On 1/17/2015 9:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 1/17/2015 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least
having
an idea of, what God is.
I would go further and say one cannot disbelieve in God without
knowing, or at
least having an idea of what reality is, for unless one claims to know
the
extent of reality, how can one suppose to know what it does or doesn't
contain?
You can easily know that things with self contradictory properties are
not in
reality.
I agree with that.
If something has properties that are inconsistent with observation that
is
fairly strong evidence it doesn't exist.
"Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but
does not want to; or he cannot, and does not want to. If he
wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not
want to, he is wicked. If he neither can, nor wants to, he is
both powerless and wicked. But if God can abolish evil, and wants
to, then how comes evil in the world?'"
--- Epicurus
That's a nice example of an application of rational thought towards the
advancement
of theology. You've proven that an omnipotent God with the power and desire
to
prevent any bad thing from happening does not exist.
What else might we have been able to prove or disprove if theology had
remained
open to free inquiry over the past several millennia?
And then there are things that are consistent with both logic and
observation,
but are very unlikely on our best theories of how the world works, e.g.
teapots
orbiting Jupiter. Are you "agnostic" about the teapot orbiting Jupiter?
To disbelieve in a particular thing orbiting Jupiter requires a working
theory of
our solar system.
To disbelieve in a particular thing existing at all (neither in this
universe, nor
in any other place in reality) requires a working theory of reality. What
is yours?
Does "agnostic" just mean "I don't know for certain" or does it mean
"I'm
equally disposed to believe or disbelieve." or "I think it's impossible
to
decide the question."
That's a good question. I think a definitive answer can be drawn from one's
working
theory of reality, but I don't know if an answer to that question is
decidable or
not, though perhaps it's possible to accumulate evidence towards one. So
far I
think man has made little progress in this endeavor, but Bruno and Tegmark
seem to
be farther ahead than most towards developing one. Working under those
theories, I
might say I am more of a "rational theist" in the sense that I can identify
at
least three things one might call god within those ontologies. However, as
to which
theory of reality is correct, I might call myself agnostic (even though I
might be
in the high 90's percentage wise leaning towards it, I could never be
certain).
Personally I don't disbelieve in God, I merely find the idea highly
unlikely
Why do you find it highly unlikely (what is the conception you are
assuming
here?),
When I write "God" with caps, I mean a god who is a superpowerful
person and
who wants to be worshipped; not some abstract organizing principle or
the set
of true propositions.
Subtract "and who wants to be worshiped" then re-answer that question. Why
should
we suppose that super-powerful minds are not likely to exist in reality?
There's a difference between "super-powerful minds" and "a superpowerful person".
By superpowerful person I meant one who could transcend physical laws, i.e. perform
miracles.
A super powerful mind (or person) simulating some reality could of course cause the
simulation to deviate from its "physical laws".
But in a simulation, not in reality.
By the very definition of miracles these are not reliably observed and so
the
empirical evidence makes their existence very unlikely.
You could only draw this conclusion if you believed it highly likely that should any
miracle have occurred in this universe, humankind would have observed it.
No, I only have to assume that human observations are a fair sample of the world I'm
trying to draw conclusions about. Since this is the world that humans experience, that
condition is fulfilled.
This alone would be highly dubious given how small an extent in time and space (compared
to the universe as a whole) humanity has kept reliable records.
You seem to think one needs to have positive evidence against every alternative theory in
order to believe one theory is more likely than the alternatives.
A superpowerful mind might just be a human mind implemented in an
electronic
medium so that it was millions of times faster - but was still a Turing
machine. It
couldn't do miracles.
It could for the beings within the realities it simulates / instantiates.
So I can do miracles too because I can write simulations - thus draining "miracle" of all
meaning.
also, to what degree do you hold the main idea the everything list is
meant to
discuss, to be true (or likely)?
I'm evenly divided on that question.
So then would you not also be evenly divided on the existence of
"superpoweful
people who want to be worshipped"
No, see above on "superpowerful people".
See above on realities simulated by super-powerful people.
(assuming the two are not mutually exclusive properties and hence not
logically
impossible) then if every possible universe exists, some are sure to contain
"superpoweful people who want to be worshipped".
and don't find that it contributes anything to discussions such as
"why is
there something rather than nothing?"
But "god" is the supposed answer to that very question.
"God" is also supposed to answer the question, "How should humans
behave?"
Yes, and the conception of God as the one mind to which we are all a part
does
provide a foundation for an ethical framework (not unlike the golden rule
or karma).
Yes, and the conception of God as a tyrannical patriarch dictating behavior
also
provides a framework for ethics - one that has been widely employed. Does
that
prove that both concepts of God are realized?
No. That is what theology is for.
and "Who will save me from death or disaster?"
The conception of God-like entities with the power to computationally
simulate
worlds and galaxies can "save you" by providing you a computational
afterlife.
And providing they exist and that "I" can experience it.
By arithmetical realism they exist, and by computationalism you can
That's the speculation of Bruno's theory. But why should I assume arithmetical realism,
and why should I identify mathematical proof with belief?
The question is not is there an answer or isn't there (of course there
is
since we are here),
That doesn't follow. Conceivably there is no "reason".
Only in an fundamentally non-deterministic universe, which I personally
have great
difficulty conceiving.
I don't. The current, best theory of this universe is non-deterministic.
It's not fundamentally non-deterministic, only apparently so (and this was explained by
Everett, who provided the only mathematical and complete theory of QM and the illusion
of collapse).
Everett explained that other universes split off, but it's not entirely clear what this
means. And it leaves the universe of which we are conscious as indeterministic.
In the major religions the "reason" is that a supernatural immortal
person
willed or caused it. "Reason" referred to what humans mean when they
ask one
another for a reason. Physical causes are not reasons in that sense
(although
Aristotle thought they were).
the question is what is the nature, and what are the properties, of
that thing,
Now you assume it's a thing or object. Are the equations of quantum
field
theory a thing?
Yes, but are they the ultimate explanation for their own existence or not?
I don't think existence needs an explanation.
It sounds like you've given up on that line of inquiry.
It seems that any explanation of existence is either going to be circular (which I like)
or an infinite regress or non-existent.
What part do those equations play in the relation to everything else that
may exist?
They are constraining descriptions we invented.
But do they describe everything that can exist, or might they only describe the reality
in which we are embedded?
Of course we invent descriptions to fit what we observe. Any other "reality"
is speculative.
that object, that answer to the question of why reality exists.
That's easy. If it didn't exist it wouldn't be reality, would it?
That might be true, but it's not an answer to the question of why this
reality exists.
Why not? Because it's not elaborate enough?
Yes, its unsatisfactory and vapid.
OK, let's say it arose out of aperion.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
