The coin has been flipped, and Eloise goes first.

 

Just to throw in my own mission statement with regard to this debate, as a reviewer, it's not my position to say who I do or don't agree with.  Everyone knows that I'm an atheist, and I can't claim to have an impartial opinion.  What I intend to do instead is weigh the strength, consistency, and relevance of the arguments presented.  Just as many people feel that, say, Brian and Kelly didn't present a strong enough position in the Ray and Kirk debate, if either Kevin or Eloise presents a weak argument, it will fall to DG and me to point that out.

For those of you reading this debate, it would be a good exercise to try to remove yourself from your own opinion, be it theism or atheism, and try to decide for yourself not who is correct, but who is presenting a stronger case.  This, after all, is the essence of being openminded.

As for the rules, this thread is reserved STRICTLY for Eloise and Kevin.  Any posts other than theirs will be summarily deleted.  To anyone thinking of breaking this rule, consider that you'll be pissing off the Mod God and the Bazooka Wielding Deluded God.  Bad idea on both counts.
 

As ground rules for both parties:

1) Technical language not readily accessible to the audience should be either avoided, or when used, explained in enough detail that the readers can reasonably hope to grasp the subject.

2) Though there is no word limit on posts, please remember that this is a public debate, not a doctoral dissertation.  Try to keep your posts within a manageable length for the average reader.  If you are going to be presenting a long chain of logic, consider posting it in parts through multiple rounds.

 

With that, I will bow out until the first round of review.  Again, Eloise goes first with her opening statement.

 

I'm here now. Just a quick thing about timings and responses. Kevin and Hamby, I'm about 12 hours out of synch with you,give or take 3 hours depending on your positions in the continental US. Eloise, I'm essentially on the same clock as you, being an hour behind.

Opening statement:

I'd like to start with borrowing from a recent topic in the AvT forum - Whether or not God exists is not of particular importance. If there is NO God the issue of God's existence is decidedly unimportant and to that end I expect you (Kevin, Panel and Gallery) will hold me to my own standard - I am not here to compel any agreement that God's existence is necessary.

What is important is that something does exist of which our lives are an indivisible part, what is this that exists is! an important question. If it is God or if it is not, it is equally important to know this existence for what it is.

And this will be the basis of my argument, I will ask you only to consider -

What is this that exists?

I am here to show you a realistic ontology which leads logically to conclude that all that exists is qualitatively equal to your own sense of existence therefore a sentient, living being, by your own measure, and quantitatively equal to your own massive potential, thus a God in whose image are we.

I will begin with some slightly technical definitions from the standard model of particle physics - one of our best theories of physical existence at this time. These definitions are what we will use to differentiate between the sometimes confusing concepts of the nakedly visible material universe and the more technical expositions of the material universe that include its non-classical attributes.

The standard model postulates that the universe is madeup of particles, sometimes referred to as quanta. Each of these particles is endowed with a strange property known as intrinsic angular momentum or spin.

Aside: I say this property is strange because there exists no formal agreement among physicists as to what spin actually is, it is a mysterious but very real part of the fundamental material universe. As there is no properly established theory explaining the phenomenon of spin I will not enter into any speculation about it at this time. I will only use respected and well understood spin theory make points in this debate.

Intrinsic angular momentum can be separated into two fairly clear categories - Integer Spin and Half-Integer Spin. Particles in the half-integer spin category are generally responsible for the rigid exclusive states which we would normally refer to as matter, the Integer Spin category most generally contains those particles which we would normally refer to as forces.

A very important particle type in the half integer spin category is the fermion (electrons are fermions) and thus I will, in this debate, refer to the classical world of rigid matter in the general sense as fermi objects in a fermi field of fermi neighbours.

This category of things obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics and the Pauli Exclusion principle - you will only need to basically understand the implications of the pauli exclusion principle ie the fermi objects we are talking about will repel each other because no two electrons of the same energy can occupy the same space and it is this that is inherently responsible for most of our everyday experience of classical matter.

