{"id":11327,"date":"2010-09-13T19:23:30","date_gmt":"2010-09-13T19:23:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/09\/13\/if-the-universe-can-arise-out-of-nothing-then-so-can-mind\/"},"modified":"2010-09-13T19:23:30","modified_gmt":"2010-09-13T19:23:30","slug":"if-the-universe-can-arise-out-of-nothing-then-so-can-mind","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/09\/13\/if-the-universe-can-arise-out-of-nothing-then-so-can-mind\/","title":{"rendered":"If the Universe Can Arise out of Nothing, then so can Mind"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Over breakfast yesterday morning, Peter Lupu uncorked a penetrating observation.&#0160; The gist of it I took to be as follows.&#0160; If a naturalist maintains that the physical universe can arise out of nothing without divine or other supernatural agency, then&#0160;the naturalist&#0160;cannot rule out the&#0160;possibility&#0160;that other things&#0160;so arise, minds for example &#8212; a result that&#0160;appears curiously inconsistent with both the spirit and&#0160;the letter of naturalism.&#0160; Here is how I would spell out the Lupine thought.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">The central thrust of naturalism as an ontological thesis is that the whole of reality is exhausted by the space-time system and what it contains.&#0160; (To catalog what exactly it contains is a job for the physicist.)&#0160; But this bald thesis can be weakened in ways consistent with the spirit of naturalism.&#0160; The weakening makes naturalism more defensible.&#0160; And&#0160;so I will&#0160;irenically assume that it is consistent with the spirit of a latitudinarian naturalism to admit abstracta of various&#0160;sorts such as Fregean propositions and mathmatical sets.&#0160; We may also irenically allow the naturalist various emergent\/supervenient properties so long as it is understood that emergence\/supervenience presupposes an emergence\/supervenience <em>base<\/em>, and that this base is material in nature.&#0160; I will even go so far as to allow the naturalist emergent\/supervenient <em>substances<\/em> such as individual minds.&#0160; But again, if this is to count as naturalism, then (i) their arisal must be from matter, and (ii) they cannot, after arising,&#0160;exist in complete independence of matter.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">What every naturalism&#0160;rules out, including the latitudinarian version just sketched,&#0160;is the existence of God,&#0160;classically conceived, or any&#0160;sort of Absolute Mind,&#0160;as well as&#0160;the existence of unembodied and disembodied finite minds.&#0160; <\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">The naturalist, then, takes as ontologically basic the physical universe, the system of space-time-matter, and denies the existence of non-emergent\/supervenient concreta distinct from this system.&#0160; Well now, what explains the existence of the physical universe, especially if it is only finitely old?&#0160; One answer, and perhaps the only answer available to the naturalist, is that it came into existence <em>ex nihilo<\/em> without cause, and thus without divine cause.&#0160; Hence<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">1. The physical universe&#0160;came into existence&#0160;from nothing without cause.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Applying Existential&#0160;Generalization and the modal rule <em>ab esse ad posse<\/em> we get<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">2. It is possible that something&#0160;come into existence &#0160;from nothing without cause.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">If so, how can the naturalist exclude the possibility of&#0160;minds coming into existence but not emerging from a material base?&#0160; If he thinks it possible that the universe&#0160;came into existence&#0160;<em>ex nihilo<\/em>, then he must allow that it is possible that divine and finite minds also have come into existence <em>ex nihilo<\/em>.&#0160; But this is a possibility he cannot countenance given his commitment to saying that everything that exists is either physical or determined by the physical.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">This seems to put the naturalist in an embarrassing position.&#0160; If the universe is finitely old, then it came into existence.&#0160; You could say it &#39;emerged.&#39;&#0160; But on naturalism, there cannot be emergence except from a material base.&#0160; So either the universe did not emerge or it did, in which case (2) is true and the principle that everything either is or is determined by the physical is violated.<\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Over breakfast yesterday morning, Peter Lupu uncorked a penetrating observation.&#0160; The gist of it I took to be as follows.&#0160; If a naturalist maintains that the physical universe can arise out of nothing without divine or other supernatural agency, then&#0160;the naturalist&#0160;cannot rule out the&#0160;possibility&#0160;that other things&#0160;so arise, minds for example &#8212; a result that&#0160;appears curiously &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/09\/13\/if-the-universe-can-arise-out-of-nothing-then-so-can-mind\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;If the Universe Can Arise out of Nothing, then so can Mind&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[54,238,218],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-mind","category-naturalism","category-nothingness"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11327","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11327"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11327\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}