw with a movable pivot. This seesaw will balance wherever the pivot is placed. At any point along the seesaw there is an infinite length either side, and so it would always be at equilibrium. Therefore, if we look at the scenario from a god's point of view, there are always an infinite number who agree with what he may try to do and an infinite number who do not. And so, as far as he is concerned, he is free to act in whatever way he may choose. But this is only true from his point of view. As soon as one considers the reality external to him one must consider the gods as a whole, and nothing can be agreed upon. Now, to go back to the creation of the universe - in doing this an omnipotent entity would have two options: either he creates it external to himself or it is a part of him, inside himself. If he creates an external world this is in effect allowing the other gods to have their say over his creation - turning it over to the community of gods. Such a world can never be created: to do so would be to affect what is outside of that creative omnipotent entity, and such a thing could never be agreed upon by the community. Instead, if the being creates a world that is part of him it takes his characteristics, desires and omnipotence; an intricate manifestation of that god himself. It is untouchable by the other gods. This is the only way that an omnipotent entity would be able to create a universe. Therefore the universe that I see in existence is a manifestation of an omnipotent entity. However, we cannot possibly know if it is a benevolent entity or a malevolent one. One might predict from our surroundings that it is neither infinitely good nor infinitely bad, but this would of course be an assumption. It is the author's desire to use a skeptic's basis of knowledge from which to work; to postulate as little as possible (as to postulate is to employ faith) and to deduce as much as possible from such assumptions. In this light, the conclusion that "the universe that I see in existence is a manifestation of an omnipotent entity" must not be mistaken: it does not by default extend to dolphins in the sea, supernovae or Christmas trees. The limit of skepticism is solipsism (rather than nihilism): the belief that the only thing one can be absolutely sure of is one's own existence. I could not conceive of a viewpoint that stated that absolutely nothing exists: if this is the case, how can such a viewpoint exist? An opinion requires an owner, and that owner implies existence. This last sentence, of course, is simply a rendition of Descartes' famous assertion: "I think, therefore I am". By saying this, Descartes meant that the only thing one can be sure of, amongst all the dead -ends and no-through roads of philosophy, is that you exist. This is not to say that the world-as-you-know-it exists, or that your next-door neighbour exists - you do not have a direct, indisputable perception of these things. It is not even to say that your parents exist. All you can be sure of is that you are in existence, right now, in this instant in time. Incidentally, it is not to say that time exists. We cannot ever know what the fabric of reality consists of, and what is the correct paradigm behind our existence - all we can be sure of is that there is a fabric of reality; that there is some paradigm. Therefore (if we are to assume a skeptical basis), all that one can be sure is included in the aforementioned "universe" is what one is experiencing at a single instant, so that is all that we can be sure that the omnipotent entity associated with our universe consists of. There is an infinite number of beings in existence. It must be clarified that there is not simply an infinite number covering some range of possibility; there is an omnipotent entity for every single conceivable occurrence. No possibility, or imaginable eventuality, exists that is not a divine incarnation. The gods define possibility. They are an uncountable infinity. So all possible versions of my life are played out: every life that could have been; every conclusion to my life that could occur from this moment in time. It follows that, as I proceed through my life, I am discovering what the nature is of the relevant omnipotent entity, like the gradual collapse of a quantum wavefunction. In this vein it could be argued that the omnipotent entity that created my world is in fact, at the moment, a superposition of all remaining possible omnipotent entities, with an expectation value of the omnipotent entity corresponding to what I have already witnessed (as Schrödinger's Cat is neither truly alive or truly dead, but a superposition of the two). It could also be argued that the omnipotent entity already created the world I inhabit, or I would not inhabit it; the rest of my life has already been played out in his mind, only I am still to have it revealed to me. One might say that our actions dictate, at least in part, what will occur during what remains of our lives and, by this token, we are selecting the omnipotent entity that produced our world. Or: in order to exist we must be a part of the omnipotent entity and so, as it is omnipotent, we make no choice in our lives that was not first made by that entity. However, to deduce either of these possibilities would be to say that it cannot be any other way. So to deduce that our world is predetermined is to say that it is impossible for an omnipotent entity to give us free will. That would be to say that the omnipotent entity cannot do a certain thing with the world he created; that he is not omnipotent. To say that I have free will is to say that I have the power to change the omnipotent entity himself (as I am a part of him), and therefore that he is not in complete control of his own nature. Indeed, to deduce anything about this world, further than that it exists, would be to exclude certain aspects of possibility, and that would be to reduce the power of omnipotence. Therefore I am forced to conclude that it is impossible to take this train of deduction any further; to say any more than this would require faith, and essentially one would be choosing the paradigm that most appeals. Postulates 1 "Omnipotence" means "the ability to carry out any act imaginable from any situation"; it is infinite power. 2 An omnipotent entity is either in a state of existence or a state of non-existence. Conclusions 1 There is an infinite number of omnipotent entities of infinitely different (or infinitessimally similar) characteristics to one another. 2 The universe that I see in existence is a manifestation of an omnipotent entity. |
|
On Free Will And Mathematics Coming soon... |
|
Random Phenomena As Building Blocks Coming soon... |
|
More...
Phantasmagoria Contact... montgomeryhughes@gmail.com |