In the Integer spin category are Photons (light and electromagnetic force) and Bosons (possibly Gravity) which obey Bose-Einstein statistics and thus can do things which fermi objects are excluded from doing such as occupy the same space at the same energy. These particles are most generally, what is exchanged in force interactions, thus they represent forces. For example, in Pauli exclusion a virtual particle exchange force exists between Fermions which causes them to repel each other (it is this that gives us the sensation of feeling something hard against our fingertips). In a fermi neighbourhood information from an integer spin force precedes the reaction that causes the appearance of rigidness between fermi neighbours so this Bose-Einstein field intersects our fermi neighbourhood on a non-classical axis.

So with that the definitions are -

Half-integer spin-Fermion category
1. The part of the material universe with classical material properties.
2. To be known as Fermi objects in a fermi field of fermi neighbours.

Integer Spin-Boson/photon category
1. The part of the material universe with quasi-classical properties (forces, waves and energy)
2. To be known as the Bose-Einstein field intersecting the Fermi neighbourhood non-classically.


In the Fermi Neighbourhood:

As I have implied above the Bose-Einstein field of integer spin particles is causal on more fronts than those generally ascribed to it in a classical model of the universe. In classical thought the field of forces is encompassed by the notion of a determinate fermi object harnessing and using some form of energy directly via itself as in Newtons equation F=MA in which the cause of the force is clearly the energy objectively distributed over the fermi object.

In the case of Pauli exclusion, information is exchanged across the Bose-Einstein field and the fermi neighbourhood takes a state according to that information.  There is no clear cut direction of causality in this exchange. The Information exchanged beteen the fermi neighbours is information about their individual state, yet their individual state also depends on having that information.

** You can note here that the B-E field appears to be able to defy the very notion of cause by distributing information before it could possibly have that information. However, again, for the purposes of a clean debate I am going to refrain from speculating on the concept of non-locality and stick to the well worn road - it is enough for us to see that the integer spin field is so deeply involved in the causal structure of the fermi neighbourhood.

Because the cause of force in the fermi neighbourhood loops back around the quantum states of fermi objects and into the information in the Bose-Einstein field. It is important for us to consider the relationship between these two categories of physical existence and what their relationship implies about that physical existence.
 

As indicated in the first paragraphs we will consider this relationship as it applies to your own human and sentient existence.

Your material existence is comprised, with a small degree of contrived simplicity, of the intersection between these two categories of the material universe.

Your rigid corporeal form and its dynamic system of interactions is a fermi neighbourhood. Information in that neighbourhood is distributed, generally, by the presence of a non-classically intersecting Bose-Einstein field of integer spin states. Within your body's systems information is exchanged via the B-E field between fermi objects in the neighbourhood.

To generalise and get to the point fairly quickly information about your state and the state of the universe you inhabit will pass between your environment and your brain in this way. We can concieve of information passed via this field to the brain over multiple channels.

Ordinarily one can concieve of the B-E field distributing information through your external senses and directly through nerve channels to the brain which recognises and organises those messages. This is a given.

In a less ordinary sense, we can also conceive of another sensory mechanism more directly linked to the relationship between the fermi neighbourhood and the B-E field whereupon information distributed through the field of forces energy and waves is relied upon by the fermions intrinsic to your physical being in order to maintain their consistent physical state. In this way one can say that at a level removed from your normal everyday senses the material portions of your being sense their environment using the exact same principles that govern your cognitive senses - information exchange distributed by an integer spin field.

Aside: Reiterating an important qualification - This integer spin field defies our classical sense of causality, how it does this is yet an important subject, however it is fairly sure to be beyond denying that upon discovering how it does this we are very unlikely to discover that it doesn't at all. It is enough to be going with that we will need to consider the distribution of information given by integer spin is a thing unto itself that must relate to what we are certain about in our existence. We will not go into the question of whether it is random (and thus how does it know to follow consistent laws) or whether it is fully actualised (and thus where are the other universes) or whether it is secretly chosen by a simple entity (and thus how, if ever, will we overcome the impossible barrier to observe that entity). Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows which of these is my preferred answer, but I won't be addressing that in this opening statement.

Suffice it to say that this distribution of information preceeds the configuration of the universe in any stage of its evolution, including the state of your physical being, and so your physical being is informed, by this distribution, how to be.

So far we have fairly simply established that what exists operates under the very same rules as those that govern the sensory attributes of a sentient organism, but in order to be considered fully sentient according to the characteristics of a God it probably should have a more striking resemblance to specialised organ of sentients.

