How can the Universe exist without Logos?

Most people are familiar with Logos from the Bible. You don't have to be religious to realize that the Universe needs Logos to exist. Here's a definition:

1
: the divine wisdom manifest in the creation, government, and redemption of the world and often identified with the second person of the Trinity
2
: reason that in ancient Greek philosophy is the controlling principle in the universe

The Universe needs Logos to exist just like our civilizations needs Logos to exist. There's a sequential arrangement of information that gives rise to cars, buildings, computers and TV's. This is Logos. This is wisdom and reason manifesting creation through the sequential arrangement of information.

The Universe is no different. A sequential arrangement of information gives rise to planets, stars, comets and more. This is Logos.

The question is why do the laws of physics give rise to planets, stars, moons and us when in this sequential arrangement?

Materialist realize these limits so they come up with things like the Anthropic Principle which basically says don't ask these questions.

There's reason behind the Universe and we can understand this reasoning just through observation and scientifically through mathematics.

Again, the materialist will say don't ask the question because science in the context of materialism can't answer it.

How can random interactions give rise to sequential arrangements that give rise to things like the constants of nature which reach down to Planck scales?

Again, the materialist will say, don't ask these questions because in the context of materialism, science can't answer this.

Civilizations can't exist without Logos and neither can the Universe.

reply to post by neoholographic

The question is why do the laws of physics give rise to planets, stars, moons and us when in this sequential arrangement?

I suppose this question would be similar to asking why the texture of water isn't consistent with that of crumbled bricks or fresh lava. The simple answer: the most fundamental components of the universe follow a stacked hierarchy of rules which dictate an increasingly more complex syntax. Think of the atomic world as a language. No matter what the characters look like or who uses them, coherent communication requires a universal codex by which to organize and interpret said characters. Things don't operate as they do because we think they should or because they decided it would be fun. Either you follow the rules of physics or you do not. Consciousness is not synonymous with physical function. You don't have to be awake or cognizant for your particles to do exactly what their existence in this universe mandates. If they exist, then this will be their function and behavior according to that specification as determined by such and such a set of environmental factors. Someday, we may have computers powerful enough to predict the exact outcome of a predetermined scenario. Say, the impact of a bullet hitting a cement wall from a gun fired twenty feet away will look like this...and then you have a computer generated simulation of the impact created before the bullet was ever fired. And the two images, live and predicted imaging, will match.

Anyway, you get my point.

reply to post by neoholographic

The question is why do the laws of physics give rise to planets, stars, moons and us when in this sequential arrangement?

The planets, stars, moons and us give rise to the laws of physics. Not the other way around.

There's reason behind the Universe and we can understand this reasoning just through observation and scientifically through mathematics.

We call it cause and effect.

How can random interactions give rise to sequential arrangements that give rise to things like the constants of nature which reach down to Planck scales?

How can they not?

Civilizations can't exist without Logos and neither can the Universe.

Idealists take an old idea and exaggerate it, pretending it is new.

Math, physics, ideas are artifacts of man, and not fundamental facets of the universe.

reply to post by Aphorism

The planets, stars, moons and us give rise to the laws of physics. Not the other way around.

What?

Maybe in some "bizarro universe", but in this one, the laws of physics existed before the Big Bang (and, by extension, before planets, stars, moon and "us".)

Or maybe you have some reasonable theory of how a planet can coalesce without the Law of Gravity.

reply to post by adjensen

What?

Maybe in some "bizarro universe", but in this one, the laws of physics existed before the Big Bang (and, by extension, before planets, stars, moon and "us".) - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other.

Gravity requires physical bodies. Welcome to the "bizarro universe".

You should read my thread in my signature dude, I think in an abstract way we're discussing the same thing, hope you get the time to read it. S&F.

reply to post by Aphorism


Your post simply proves my point. You said:

Math, physics, ideas are artifacts of man, and not fundamental facets of the universe.

First, this is a whole other argument and there are many Mathematicians that disagree with Wolfram and they see Mathematics as fundamental to the universe. It's obvious why a materialist would want to see Math in this way, but the important thing here is the sequential arrangement of math or the sequential arrangement of information gives rise to the reality that we see and experience. This is Logos.

Like I said, you can't have the Universe or Civilization without Logos.

