Sure. I’m up for it.
Doing this as an amateur metaphysicist…
Very well then. It’s late here so I’ll ask some questions and read your responses tomorrow.
From the abstract of their paper…
The theorem applies if the following four physical assumptions are made: (i) Einstein’s equations hold (with zero or negative cosmological constant),
Cosmological constant - Wikipedia
Observations announced in 1998 of distance–redshift relation for Type Ia supernovae indicated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, if one assumes the cosmological principle. When combined with measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation these implied a value of ΩΛ ≈ 0.7, a result which has been supported and refined by more recent measurements.
Question 1
Does the observed value of our universe’s cosmological constant violate the first physical assumption made by Hawking and Penrose in their 1970 singularity theorem? Yes / No
Question 2
Does the Hawking - Penrose singularity theorem of 1970 apply to this universe if any of the four physical assumptions made by them are contradicted by observations? Yes / No
Question 3
Was it evidence derived from observations that caused the Hawking - Penrose singularity theorem of 1970 to fail to apply to this universe? Yes / No
Thank you,
Walter.
It’s actually quite interesting when I think about it:
Yes, positive cosmological constant violates the strong energy condition required by the theorem. However, if the flip universe has a negative Λ or zero, then the first assumption (strong energy condition) might not be violated (No).
No, the theorem only applies if all four assumptions hold. If any are violated, the theorem does not strictly apply. However, if the flip universe has a negative Λ or zero, yes (because we are not including all observations of our universe). The other three assumptions (no closed timelike curves, existence of a trapped surface, global hyperbolicity) must still hold for the theorem to apply (Yes).
Observational evidence for a positive cosmological constant (dark energy) shows that one of the assumptions is violated, so the theorem cannot be applied to our universe as-is (Yes). However, if all four assumptions are satisfied in the flip universe, then the Hawking–Penrose singularity theorem of 1970 could apply (No).
How can this be explained?
Partial view (the “illusion” from our side)
Beings like us live inside a single universe and perceive only a subset of realities.
For us:
The Hawking–Penrose theorem works in some universes (flip universe) and fails in ours.
We might therefore speak of the theorem as “partially true,” or conditionally applicable, but that’s just our perspective limited to what we can observe.
This partial perspective can create apparent contradictions or incompleteness, because we cannot see all universes or all conditions at once.
Analogy: Standing on one side of a mountain and seeing only part of the valley; you think the river stops, but really it continues beyond your view.
God’s omniscience
An omnipresent, omniscient observer perceives all universes, all conditions, all times simultaneously.
From God’s perspective:
There is no partiality or incompleteness.
No illusion arises, because nothing is hidden or inaccessible.
Key point: What seems “partial or fragmented” to us is simply our epistemic limitation; to God, it is entirely coherent and complete. Our partial view creates the illusion of incompleteness, while the whole truth is always complete from the perspective of an omniscient observer.
It seems that our correspondent here is not relying on 1 Corinthians 2:11 “For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”
Claiming to know the thoughts and viewpoint of a god or “God” or even the “spirit” of a god or gods is plainly delusional.
2 Likes
And here we are, listening yet again to the claim that God’s ways are not our ways and that explains why something that isn’t so, can still be so. Yes and no at the same time? No problem, because God.
1 Like
The old appeal to mystery, it’s a tried and tested mainstay of religions.
1 Like
It’s been the same circular logic…the bible is the word of God, because it says so in the bible…and God is real, because it says so in the bible…
It’s like trying to explain to a schizophrenic that Theodore Roosevelt is not really in the room talking to them…they will just tell you that Teddy says you’re wrong.
1 Like
(Sigh.) My bad for not binding you well enough, bsengstock20.
I had hoped you would realize that by offering you Yes / No questions you would have understood that you were to select ONLY ONE when answering my questions. Not Yes and No, but either Yes or No. Not both at the same time.
Therefore, we will, do this again and this time I will set down the conditions which you must abide by. The first such condition is that you and I are only discussing the Hawking - Penrose singularity theorem of 1970 in the context of this, our universe. Not any other universe. Not any other universe where that theorem might apply. Only this one. So the flip universe you have mentioned is not pertinent, relevant or germane to the questions I will ask you. There are no however’s.
Here are the questions again. Please answer them with either a Yes or a No. Answering with both options is not permitted. Nor is adding any caveats, qualifications or however’s. Answer the questions with a Yes or a No.
Question 1
Does the observed value of our universe’s cosmological constant violate the first physical assumption made by Hawking and Penrose in their 1970 singularity theorem? Yes or No?
Question 2
Does the Hawking - Penrose singularity theorem of 1970 apply to this universe if any of the four physical assumptions made by them are contradicted by observations? Yes or No?
Question 3
Was it evidence derived from observations that caused the Hawking - Penrose singularity theorem of 1970 to fail to apply to this universe? Yes or No?
