Light And Puzzles

ABOUT LIGHT AND PUZZLES:

“I always find it fascinating, that theory of the creation of the universe where God says "let there be light" . Certainly agrees with the Big Bang. Which one do you favor?”

Dave, have you ever read the last page of “The Last Question”? It’s here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3509/Isaac-Asimov-The-Last-Question

I think God said, “Let there be light.”
So, I believe in Meta-Reality.
Although, I find it unnecessary to my purposes to suppose whether, before God and Nature, there may have been Meta-God and Meta-Nature. ):

ABOUT REALITY:

“… purely rational means that 'meta' is a valid form of reality.”
Yes, I intuit there was a reality, even before the Big Bang.
And, by definition, that reality would be “meta,” i.e., beyond empirical falsification using only the physics availed within our present universe.

ABOUT INTUITION VS. EMPIRICISM:

About what can be relatively measured or statistically assessed, we Mortal Relators can test or falsify, empirically.
About what cannot be subjected to relative measurement, such as about “God” or the beginning or end of time for the first or last of all possible universes, we cannot empirically test.
So, empiricists often consider such “Ultimates” to be unworthy of consideration, while spiritualists consider them especially worthy.
Notwithstanding the delusions and denials that are commonplace among most of us, I suspect almost everyone is a bit of both, empiricist and spiritualist.
For example, I think Dawkins is often comically deluded about his pure “objectivity.” (Check out “The Dawkins Delusion.”)

If I were rationalizing mere intuition as a basis for believing that my cat were outside, I could readily test or falsify, merely by finding where my cat actually is.

But, it is not analogically valid to compare rationalizing the existential whereabouts of my cat with the existence of God.

ABOUT FLOODGATES:

One may easily ridicule a belief that a “Giant Spaghetti Monster” (“GSM”) controls all our world.
One easily shows the GSM is superfluous to practical empiricism; one also easily shows the GSM is superfluous to practical attempts to inspire common acceptance of civilizing mores.
Simply put, it is not necessary to attribute “Whatever may be the Metaphysical Force that synchronizes choices and effects within parameters allowed by Nature” as consisting of, or being in any way limited to, a GSM.
So, GSM-like reasoning should not open any “floodgates,” because such reasoning should be discredited.

LOOK TO THE COMMON CORE:

Most spiritual traditions relate to a common perennial core of concerns. They tend to advocate parables for teaching variations on: the Rule of the Veil, one divides the other chooses, the Golden Rule, the Great Commandment, and Enlightened Empathy --- as variously interpreted by Arjuna, Moses, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, and Dali Lama. (For a more questionable example, consider Mahomet, with regard to lack of empathy towards God’s expressions in humanity.)

I think we need to live with those traditional stories, but we need to “progress” to appreciate that the stories are mainly only figurative, not literal or empirical.
The practical value we interpret and find in our traditional or sacred stories needs to evolve as we evolve, in our niche, humanity, and culture.

CHALLENGES:

Therein are our great challenges: Towards what purposes should we progress; and, how should we design or participate in the ongoing evolution in our environment and genetics?
Oddly enough, we seem presently primed for being stewards of our environmental evolution, but not for our genetic evolution.
Of course, our history explains much about that.
We have become learned and conditioned not to trust in the wisdom of any single person or group to direct us regarding whom or what should be allowed or encouraged to survive.
Since we cannot so invest such trust, in what forms of balanced and checked institutions should we invest our trust and empathy?
After all, it seems apparent that the course of “progress,” mutation, evolution, and change are unavoidably accelerating.
And, our “genetic overload” from Diversity being imposed beyond all traditional boundaries seems also to be accelerating.

UNAVOIDABILITY OF FUNDAMENTALLY NON-TESTABLE INTUITIONS:

An intuition about what is empirical can often be easily discredited or confirmed. Sometimes, an intuition may constitute a theory about empirical materialism. If the theory is new, it may take awhile to find a way to test it. But, if the theory is valid in respect of science, then it should be testable and, if false, falsifiable.

About Ultimates, however, we lack means for testing or falsifying. When scientists postulate “virtual particles,” they are not postulating something that can be proven. In respect of “virtual particles” “in themselves,” scientists are not practicing science, but working with a usefully FIGURATIVE notion.

It is only in respect of testing how such a figurative notion may help with some sort of “temporary explanation” that may lead to unexpected practical applications that they are “practicing science.”
Still, as you say, most do not “really” believe in virtual particles --- even though the figurative belief is quite USEFUL.

Regardless, such useful beliefs will not lead us to a grand unifying explanation of science, morality, and/or purpose. (See principle of uncertainty, principle of incompleteness, and “The Last Question,” above.)

So, what about God? Here, the USEFUL PURPOSE is not scientific. Rather, the purpose is to inspire forms of civilizing consensus. We no more know what “God is” than we know what virtual particles are.

Nor is it necessary to know what God is. It is merely practical and helpful to have a starting point for bringing people together to try to build empathetic trust and to seek purposeful, moral, civilizing consensus.

SEMANTICS:

If secularists believe there is a “real” basis for that, apart from God, that is great! Even though, I see no difference, apart from emotional attachment to semantics, between their supposed “real” basis and mine.

I do not expect to prove what God is, because I do not believe God (or basis for morally empathetic meaningfulness) is provable. I think this is a concern for intuition of a kind that is beyond empiricism. I appreciate that empiricists prefer an empirically provable definition of intuition.

I also appreciate, comically enough, that empiricists are unable to avoid exercising non-provable intuitions and beliefs --- whether they appreciate them or not.