You're answer is the standard materialist answer. It's like this just because. That makes zero sense but it's understandable because materialism can't answer the question. It has to say, well things are this way because they are this way. That's not an answer, that's just saying that you have no answer.

Yes, the sequential arrangement of information is a fundamental facet of the universe that gives rise to TV's, cars and buildings in the context of civilizations and that gives rise to planets, stars and moons in the context of the Universe.

If I were to have a hypothetical universe maker and these universes consisted of the alphabet, I could generate billions of Alphabet universe and most will be gibberish and some might have letters of the Alphabet in sequential order that has meaning. The sequential arrangement that has meaning and results in information is Logos.

The Universe we experience is filled with information that's in sequential arrangements that give rise to planets, moons and stars. Just like the sequential arrangement of information gives rise to civilizations.

This isn't some artifact, we couldn't have a Universe or a Civilization without these sequential arrangements which are Logos. The materialist answer is the Anthropic Principle which basically says we don't know in the context of materialism so please don't ask that question.

Elijah23
You should read my thread in my signature dude, I think in an abstract way we're discussing the same thing, hope you get the time to read it. S&F.

I will check out your thread and thanks for your response.

reply to post by Aphorism

Gravity requires physical bodies.

But the Law of Gravity does not require physical bodies. When matter began to exist in the microsecond after the Big Bang, the law kicked in and gravity began exerting itself on matter.

reply to post by adjensen

But the Law of Gravity does not require physical bodies. When matter began to exist in the microsecond after the Big Bang, the law kicked in and gravity began exerting itself on matter. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Take all physical bodies and closed systems out of the equation. What's left of your Laws of physics?

Laws of Physics

To be clear given the existence of God nothing could very well be random. It seems possible that our observation of randomness is due to our limited capacity to comprehend our environment.


Any thoughts?

reply to post by neoholographic

First, this is a whole other argument and there are many Mathematicians that disagree with Wolfram and they see Mathematics as fundamental to the universe. It's obvious why a materialist would want to see Math in this way, but the important thing here is the sequential arrangement of math or the sequential arrangement of information gives rise to the reality that we see and experience. This is Logos.

Like I said, you can't have the Universe or Civilization without Logos.

You're answer is the standard materialist answer. It's like this just because. That makes zero sense but it's understandable because materialism can't answer the question. It has to say, well things are this way because they are this way. That's not an answer, that's just saying that you have no answer. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So you are saying man didn't create math? I'm fairly certain that this is a well known fact based on empirical evidence, not "just because". The base 60 system is was created because the Babylonians could count to 60 on one hand.

How did you come to the opposite conclusion?

Also, can you find me any math outside of human discourse?

reply to post by Aphorism

Take all physical bodies and closed systems out of the equation. What's left of your Laws of physics?

They are still there, because the laws exist as laws, not as physical entities. You're continuing to confuse gravity with the Law of Gravity, they are not the same thing.

Put another way -- there is the form of a cat, and then there are cats. The form of a cat has always existed, and will continue to exist, even after all the real, physical cats die off. Even if there is no intelligent mind in the universe to think of the form of a cat, the form still exists.

reply to post by adjensen

They are still there, because the laws exist as laws, not as physical entities. You're continuing to confuse gravity with the Law of Gravity, they are not the same thing.

Put another way -- there is the form of a cat, and then there are cats. The form of a cat has always existed, and will continue to exist, even after all the real, physical cats die off. Even if there is no intelligent mind in the universe to think of the form of a cat, the form still exists.
- See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well the Law of Gravity isn't used anymore. Perhaps you are confused.

How can the form of a cat exist if there is no cat to form it? The form would only exist in your memory and no where else.

reply to post by Aphorism


What empirical evidence are you speaking of? The debate is still open about mathematics and mathematical truths are fundamental regardless of a local numbering system.

Again, this is a separate debate and it simply supports what I'm saying. Logos is needed for the Universe or Civilizations to exist. The sequential arrangement of information gives us stars, planets, moons as well as TV's, cars or buildings.

For instance, if a civilization on another planet had a different numbering system, that still wouldn't change the fundamental truth of the laws of physics in our universe. It wouldn't change the speed of light or Bohr's radius.