And So... Pre-empting any possible objections, I agree it is not enough for existence to be able to sense itself by the same means that we sense ourselves, it should also, in order to be sentient as humans are, possess some specialised organisational structure analogous to a brain in which to order and 'compute' the sensory data.  

Again we look at the internal sensory faculty which recieves the distribution of information producing, to our physical senses, a dynamic system supportng the existence of the specialised instrument and fermi object which is a living brain.

There is a real perspective here in which it can be said that the brain produces itself from the data it has exchanged with its fermi neighbours. To this end the living brain is an entity not unlike the human being in which it resides, it is an entity unto itself no less than we are an entity unto ourselves in the universe in which we reside. In the terms of our classical perspective on the relationship we have with our brains one would say that the brain is less an entity unto itself in us than we are one unto ourselves in the universe. But if that is true, and the relationships between integer and half integer quantum objects is also true, then we are precisely less an object unto ourselves in the universe than we have supposed.

And if this is the case then our brains are no more belonging to us, than to the universe which we belong. That is to say, the universe is sentient in being specialised in computation, just as we are, in fact exactly as we are.

In summary of the concluding points.

1. Qualitatively the sentience of a living being is inseparable from the fundamental processes that produce a physical universe - a half integer spin field exchanging information over integer spin distribution.

2. Quantitatively the classical concept of an individual sentience belonging to a human entity is impossible unless that sentience belongs equally to the universe in which it operates.

C: All that exists is both qualitatively equal to our own sense of existence and quantitatively equal to its massive potential. Ergo all that exists is completely compatible with the definition of an omni-being God of which we are the image.

 
QED.

Thankyou and I shall now look forward to Kevin's opening statement.
 

Rebuttal 1

I disagree.

If God does exist, that the discovery of he/she/it would be extraordinarily important - more or less so depending on it's permutation. If we were to somehow discover that the Abrahamic God and his eternal realms of Heaven and Hell are a reality, for example, we would suddenly have very compelling reason to offer prayers and worship, because it's unlikely we would want to burn forever. If the god you later describe in your post is a reality, it would have huge potential practical applications - likely it would lead to unimaginable technological progress, as we learned to manipulate such a consciously-generated environment.

If God does not exist, however - or, as it is currently, is not clearly shown to exist - than it is extremely important that this is accepted on a factual level. If it isn't, and we simply shrug ad say, 'Well, it's alright for people to make-up what they want about the universe and it's origins,' we're retarding the scientific method. More importantly, we're enabling fanatics with an easy scapegoat; Scientologists with their 'fair game' policy, Muslims with their misogynistic doctrines and deadly martyrdom, Christian 'faith healers' and televangelists who sew death and misery through fraudulence, etc.

I agree that this is an important problem; as such, it is one that wholly deserved to be examined through the rigors of the scientific method. As such, I'm going to plug your ensuing argument into the procedure model for the scientific method, to see if it might qualify as a theory. As such, however, while I will be making sure to address you opening statement as a whole, I cannot address it in the order you posted it.

Let's take a look:

 

1. Problem:

   Quote:

   What is this that exists?

 

2. Hypothesis:

   Quote:

   All that exists is both qualitatively equal to our own sense of existence and quantitatively equal to its massive potential. Ergo all that exists is completely compatible with the definition of an omni-being God of which we are the image.

 

3. Prediction:

   Quote:

   1. Qualitatively the sentience of a living being is inseparable from the fundamental processes that produce a physical universe - a half integer spin field exchanging information over integer spin distribution.
   
   2. Quantitatively the classical concept of an individual sentience belonging to a human entity is impossible unless that sentience belongs equally to the universe in which it operates.

4. Test:

   .....

Here we have our first hang-up. And remember, this is where the really important processes begin for determining the veracity of a scientific theory.

Eloise, you've provided plenty of data, which is very appreciable, but if we look back on the golden rules of the scientific method, we see that this data fails to meet a lot of the criteria. Even though my understanding of physics (and thereby quantum mechanics) is extraordinarily limited, it's still easy for me to state that the data you've presented has little merit:

The particle physics information is presented largely without citations, and many of the terms use an imprecise language that suggests speculation rather than established principle...

