A new argument for God


In order to create a self, you have to create all the props, distractions, habits, ritualized motions, and other kinds of quasi-autonomous volition, compulsion, and discomfort. All these little non-selves become, when aggregated and averaged, the predictable self or character.

How about this:

This is interesting: the transformation of many into one in mathematics is accomplished by averaging. And in physics—well, in classical mechanics at least—many motions become one through the simple averaging of momenta. The world of classical matter-in-motion just is the world of vector mathematics.

Maybe the apparent unity of consciousness is something like a mathematical averaging over the body’s collective molecular motion, a kind of ghostly, vague vector. This would make “mathematical averaging over a space” something substantial.

So maybe mereological nihilism is itself an error. Maybe the whole really is an entity in its own right.

What if the whole really is an entity in its own right? This goes against physical reductionism and its philosophical analog, mereological nihilism, according to which only partless monads are truly real and the existence of collections is only nominal. But what if set theoretical collection is not only a mental fabrication? What if signifiers like The All, Everything, Nature, and The Totality are not empty? What if holonic transcendence-and-inclusion constitutes veridical existence?

Just thinking abbot this is astonishment provoking. It would mean that the outermost and most comprehensive set or collection is Real.

If Cantor’s Everything as a Set, which he called Ω, is real, then God exists. As long as we can ascribe all the properties of the parts to the whole, then there exists an All and it is conscious.