God, Santa, and The Tooth Fairy

[polymath257]

Well, sure. Numbers exist in the brain. In the brain, they occur as electrochemical events among synapses. These have extension, but it's pretty small. There are thousands of synapses in every voxel of an fMRI scan.

So OK: numbers are synaptic events.

Now if we look at a piece of paper, if there are numbers on that paper, there must be synaptic events on the paper, since we've established that numbers are synaptic events. But strictly speaking, paper doesn't have synapses. The numbers on the paper are something else. Some of them are only a couple of millimeters tall, but I've seen billboards with numbers two meters tall. 

So now we have two types of numbers which are completely ontologically different. Synaptic events and printed symbols. And even the symbols can differ, since two can be shown as 2 or 二 or 弐 depending on culture and context. 

And then we have the abacus, which has neither synaptic events nor printed symbols. So it appears that there are all kinds of numbers in the world. And each of these has materiality and extension. 

Frankly, I think none of these things we're talking about are numbers. They are symbols which refer to numbers. We have developed a variety of useful ways to symbolize and refer to numbers. 

Now if all the numbers we use in daily life are symbols or referents, to what exactly are they referring? Perhaps the REAL number two is kept in a vault in Zurich. What is it made of? Is it heavy? Could Lupin III steal it?

No, I'm sorry, I think that's all silly. We use material symbols for convenience when talking about numbers, but numbers themselves have no materiality, no extension, and no location. They are immaterially real.

This is the general problem of abstractions. Numbers are abstractions: ways we pattern our thinking that allow us to deal with more than particulars.

Here is an analogy: does the game of chess exist? if so, where? In what way? Is it 'real'? Does it exist independent of human thought?

Was chess invented or discovered? if invented, are chess puzzles invented or discovered? Where do the solutions exist?

I see numbers in essentially the same way. We invented them to help us analyze the world around us, then using the rules  we invented, we discover further properties of these abstract concepts. But, ultimately, they exist only because our minds are functioning.

In your examples, the numbers written on paper have no inherent meaning. it is only in a cultural context that the symbols have any meaning at all. it is our culture and the way we use those symbols that defines what it means to be a number, just like the representation of kings, queens, pawns, etc is what makes something a game of chess.

As another thought: we easily distinguish between the numbers 2 and 3. those are small enough that any ordinary person has an intuition about them. They are distinct numbers. But, for example, are the numbers 19298798273 and 19298798277 really distinct in your mind? Do you have any 'feel' for either of them as an independent entity? I certainly don't.

What those 'numbers' are, for most people, is strings of digits that can be manipulated in various ways. We can add, multiply, and do other operations with those strings. but the 'numbers themselves' are not really imagined as distinct things.

This gets worse when we have numbers whose decimal expansions cannot 'fit' into the real world at all. Something like Graham's number, for example. is it real? does it really exist? Outside of some 'game' of a formal system, I would say not. In the same way 'check in five moves' doesn't really 'exist' outside of our minds. Note that a game of chess need not have 'real' chess pieces nor even images on a computer screen. Those are just ways we keep track and organize our thoughts.

If *this* is what you think God is: an abstraction that really only exists in our minds, then you may have a point. But I suspect most theists don't see it that way.

---

Belecqua and I were focusing on the category error of comparing material things within the universe to immaterial things that transcend the universe, in the same way that it is a category error to ask for the size of an idea. It may very well be that our responses are not landing because we are not properly hearing the objection, not just here but in an adjacent thread about God and Science. I will try to steel man this particular skeptical objection to belief in God as the best I can.

At least part of the problem there is that 'ideas' are processes, not, ultimately, things. They are localized to brains, but like 'velocity' or 'momentum', they don't have extension because they are not the physical things themselves, but properties and processes in those physical things. So, yes, you wouldn't ask for the size of momentum either or of cell division.

One problem is the focus on 'material'. Is light material? Are neutrinos? How about Higg's bosons? ALL of these are certainly *physical*, but I tend to imagine 'material' as being limited to those things made out of atoms (or, more generously, fermions). There are many physical things that are not 'material' in this sense.

Whereas Belacqua and I are saying it is irrational compare immaterial things with material things, the competing claim is that there are no things that are immaterial to begin with. If God were real then He would have physical effects because everything real is material. As such if there are no credible examples of God’s material affect, then God seems, at best, like an “unnecessary hypothesis”. So main challenge is something like, “Give me an example something immaterial.”

No. My ultimate view is that everything supervenes on the physical.  That is rather different than saying everything is physical or even material. Ideas, for example, happen in minds hat operate in brains (whether or not software is a reasonable metaphor). If you could know the *complete* physical situation, you would also be able to determine the ideas someone is thinking.

But does that objection apply to the fundamental claim of the theist? The theistic claim is that God is a common feature of all material reality. Not just parts of reality; the whole of reality. God is the reason material reality even exists.  As such, it seems irrational to binary sort the material universe into “god” and “not god” piles. (Christology deals with this apparent paradox but obviously is well beyond the scope of this discussion.)

OK, that is a big claim. First show that there is *some* 'common feature' of all of reality. Then show that it isn't an abuse of language to call that commonality God.

You don't get to define things into existence. Even the claim that there is a commonality to all of existence is something that needs to be demonstrated *with evidence*. Without said evidence, it is a claim and nothing more. And, that claim has no more coherence or reason to believe it than claims about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

In reply though, I would offer a counter challenge to the idea that everything is material. Show me anything that is material. What do you really know about matter? Things are solid? Apparently, their mostly empty space. And then when you get right down to it, it seems fundamental reality can be credibly described as “structured nothingness”. In truth, idealism remains a credible metaphysical option.

Which is one reason I prefer the term 'physical' as opposed to 'material'. There *is* a difference between 'mostly empty space' and 'actually empty space'. And that difference is crucial. And no, idealism isn't credible simply because the nuclei of atoms are small and electrons are pointlike.

IMHO a complete picture of reality not only describes its contents but also accounts for our ability to make sense of it. I believe the universe is intelligible because reason transcends physical universe. For example, imagine there was some truly irrational anomaly in the universe, perhaps some effect that defied the very laws of known physics. Would we restrict our reasoning to known physics? No.  More than likely, we would expand our notions of what is possible in physics to discover the larger reality. I am not saying then expand and use god to explain the anomaly. No. The point is this: Reason must be valid. And that warrants giving primacy to mind rather than to matter, or at least taking it seriously.

Exactly: we would expand our concept of 'physical' to encompass any new phenomena we observe. That is ultimately why the term 'non-physical' is incoherent. Anything we can observe and make sense of is, BY DEFINITION, physical.

Now, sure, a theologian might be referring to the Ground of Being but the faithful pray to Jesus. Again, Christology is complex…and there is a point. The central claim Christianity is Jesus crucified and risen from the dead. But that’s another discussion, for another day.

Not even going to attempt to make sense of the logos and neo-platonism.