This, for example, is outright speculation. Not established principle. 'One can say' a number of things, about any topic; that does not make what is said valid.

Again, this is speculation. I'm highlighting where the key indicators of this are.

Moreover, the sentence in this paragraph has no worth; it's just a form of baiting. Science isn't concerned with what your preferred answer is; it's concerned with what the data shows.

...We have not established anything, actually. We certainly haven't established that 'existence itself' operates the same way a biological organism's brain does. At best, you've argued (without citations, and with arguments that very much appear to be strictly speculative) that our brains can perceive B-E fields outside of physical sensory mechanisms. Even if this were true (and you'd need good data to support such an argument), it wouldn't be evidence that the universe 'thinks'.

This is, again, purely speculative. We have no data that suggests our own brains or bodies are projections of the universe, no evidence that the universe 'thinks' to begin with, and no evidence that our brain has any perception beyond that which is provided by it's body's sensory components.

It is important to note, since it has appeared so many times, that 'information' is nothing more than a human abstraction. When something happens, we want to be able to quantify it, so we assign information to it. Everything can be said to comprised of information – it is important not to conflate a human abstraction with an actual naturalistic process.

 

Now, if we go to the next two steps in the procedure model of the scientific method, we run into further problems. While plenty of papers have been published on quantum mechanics and particle physics, not a single paper pertaining to a universal consciousness has seen print in a scientific journal. While this alone does not constitute evidence that the hypothesis is therefore wrong, it does demonstrate that the theory has no scientific corroboration despite having had a fairly considerable amount of time for examination.

The eighth step is the final nail in the coffin. There is simply no way whatsoever to falsify the notion that perhaps we are constructs of the universe's imagination. The theory isn't concrete enough to be testable, much less approached with competing ideas that would prove it false.

 

Ouch, fair point. I concede. If you'll allow me to correct myself, I mean to say that it is not important to me a priori that God exists, and I would aim to achieve the demonstration of that in my argument. I might not wish for Hellfire if, as such, the abrahamic jealous punisher of evil exists, but neither would I wish any given to be unlikely hellfire into existence just because it must be. It is somewhat of a relief to find inconsistency in the stories of maniacal bloodthirsty Gods, I'll admit, and as you said, if such a God exists it would be important to know that it does in order to freely choose your afterlife destiny - still.... given some of those fundamentalist-type abrahamic Gods, personally I'm not sure I would comply with his demands.... but, I digress.... back to the matter at hand.

   
`

I submit that my opening statement may not have been entirely clear on a few points. It may not have been clear to you that the fermi-neighbourhood is not 'consciously' generated as such, it is, at best* (*where best means I have not made any glaring logical errors) deeply unconsciously generated. The generation of matter and the generation of consciousness share means but they do not share attentive purpose that we have yet objectively discerned. That is, the brain goes about it's business of making itself and the consciousness about it's business of making itself, and though they do this side by side and in the same way, we have not formally observed the manner of any communication that they may have between each other of their respective ends, only the principle in which it is possible that they might.




We have a general accord here. Unfortunately this is more difficult in practice than in our sense of idealism. Ideally we would all take our respective positions on the philosophical questions of the universe and only question or defend them in a peaceful and constructive manner eventuating in rational and undisputed agreement over the most likely conclusions.  Science and reason are our attempts to reach for this ideal and religion is often the anthithesis of it. Because I share that ideal, I am personally enamoured of science and not religion.

**This might not be weighable in the debate, but perhaps it is weighty on your mind, Kevin, to profess myself a theist in this day and age and thus potentially contribute a sense of credibility to the unfortunate state of theistic communities is not something I take lightly. If I thought it was the best choice in light of those things I would lie and profess atheist because I am genuinely moved by your appeal.  

 

 


Those aren't really the predictions there. These are a reiteration of the hypotheses which make the predictions:

a. that the qualitative reality of human sentience can be explained in terms equal to the fundamental processes which generate the material universe. This is done by demonstrating that conscious information and physical information is distributed to ontologically equal entities by equal process.

and

b. that the quantitative reality of human sentience has been defined only to a potential. This is demonstrated by taking applying the concept in (a) to another entity to demonstrate the extent of implication of the equivalency relationship.




