Can theists be rational?

[westprog]

You think theories are not constructed based on experience ?

They can be, but in the field of computing, theory is something that doesn't need experience. It's the same in any field of science and maths. Indeed, theory is how we get past bare experience and start to make what-if predictions.

Why so ? Wouldn't said estimate be an extrapolation of pase experience ?

There's no valid way to estimate what the field of computing might be like after ten thousand years, from what we've learned in the first sixty.

Maybe, but as I said, a "simulation" would still have to render all those particles for that to work. And still, THEIR laws of physics would limit what they could do with the simulation.

I fail to see why a simulation of a galaxy millions of light years away would need to simulate every particle in that galaxy. Indeed, since we already have programs which simulate the galaxy without needing to render every particle. We don't experience every particle in the universe directly.

Well, that's because you seem to forget that without physical laws there wouldn't BE inhabitants.

There's no reason to assume that. If a universe existed without physical law as we know it, there might be some other organising principle which would permit intelligence to arise.

Okay, you missed it. I meant that it contradicted your claim that we couldn't spot the bugs. Your new contention that we could be some sort of bug monitor species kinda demolishes that.

We would monitor the bugs by noticing anomalies in physical law, and assuming that it was a gap in our knowledge. The people operating the simulation would come up with a patch, and we'd find with further research that there is a theory that fits.

There's absolutely no way we can tell whether the laws of physics are eternal, or are being retrofitted as we look for them.

Actually, the matrix made it fictional, but people think that's how it'd work. Here's a tip: don't trust movies.

That The Matrix is fictional is beside the point. It shows how even using technology little advanced from today, it would be possible to produce a convincing simulation. That the film is full of gaping plot holes is irrelevant.

 

[yy2bggggs]

That The Matrix is fictional is beside the point. It shows how even using technology little advanced from today, it would be possible to produce a convincing simulation. That the film is full of gaping plot holes is irrelevant.

I cry foul. The Matrix uses technology far, far more advanced than anything we have today, and furthermore, it does not in the slightest constitute a fair treatment of said technology. The mere suggestion that The Matrix shows us anything is absolutely ridiculous (including, specifically, the things you're claiming that it shows us).

You would do better to draw from other examples that are treated with more seriousness, such as the classic brain in a vat scenario, or Descartes' demon, or something along those lines, but I'm not quite sure what you're going to get out of it. Such approaches aren't much more valuable beyond their ability to establish lack of certainty, or possibility, both of which are irrelevant when we want to know what thing is actually likely to be the case.

 

[Belz...]

So you are saying the word “Horse” doesn’t really exist? Only the actual animal is real?

No, I'm saying that "horse" doesn't actually mean anything unless we agree that it does. The word itself is not a thing. It's difficult, of course, to have a discussion about the existence of language by using language. I thought I'd have an easier time getting my point across.

I happen to feel that that symbols such as words and numbers exist and can be classified as ‘real’. Not everyone agrees. I’m trying to find out if that is where you and I disagree. I'm still not entirely sure.

Well, I'm not entirely sure how do put it, either. When you asked about language, I saw it in the same way that I see any other construct of the human mind. The construct "exists" in the sense that it is a communication protocol, so to speak. But it doesn't mean anything except to those who agree that it does. So, with your permission I'd like to change my analogy. Perhaps we'd understand one another better.

Religion = The Lord of the Rings
God = Gandalf.

The work "The Lord of the Rings" exists, like religion. It tells of things that do not exist, like Gandalf/God.

I agree with your first sentence here but not the second. The problem with the flat-earth theory is not just that the evidence for it is so weak, but that the evidence disproving it is very strong. Similar evidence against the existence of gods such as the deist or pantheist god does not exist.

Okay. I assume we agree that the evidence in favour of God is very weak.

As for your "evidence against", it's my opinion that there is a lot of it, because the universe looks suspiciously like it would if it were not created by a god. However, it's the fact that a competing theory to the god-theory exists that explains all this without the need to suppose the existence of an unverifiable entity that makes said theory superior. I would call that evidence against, also.

Would you care to back up that claim? Which laws of physics do such gods violate and how?

In order to make sure I understand the question fully, would you mind explaining how, in your view, such a god is distinct from, say, the Christian god ?

So you don’t know for certain that 2+2 = 4? Or that the shape of the earth is more like a ball than a disc?