For the avoidance of doubt and to further clarify where you stand when answering these questions, you and I are discussing physics. Not metaphysics. So please confine yourself solely to the physics of only this universe and answer the questions according to the guidance I’ve given you today. Hawking and Penrose are quite specific that their assumptions are physical - so they have defined how you should answer. Your answers must deal only with physics and not with metaphysics.
Thank you,
Walter.
2 Likes
Not necessarily… It would be if an appeal to provisional truth if such a being (God) did not disclose those thoughts and/or we did not account for all positions. However, if an appeal to essential truth, we could understand the “thoughts” and “viewpoints” of God through understanding essential properties and modal logic.
For example: The statement “there is an absolute objective true description of reality” is essentially true: not merely provisionally true. In this, we can know the same type of truths that God (an omnipresent omniscience observer) knows.
Deities and gods are a different subject altogether. We cannot merely assume the cognitive processes of deities and gods as rational agents.
By extension you consider yourself omniscient?
That’s not true… The flip side of a coin, for example, is still part of the coin. We might not be able to see the flip side of the coin, but if given a perfect logically consistent and mathematically sound model, we would be able to know what’s on the other side.
So, in reference to your questions, my answers are No, Yes, No. I cannot demonstrate this relative to our side, but I can demonstrate this relative to the assumption of God as a type of “Laplace demon” through which the observation of God would warrant these statements.
Not provisionally. However, I can as a rational agent know certain essential truths about reality (Cartesian Skepticism). These truths are truths which, so long as a remain an agent grounded in rational cognition, cannot be taken away from me.
It is true, bsengstock20.
Hawking and Penrose specifically defined the territory for us. Their physical assumptions refer to and apply to only our universe and not to any other. They were concerned only with how their theorem functioned within this universe and not within any other. They did not concern themselves with any other side. And since our discussion should take place only within the territory they have defined for us, anything outside their definitions is not pertinent, relevant or germane.
We know this to be the case because when their theorem was broken on the anvil of evidence from this universe, they agreed this was so. If you wish I can cite where Penrose specifically concedes that our universe possesses a positive cosmological constant. He was and has been persuaded by the empirical evidence, even if you are not.
Please understand that you and I do not get to decide the framework of our discussion. Hawking and Penrose have already done that for us and it is now up to us to hold our discussion within their framework. We do not get to extend their purely empirical and physical framework to include anything else. Thus, modal logic and metaphysics are excluded and play no part in this discussion.
In the three days you and I have been in dialogue, not once have I responded to anything you’ve written about modal logic or metaphysics. Apart from one message about the Fine Tuned universe argument and a brief aside about Tolkien’s Middle Earth I have confined myself strictly to the framework set down by Hawking and Penrose. Specifically, that of physics and of empirical observations of only our universe.
My three questions to you are only about physical assumptions and not metaphysical ones. They only concern empirical evidence from this universe and no other. They concern nothing else. So, I must now ask you one further, direct question.
Are you willing to continue our discussion about the 1970 Hawking - Penrose singularity theorem within the purely physical and empirical framework which Hawking and Penrose have defined, to the exclusion of anything else?
For the avoidance of doubt bsengstock20, if you agree to these terms you would have to do as I have done and confine yourself only to physics and exclude all mention of metaphysics. You would have to exclude any mention of modal logic from our discussion as well.
I would be very happy to continue our discussion on the basis of these terms. Please state whether they are acceptable to you.
Thank you,
Walter.
Yes, but the “flip side” is still our universe. The territory they have defined for us does include this, maybe not explicitly, but implicitly.
The flip side of the universe is empirical and physical, but humans cannot observe it directly because we exist on the “wrong side” of reality’s structure.
“Empirical and physical” does not merely mean “observable by us”.
Examples:
The interior of a black hole: physical, but empirically sealed off from us.
The early universe before 10⁻³⁵ seconds: physical, but currently unobservable.
A CPT‑mirrored universe: empirically structured, but causally disconnected.
Hidden variables in Bohemian mechanics: physical, but inaccessible to measurement.
This is a recognized category in philosophy of science called epistemic boundedness. If systematically structured by inverse relations, this can mean:
Inverse temporal flow (T-inverse),
Inverse spatial orientation (P-inverse),
Inverse charge relationships (C-inverse),
Inverse energy gradients,
Inverse causal structure.
If so, then the flip side is basically a CPT‑dual universe or an inverse manifold. This would be a deeply empirical physical construct in itself: just not visible from here.
So it seems your argument is based not on knowledge, not on demonstrable evidence but merely your supposition/belief that your “god” ( version unique to you of the Christian fables) exists everywhere, in everything and you can know some “truths” that seems to escape everyone else on this forum and most of the planet…..
You claim to know some of the current thoughts and wishes (?) of your god thing but are unable to demonstrate that they come directly from this panpsychic thing you claim exists…again without demonstrable, convincing evidence.
Note: ever more complex word salads are not themselves evidence, indeed the contradictions inherent in your screeds, are an indication of a common delusion amongst the “pansychics” who visit here.