 

My apologies for the omission here, I did not anticipate that you would expect citable references for the concepts which I spoke of as they aren't controversial subjects, and I made a decided effort to avoid saying anything that might be too controversial for an opening statement.




Okay, this is not really outright speculation, as it were. I have given you an established principle - that of information distribution over the integer spin field - and two very seemingly different phenomena to which it applies equally. It is not outrightly speculative to draw from this demonstration an equivalency of the two phenomena. It would seem your impression of that comes more directly from my cautious choice of language than from an obviously apparent leap in the logic of my statement.

If I were to say, for example, banging on a drum makes a sound and causing a disturbance in the particles which make up the system of a tightly bound cloth and it's environment with a stick creates a travelling wave of energy to your ear which your brain then translates thus one could say excited particle waves beating against the inner ear and sound are qualitatively equal phenomenon. Would you disagree with that based on my choice to phrase it with those particular words?


 

This is an aside, and I am saying it in anticipation of you or the audience perhaps wondering if my argument is based on speculation about the nature of spin phenomena. I am saying that I am trying to avoid speculative territory, although I'm aware some might be interested in my views on it and whether those views would be directly relevant to my argument.




My apologies again Kevin, I am not overtly attempting to bait you here, my thoughts were with the reader not the scientific community. I will curb the asides for the rest of the debate.




Yes, you are correct about that, I should have noted that neural synapse is a fermi state governed by the distributions of the integer spin field somewhere in there and I didn't. Forgive my poor construction of that particular point in the argument.



This is a misconception of my argument which I hoped not to have lead you into. The thrust of my point about the quantitative reality of sentience is that we can strip ourselves of it as easily as we can strip the universe of it. We can, with sharp equivalence, define neural patterns as entities unto themselves as we can define humans; given my proposed ontological basis.  We may be declaring our sentience our own rather arbitrarily, it is its own no less and in the course of claiming it our own we concede to 'the universe' the exact same ontological justification.

 

Additional Note: I am surprised not to see you raise what I imagined were likely objections or questions regarding my God concept - for example I thought you might question whether (since I am asserting that the universe is ontologically justified in claiming our sentience and is a God) I also believe, as I logically should, that the collective race of humanity is omniscient?  For which I could refer you to Omega Point Theory (with strict instructions to ignore the outlandish theological assertions) wherein it is theoretically established that in some universe causally connected to this one, we are. 

It occurs to me, consequently, that I have made my points difficult to understand with my unfortunate verbosity affliction, I hope you won't hesitate to ask for any clarification that you may need on any point, however small or obscured by wordiness it is.

Yes, DG.  This is the first round of panel commentary.  It will probably be tomorrow before I can get my first comments up, but feel free to jump in whenever you're ready.

 

 I was expecting to have a harder job critiquing this first round, just looking at the length of it.  DG is the authority on QM, and I have nothing to add to his assessment of Eloise's statements.  I concur with his statement that there has yet to be a proper debate because of poor coordination of positions.

It appears to me that you both agree on the merit of the scientific method, so that can be taken as a given.  It also appears to me that religion is several steps ahead of Eloise's propositions, and as she has not yet satisfied the burden of proof, I'd suggest that Kevin needs to back up quite a few steps.

Before the next round, I would like you to get together and decide what you're debating.

 {EDIT:  erk... I should have said, "She has not yet satisfied the burden of proof for the claim that the analogous nature of sentience is indeed a real relationship}

 

Err...  sorry. 

 

In any case, if you'd gone another round, we'd have said the same things.

 

Well, uh... I know the peanutgallery might be a tad upset at this anti-climax, but:

 

Eloise and I are putting this one away. I don't know QM or physics (as I had previously mentioned), Eloise has said she doesn't contest the scientific method as a voracious mechanism for exploring the world, and at any rate, there's little to no disagreement here regarding te traditional idea of God.

Intuitively (based on a lack of peer-reviewed lterature on the subject), I think digital physics is junk science, but that's not a field of study I've researched, so I can't really argue against it. At any rate, a huge thanks to DG and Hamby for agreeing to be the panel for the debate, and a huge thanks to Brian for setting-up this One on One arena so nicely for us.