So the question is, why does the sequential arrangement of the laws of physics give rise to the speed of light, Bohr's radius or Planck's constant? Again, this is Logos. Materialism has no answer for this so they just point to the Anthropic Principle and say please don't ask those questions.

Let's say you have a civilization with 6 fingers on each hand and 3 long toes on each foot. This civilization may come up with a different numbering system, but it will not change the fundamental laws of physics. It will not change the law of gravity or Planck's constant. Again, this is Logos.

The sequential arrangement of the laws of physics gives rise to the universe we see and physical laws we can understand through mathematics.

Materialism has no answer for this. They have no answer why the laws of physics gives rise to our universe when in this sequential arrangement. They have no answer why the laws of physics exists. They just say they exist just because so please don't ask those questions.

reply to post by Aphorism

Take the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus), a bird that many think of as having more to do with barbecue sauce than with arithmetic. If a chicken sits in front of two small opaque screens, and one ball disappears behind the first screen, followed by four balls disappearing behind a second screen, the chicken walks towards the screen that hides four balls, since four balls are better than one ball. The feat is made more impressive when you consider that the chicken in question is only three days old. And it can do a lot more than add up.

If one ball disappears behind the first screen, and four balls disappear behind the second, just as before, but then two of the four balls behind the second screen are visibly moved over to the first screen, the chicken is now faced with two tasks. It must add two to one, and know that there are now three balls behind the first screen. It must also subtract two from four, and realise that there are only two balls left behind the second screen. The young chicken must overcome its initial impulse to approach the second screen, which initially hid four balls, and instead approach the first screen, now hiding three balls. If this sounds complicated for the three-day-old bird, think again. Infant chickens correctly approached the screen hiding more balls nearly 80% of the time.

Chimpanzees perform even better in their maths tests, succeeding in this sort of task 90% of the time. In one experiment, researchers placed a chimpanzee in front of two sets of bowls that contained chocolate pieces. Each set had two bowls, and to receive their treats, the chimps had to select the set that had the largest combined number of chocolate pieces, in other words adding together the number of pieces in each individual bowl. They succeeded even on trials where one of the bowls in the "incorrect" set contained more chocolates than either individual bowl in the "correct" set.

Animals that count

Further

It seems apparent that math is inherent to nature.

reply to post by Kashai


Great post and you're exactly right.

This is obvious but the main reason why some reject this is because their belief in materialism. In mathematics, you can't look at the number 1 like you can look at a cell in biology. This troubles the materialist therefore math has to be an artifact that's tied to the material brain. Just like consciousness and mind must emerge from the material brain even though there's no evidence to support this notion.

These things must be the case because materialism must be true in the eyes of a believer in materialism.

This goes back to Logos and why the sequential arrangement of mathematics gives rise to technology and science that's precision reaches down to Planck levels.

reply to post by neoholographic

For instance, if a civilization on another planet had a different numbering system, that still wouldn't change the fundamental truth of the laws of physics in our universe. It wouldn't change the speed of light or Bohr's radius. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Only because they are both observing and trying to describe the same phenomena, not because there is a hidden mathematics in it.

reply to post by Aphorism

How can the form of a cat exist if there is no cat to form it? The form would only exist in your memory and no where else.

The form of a cat exists outside the physical reality of a cat. When you "think of a cat", unless you're thinking of a specific one, you're thinking of the form of a cat, which does not exist in reality, and that form is eternal -- it pre-existed physical cats, it is not dependent on you (or anyone) thinking about it, and it will continue to exist forever, even after physical cats are long extinct.

That's the difference between intelligible things (like the form of a cat, or the second law of thermodynamics) and sensible things (like a physical cat, or the gravitational effect of one object on another.) By your claim, there are only sensible things (things that can be sensed,) and there are no intelligible things, but that is obviously false, because the laws of physics, or the laws of mathematics, are intelligible things, not sensible things -- only the results of those laws can be sensed, not the laws themselves.

An obvious refutation of your original claim that planets are responsible for gravity is that such a claim is circuitous -- as gravity is necessary for the formation of a planet, a planet cannot be the source of the law of gravity, or else the planet could never have formed in the first place.

reply to post by Kashai

It seems apparent that math is inherent to nature.

Then so is walking. So is blinking. So is eating. Because other animals do something makes it inherent? What?