In absolute terms ? No, I don't know. Since I seldom go for that, however, I am, pragmatically, quite sure of both.

Anyway, my point is you don't know for a fact that the easter bunny is false, given that it is invented by humans in the same way as god. Any argument for god must apply to the easter bunny.

No, I don’t.

Again, amazing. Christianity is not very compatible with Brahmanism, to say the least.

Yes, if the person is sane it does.

And since we have no idea if said people are sane, we have to assume that there IS evidence for little green men (i.e. aliens visiting earth). Or the Easter Bunny, should someone make such a claim.

However, I really don’t appreciate these sorts of accusations. If they don’t stop, I’m going to end our conversation.

You don't appreciate being accused of making logical fallacies ? Hell, even I make them from time to time.

My apologies. When you classify personal experiences of god as delusional because you don’t believe any god exists, I think that’s the same kind of error you are accusing me of (and that I am not making) when I specify credible adult testimony for little green men. Does that explain it?

It does. For what it's worth, I classify some of my own experiences as delusional. Human perception is imperfect, and often subject to our own whims. This serves to explain why some people see Vishnu instead of Jesus. In neither case, I contend, does this mean the entity exists.

 

[Belz...]

They can be, but in the field of computing, theory is something that doesn't need experience.

I disagree. Any and everything you think of is based on experience. The only other alternative is random, acausal thoughts.

There's no valid way to estimate what the field of computing might be like after ten thousand years, from what we've learned in the first sixty.

It's either speculation from experience of extrapolation from experience. It's certainly not made-up from nothing.

I fail to see why a simulation of a galaxy millions of light years away would need to simulate every particle in that galaxy.

Any particle that has any effect on the world being simulated.

There's no reason to assume that. If a universe existed without physical law as we know it, there might be some other organising principle which would permit intelligence to arise.

...which, of course, would be called a physical law.

That The Matrix is fictional is beside the point. It shows how even using technology little advanced from today, it would be possible to produce a convincing simulation. That the film is full of gaping plot holes is irrelevant.

No, it isn't irrelevant, because it doesn't show how it could be convincing. It simply claims that it could.

 

[westprog]

I cry foul. The Matrix uses technology far, far more advanced than anything we have today, and furthermore, it does not in the slightest constitute a fair treatment of said technology. The mere suggestion that The Matrix shows us anything is absolutely ridiculous (including, specifically, the things you're claiming that it shows us).

The only reason for mentioning the film is to show in the most general sense how a simulation might work. It's now part of the popular consciousness.

It makes no difference whether the technology required is similar to what we have today or far in advance. What matters is whether such technology is possible.

You would do better to draw from other examples that are treated with more seriousness, such as the classic brain in a vat scenario, or Descartes' demon, or something along those lines, but I'm not quite sure what you're going to get out of it. Such approaches aren't much more valuable beyond their ability to establish lack of certainty, or possibility, both of which are irrelevant when we want to know what thing is actually likely to be the case.

What led us to the possibility of the world being a simulation was the search for possible solutions to the fine-tuning problem.

If we want to consider probabilities, then

• Assuming that the hard AI hypothesis is correct, the consciousness of a program simulating human consciousness will be identical to that of a human being.
• As human technological progress advances, the resource demands on creating a human consciousness in a computer will be far less than creating a real human being.
• When simulations of humans can be created very easily and cheaply, there will be far more of them than "real" human beings.
• It is therefore far more probable that a given conscious being exists in a simulation than in the "real world".

(Checking assumptions left as an exercise).

 

[westprog]

I disagree. Any and everything you think of is based on experience. The only other alternative is random, acausal thoughts.

That's not the case in mathematics. You can derive mathematical expressions from scratch each time and get the same result, experience or not. A computer program is a mathematical object.

It's either speculation from experience of extrapolation from experience. It's certainly not made-up from nothing.

It's derived from thinking about it.

Any particle that has any effect on the world being simulated.

Or any aggregation of particles, which can be considered as a single object.

...which, of course, would be called a physical law.

Or not. If it isn't consistent, and predictable, then it wouldn't be a physical law. If it worked unreliably, it wouldn't be a law. If it were subject to change by thinking about it, it wouldn't be a physical law.

No, it isn't irrelevant, because it doesn't show how it could be convincing. It simply claims that it could.

