On 18 Jan 2015, at 08:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/17/2015 9:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb <[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]>
wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR <[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.
So you do (bad) theology. You talk like if we knew already what
reality is. But with comp reality is anything Turing complete. So here
you do an implicit metaphysical assumption, which is inconsistent with
mechanism. No problem ... as long as you are aware of this.
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,
Because without it there is no science at all. All scientists assumes
arithmetical realism. It is the weaker realism on which all scientists
agree. I know Field pretends that there is a possibility of science
without number, but he did not convince me. It is (bad) philosophy.
and why should I identify mathematical proof with belief?
... because mathematical proof does not entail knowledge, and going
from knowledge to belief is a big progress in science, more or less
already seen by the greeks, but forgot until Gödel, Popper, ...
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.
Like in MW-duplication experience, whose main point is an explanation
of why we can have string indeterminacy of outcome of experiment in a
completely deterministic frame.
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.
We need to assume something, or we play with words.
The empty theory is satisfied by all models, and so it explains nothing.
Then we can explain existence, either by construction from what we
assume to exist, or as appearance for subject/object that we have
already constructed or derived from what we assume to exist.
Yes, we cannot explain the "first universal" thing, but usually we
admit it, like all scientists agrees that 2+2=4.
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 is an Aristotelian principle. Science is born from the
understanding that what we see does not necessarily exists, and what
we don't see does not necessarily not exist. This has given rise to
mathematics and physics, and at the start, they were already seen as
alternative for the everything. Physicalism is born later, with
Aristotle influence. But we know better, ISTM.
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.
Define aperion, and explain how things comes from the apeiron.
Hmm... perhaps you want just elude the question.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