One thing I can assure you…you are NOT the “smartest in the room” however much you twist and turn, attempt to redefine and refuse to acknowledge argument and direct questions.
The Emperor has no clothes ( or a demonstrable “God) is blindingly obvious to anyone following these torrid posts…with or without popcorn.
2 Likes
On the contrary… It’s based on the purest form of knowledge: essential. It is demonstrated through modal proof. It focuses merely on God as a panendeistic object: not on a personal deity.
Not at all… My god has not been proved for. I am not yet attempting to do that. Modal proof before provisional proof contingent on modal proof. Where have I attempted a proof for deity?
No. I claim to know some of the current thoughts and views of a God (an omnipresent omniscience observer) merely by the fact that, as a rational agent, there are some truths that are essential that I cannot rationally doubt. Things like: I exist, there’s an absolute objective truth, essential truths are of higher credulity than provisional truths, etc…
What points specifically do you not agree with concerning panpsychism?
When did I assert that?
Aaaand here we go again. A lot of noise and argumentation signifying nothing at all.
When you can demonstrate the actual existence of pansychism or your personal version of “God” do come back and annoy me. Until then you are holding an empty stew pot full of useless verbiage.
Your intellectual pretensions are as meaningless as your unevidenced assertions.
In earthy terms, piss or get off the pot.
1 Like
Ok.
Proof for panpsychism
(Axiom 1) There is nothing immaterial; everything that exists is material.
(O1) Rationalism systematically explains and predicts all ranges of phenomena.
(O2) Hypotheses that posit immaterial beings have not improved predictive power or explanatory scope.
(O3) Ontological parsimony (Occam’s Razor): between competing explanations with equal explanatory power, prefer the one with fewer kinds of entities.
(O4) Materialism: posits only material entities (and perhaps higher-level emergent properties realized in material substrates)—accounts for O1 and O2 while introducing fewer ontological categories than alternatives.
(Axiom 2) Among monistic ontologies, reductive physicalism is the only position that identifies consciousness entirely with lower-level physical properties. If ontological monism is not reductive physicalism, then consciousness is irreducible to lower-level physical properties.
If reduction cannot explain consciousness, the only consistent move is to deny consciousness exists.
But consciousness is the one thing we know exists with absolute certainty (Descartes).
So reductive physicalism leads to absurdity: either we accept consciousness, and (1) physicalism cannot explain it or (2) we deny consciousness exists, which is self-defeating.
(Axiom 3) Higher-order properties of matter (i.e., emergent properties) can be reduced to their lower-level properties.
If reductive physicalism is false and reality is monistic, Consciousness ≠ any lower-level physical property. Consciousness cannot be reduced to mere physical structure or function. The mental cannot be paraphrased away in purely physical terms. Identity theory and eliminativism are false.
Proof:
If everything that exists is material is true, then either consciousness does not exist, or it exists as material substance. If consciousness is irreducible to lower-level physical properties, then either consciousness does not exist, or it (a) exists as distinct property of matter or (b) is fundamentally entailed by matter. If consciousness exists, it is either (a) its own property of matter or (b) composed by the matter of the brain but not logically entailed by it. If higher-order properties of matter (i.e., emergent properties) can, at least in principle, be reduced to their lower-level properties., then (b) is false, and consciousness must be its own unique property of matter.
Therefore, if all four premises are true, consciousness is its own unique property of matter and panpsychism is true.
Proof for God: Kurt Godel’s modal proof
Axiom 1: If φ is a positive property, and if it is necessarily true (true in all possible worlds) that every object with property φ also has property ψ, then ψ is also a positive property.
Axiom 2: The negation of a property φ is positive if, and only if, φ is not positive.
Theorem 1: If a property φ is positive, then it is possible that there exists an object x that has this property (in at least one possible world, there exists an object x that has this property).
Definition 1: An object x is God-like if, and only if, x has all positive properties.
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is itself a positive property.
Theorem 2: It is possible that there exists a God-like object x (in at least one possible world, there exists a God-like object x).
Definition 2: A property φ is an essential property of an object x if, x has property φ, and every property ψ of x necessarily (in all possible worlds) and generally (for all objects) follows from φ.
Axiom 4: If a property φ is positive, then it is necessarily positive (positive in all possible worlds).
Theorem 3: If x is God-like, then being God-like is an essential property of x.
Definition 3: An object x “exists necessarily” if each of its essential properties φ applies, in each possible world, to some object y.
Axiom 5: “Necessary existence” is a positive property.
Theorem 4: It is necessarily true (true in all possible worlds) that a God-like object exists.
Sigh. A wall of text with sentence “If all the axioms are true “ means exactly what I said in my previous post: Nothing. Wasted verbiage.
Hollow reasoning. Only your belief makes it “real”, and only to you.
Dear gods, make it stop.
2 Likes
I got a much simpler version that seems to contain the same logic:
Axiom 1 : God is real. (the end)
5 Likes