It showed people put in boxes which simulated sensory input, under computer control. All that's necessary is to consider - is this theoretically possible? And of course it is. It's very nearly possible now.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The only reason for mentioning the film is to show in the most general sense how a simulation might work. It's now part of the popular consciousness.

But you said this:

It shows how even using technology little advanced from today, it would be possible to produce a convincing simulation. That the film is full of gaping plot holes is irrelevant.

TM doesn't use technology "little advanced from today", and TM's version of a "convincing simulation" isn't so convincing.

It makes no difference whether the technology required is similar to what we have today or far in advance.

Backing off from "little advanced from today".

What matters is whether such technology is possible.

What such technology? TM doesn't even present believable technology. Do you want a full critique? The fact that it's part of our collective misconceptions has nothing to do with what we can really learn from TM.

What led us to the possibility of the world being a simulation was the search for possible solutions to the fine-tuning problem.

Brain in a vat and Descartes' demon works just fine for this, as does, if you really want it, the simulation hypothesis. TM quite simply doesn't show what you're claiming it to.

 

[westprog]

Brain in a vat and Descartes' demon works just fine for this, as does, if you really want it, the simulation hypothesis. TM quite simply doesn't show what you're claiming it to.

If TM doesn't work for you, then forget it. If it isn't helpful, then use whatever model of a simulated universe you're comfortable with.

 

[yy2bggggs]

If TM doesn't work for you, then forget it. If it isn't helpful, then use whatever model of a simulated universe you're comfortable with.

I don't need convincing that an alternative theory is possible, and neither do I suspect does Belz. I personally think you're fighting on the wrong front.

So I'm not even sure what context of "work for me" you're appealing to. I'm merely suggesting that it doesn't work for you . If you're appealing to a computer simulation in particular as a specific class of alternative models, just refer to the simulation hypothesis. It's much less problematic.

 

[westprog]

If you're appealing to a computer simulation in particular as a specific class of alternative models, just refer to the simulation hypothesis. It's much less problematic.

In fact, I'm not advocating that the simulation is necessarily running on a computer. It could be something else entirely.

 

[yy2bggggs]

That's fine. But it was running on a computer in TM, and TM didn't satisfactorily explain why things appear the way they appear anyhow (that was one of the bigger plot holes). Come up with an example that works for you!

 

[westprog]

That's fine. But it was running on a computer in TM, and TM didn't satisfactorily explain why things appear the way they appear anyhow (that was one of the bigger plot holes). Come up with an example that works for you!

My original point was that if this is a simulation, there's very little we can deduce from within the simulation about the world in which the simulation exists. It might be similar - or it might be entirely different.

When we imagine a world very like ours, with human beings being fed sensory impressions under the control of a computer, that is merely to illustrate that such a thing is at least possible. It is not intended as the most likely or preferred possibility.

 

[Belz...]

It's derived from thinking about it.

My point is that you can't think about something without a basis for it.

Or any aggregation of particles, which can be considered as a single object.

And which miraculously become particles when examined.

Or not. If it isn't consistent, and predictable, then it wouldn't be a physical law. If it worked unreliably, it wouldn't be a law. If it were subject to change by thinking about it, it wouldn't be a physical law.

And as such couldn't produce reliable results like, say, intelligent beings. You're trying to have it both ways.

It showed people put in boxes which simulated sensory input, under computer control. All that's necessary is to consider - is this theoretically possible? And of course it is. It's very nearly possible now.

No, no it isn't. It's like saying that The Lord of the Rings showed that wizards can create light out of staves of wood. You can't use fiction as evidence for woo.

 

[westprog]

My point is that you can't think about something without a basis for it.



And which miraculously become particles when examined.

Just like most computer games. Do you think that they create Lara's back when she's facing you?

Of course it would be a huge, huge undertaking to ensure that particles are there whenever anyone looks at them. But it would be plausible. Especially since particles in the sun, or in the centre of the Earth, or in distant galaxies will never be examined.

And as such couldn't produce reliable results like, say, intelligent beings. You're trying to have it both ways.

You're doing that assertion thing again. Simply because you can't imagine intelligence existing seperately from physical law doesn't mean that it's impossible.

No, no it isn't. It's like saying that The Lord of the Rings showed that wizards can create light out of staves of wood. You can't use fiction as evidence for woo.

You think computer simulations are woo? Or just good ones?

We already know that it's possible to simulate just about any sensory experience. The Matrix is simply a fictional exploration of that concept.

 

[Belz...]

Just like most computer games. Do you think that they create Lara's back when she's facing you?

Of course it would be a huge, huge undertaking to ensure that particles are there whenever anyone looks at them. But it would be plausible. Especially since particles in the sun, or in the centre of the Earth, or in distant galaxies will never be examined.

I think you are, in fact, underestimating what would be required. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it's highly improbable and needlessly complex. I'm also saying there would be ways to spot it.

You're doing that assertion thing again. Simply because you can't imagine intelligence existing seperately from physical law doesn't mean that it's impossible.

I submit you have no idea what "physical law" means and how it relates to things existing.

After all, simply because you can't imagine square circles doesn't mean that they're impossible.

You think computer simulations are woo? Or just good ones?

I think the universe as a simulation is woo.

We already know that it's possible to simulate just about any sensory experience. The Matrix is simply a fictional exploration of that concept.

Stop using movies to support your argument, already. You're not helping your case.

 

[westprog]

I think you are, in fact, underestimating what would be required. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it's highly improbable and needlessly complex. I'm also saying there would be ways to spot it.

In that case, you should be able to indicate an experiment which would show whether we are existing in a simulation or not. Or indicate something that would happen in a simulation, but not happen in "reality".

I submit you have no idea what "physical law" means and how it relates to things existing.

After all, simply because you can't imagine square circles doesn't mean that they're impossible.

There's a clear contradiction in square circles. There's no contradiction in a universe without physical law. The existence of physical law remains a mystery.

We don't have to make up such a universe from scratch. The Greek mythological view of the universe was that things happened because of the wishes of intelligent beings. Whether such a thing is possible or not, I don't know, but I have yet to see anything that proves it to be impossible.

I think the universe as a simulation is woo.

Which you're entitled to "think", but you need to do a bit more than that.

While I'm sure you have excellent programming experience, I don't think it's sufficient to pronounce on the possible nature of the universe.

Stop using movies to support your argument, already. You're not helping your case.

That you think that I'm using TM to support my argument shows that you haven't followed what my case is.

 

[Beth]

I happen to feel that that symbols such as words and numbers exist and can be classified as ‘real’. Not everyone agrees. I’m trying to find out if that is where you and I disagree. I'm still not entirely sure.

Well, I'm not entirely sure how do put it, either. When you asked about language, I saw it in the same way that I see any other construct of the human mind. The construct "exists" in the sense that it is a communication protocol, so to speak. But it doesn't mean anything except to those who agree that it does. So, with your permission I'd like to change my analogy. Perhaps we'd understand one another better.

Religion = The Lord of the Rings
God = Gandalf.

The work "The Lord of the Rings" exists, like religion. It tells of things that do not exist, like Gandalf/God.

Okay. I understand you analogy, I just don't happen to agree with it. Let's try another similar analogy. In a post in another thread, someone mentioned that the idea of wormholes in space didn't exist until Carl Sagan was writing his novel "Contact". Since then, scientific papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals about the concept. It is currently unknown whether wormholes actually exist or not. It seems to me that the concept of God is more akin to wormholes than Gandalf since we (humans as a whole) are far more certain that Middle Earth and Gandalf exists nowhere except in the minds of people who are familiar with the novel and/or movies of LOTR than we are about the existance or non-existance of god or wormholes.

I agree with your first sentence here but not the second. The problem with the flat-earth theory is not just that the evidence for it is so weak, but that the evidence disproving it is very strong. Similar evidence against the existence of gods such as the deist or pantheist god does not exist.

Okay. I assume we agree that the evidence in favour of God is very weak.

As for your "evidence against", it's my opinion that there is a lot of it, because the universe looks suspiciously like it would if it were not created by a god.

Interesting. How did you come to this conclusion? I have no idea how to discern what a universe created by a god would look like as opposed to a universe that wasn't.

However, it's the fact that a competing theory to the god-theory exists that explains all this without the need to suppose the existence of an unverifiable entity that makes said theory superior. I would call that evidence against, also.

Would you care to back up that claim? Which laws of physics do such gods violate and how?

In order to make sure I understand the question fully, would you mind explaining how, in your view, such a god is distinct from, say, the Christian god ?

Here are the definitions from Wikipedia:

In pantheism the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that God is better understood as an abstract principle representing natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) than an anthropomorphic entity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things. God is thus conceived to be wholly transcendent and never immanent. For Deists, human beings can know God without relying on revelation or any supernatural manifestations (such as miracles). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

The articles are longer than what I quoted.

So you don’t know for certain that 2+2 = 4? Or that the shape of the earth is more like a ball than a disc?

In absolute terms ? No, I don't know. Since I seldom go for that, however, I am, pragmatically, quite sure of both.

Anyway, my point is you don't know for a fact that the easter bunny is false, given that it is invented by humans in the same way as god. Any argument for god must apply to the easter bunny.

I think our disagreement then is simply on the degree of certainty that we each individual hold that some god exists. You put quite low. I put it about 50% for concepts such as the deists or pantheists hold.

Yes, if the person is sane it does.

And since we have no idea if said people are sane, we have to assume that there IS evidence for little green men (i.e. aliens visiting earth). Or the Easter Bunny, should someone make such a claim.

Well, sometimes we do. I have met one person who claimed to have been visited by aliens on many occasions since her childhood. She also made many other outlandish claims, like former husbands had tried to murder her from beyond the grave. She also had been in and out of psychiatric hospitals her entire life depending on whether or not she was sane enough to be taking care of herself and her children. I think it's reasonable for me to discount her claims as evidence for alien visitors because I felt she was clearly not sane.

 

[Belz...]

In that case, you should be able to indicate an experiment which would show whether we are existing in a simulation or not. Or indicate something that would happen in a simulation, but not happen in "reality".

How does that follow from what I said ?

There's a clear contradiction in square circles. There's no contradiction in a universe without physical law.

Really ? That's odd. I see a clear contradiction as well.

Which you're entitled to "think", but you need to do a bit more than that.

Nice try, 'prog. I was simply answering your question.

While I'm sure you have excellent programming experience, I don't think it's sufficient to pronounce on the possible nature of the universe.

I'm not basing my opinion on programming experience. In fact, I don't see how that would help me about the "nature of the universe".

That you think that I'm using TM to support my argument shows that you haven't followed what my case is.

I see. So you haven't been using the Matrix as support for your argument ? Why the hell did you mention it, then, if it has no bearing on the issue ? Or worse, if it hurts your argument ?

 

[Belz...]

Well, sometimes we do. I have met one person who claimed to have been visited by aliens on many occasions since her childhood. She also made many other outlandish claims, like former husbands had tried to murder her from beyond the grave. She also had been in and out of psychiatric hospitals her entire life depending on whether or not she was sane enough to be taking care of herself and her children. I think it's reasonable for me to discount her claims as evidence for alien visitors because I felt she was clearly not sane.

Maybe. But you're using a single case. You simply can't know that everyone who makes these claims is a nut. Or most of them, in fact. I know of quite a few people who claim to "feel" things that are actually false. All of them are sane. But they are deluded in their claim.

My point is that since we know delusions exist, but neither know a thing about gods (other than the fact that most people think that most gods are myth) nor can we reconcile most of them with reality as we know it, we can safely Occam those gods out of any theory about the universe until such a time that new evidence, if any, comes to light.

 

[Beth]

Maybe. But you're using a single case. You simply can't know that everyone who makes these claims is a nut. Or most of them, in fact. I know of quite a few people who claim to "feel" things that are actually false. All of them are sane. But they are deluded in their claim.

Oh, absolutely you can't know that all who make such claims are not sane. That's why I don't dismiss their claims out of hand, just as I don't dismiss the claims of those who experience god or claim to have seen bigfoot. OTOH, if no such claims exist, and as far as I can tell they don't for things such as the easter bunny, little green men, the IPU or the FSM, it's reasonable to say there is no evidence for those things and draw a distinction between them and things like aliens in general, bigfoot and god.

My point is that since we know delusions exist, but neither know a thing about gods (other than the fact that most people think that most gods are myth) nor can we reconcile most of them with reality as we know it, we can safely Occam those gods out of any theory about the universe until such a time that new evidence, if any, comes to light.

That's perfectly reasonable when, in fact, the claims are not reconcilable with reality as we know it. Not all god claims fit that description.