Atheistic doubt.

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=focusonz]
My first reply was to lay some groundwork in somewhat clinical terms and were lifted from that website.

Now this is an answer to your question in my own terms. And I am no trainer so please bear with me. Yes you can create yourself anew everyday by taking away from every new relationship and experience all that it offers. Typically most people ‘only hear what they want to hear’ and they take nothing away from the experience, they end up being the same person they were. But it is illogical to expect a new experience not to effect you!

This SDMB is a perfect example, especially here in GD and this thread, I heard Lobsang’s doubts not some desire to wrangle over religion. I heard **Mangetout’s **wonderment of the possibility of creating himself from scratch.

I am a happier person and have been changed now because I know two people who are on a quest of exploration and wonderment.

Thank you.
[/QUOTE]
I would just like to point out that if this mere “knowledge” is enough to change you, then everyone is constantly changing completely all the time, if for no other reason than that their cells are aging and their senses are being constantly assaulted by the world around them. So clearly, no crystal-gazing or any other odd worldview is necessesary.

[QUOTE=focusonz]
See I chose to be affected versus I could have made an **automatic assumption ** as in: Without additional data point, I expect Lobsang’s will use atheism to compensate for an empty heart and **Mangetout’s ** will use having fun with puns as a clever disguise.
[/QUOTE]
How is it not an automatic assumption for you to have arbitrarily decided that you know two people who are on a quest of exploration and wonderment? Based on the additional data points I saw, this conclusion cannot be fairly reached, so it is exactly the same sort of leap as the pessimistic projection you give example of. The only difference is that nobody has claimed to have made the pessimistic leap.

62

First I don’t believe that god violates any physical laws. I am a big believer that if there is a god then we are likely to be some kind of experimental simulation. Please bear with me for the sake of argument, because I think that this is a very probable outcome. It hasn’t been until recently that we were even able to conceptualize such an idea in a concrete way. Sure, we had Descartes doubting his very existence, but never in a concrete way that is probable. We had no idea of simulation technology until recently.

If we were living in a simulation, then it would be very much possible that there is a god who created the universe and everything and not break any laws at all. Mainly because such a god would have created the laws of the universe. You might say this is giving needless consideration to a complex model of something that needn’t exist. That’s true, but it does prove that god can exist without breaking any laws.

If I were to pick a belief system, that is most likely the one I’d choose it makes the most sense. Honestly, why does a waveform collapse only when we observe it? Sounds like a very convenient way in which a system could simultaneously provide sharp detail when it is important and less detail when it is not. This could be compared with 3d computer graphics in some videogames where from afar the objects would be less complex because the observer couldn’t even see the detail from afar.

And there is some logic to it as well:

from Wikipedia entry on the simulation hypothesis:

I think it’s pretty easy to rule out number 2 as we already do primitive versions of simulation, so I’m pretty sure the desire is there. The question is if it’s possible. And remember that we can use any technology from now until the end of humanity as a technological basis. To rule it out you have to know for a fact that humans will never have the technology or desire. Because if we do have the technology and desire then we will create at least one universe. And if each “real” universe creates more than one “fake” universe, then we have greater chance of being in a “fake” universe than a real one.

So what if we’re in a fake universe, and we never have the ability to leave or have any effect on anything outside? It means we’re in the same boat as before. But it does mean that there is a “god” and that this particular “god” is nothing more than a scientist or a kid playing a souped-up version of Sim-City.

Again, I’m sure you’ll argue that it makes things needlessly complex, and is giving religion special treatment because we never ask if electrons are actually little goblins running in circles around atoms. But at what point does it become a valid question?

I believe that we are certainly going to be able to produce artificial life on a computer. And I don’t think this will be too hard. Obviously we don’t understand AI, but it will be discovered one day, if not through simulating a brain down to the atom. We can simulate anything we can observe, and our simulation powers are only getting better. Computer speed and memory is increasing exponentially. And at some point, we’ll certainly be able to create a life that isn’t aware of the fact that it’s in a simulation. Will it be a valid question then? Will it be a valid question when we get to the point where we can create an entire world, like our own, but maybe less complex? Or will it still be making our universe needlessly more complex than it is?

63

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
Again, I’m sure you’ll argue that it makes things needlessly complex, and is giving religion special treatment because we never ask if electrons are actually little goblins running in circles around atoms. But at what point does it become a valid question?
[/QUOTE]
When there’s some evidence for it.

And, I’d also like to point out that very few people would call a creature running a computer simulation of us God.

64

You’re saying that evidence of our being able to simulate a universe exactly like our own isn’t evidence that we are also indeed simulated? This is of course saying that there is no evidence that we can see in the real world. I think it is plenty of evidence purely on probability. Imagine an original universe. The “real” one if that is possible. If they can create a universe, would they stop at one? the only way would be is if it were impossible to create more. I can’t see of a reason why we would stop at one. So if you have two simulated and one real then your chances are already 66% that your entire brain resides on some memory chip.

And secondly, I don’t see how a creature running a simulation of our universe could NOT be god. Have you never played simulations before? That’s the point of it. You have the power to control everything or nothing. It’s your choice. I don’t know how much closer you can get.

65

Arguing that we’re probably in a simulation because you estimate the probability of given entity X being simulated or not sounds kind of like deciding that, since virtually are organisms on earth by numeric count are smaller than a grain of dust, that we’re probably that small too. The thing is, as good as probabilities are for making guesses, reality doesn’t care one whit about them. We’re not protozoa, regardless of the odds against that. (Well, I’m not one, anyway --with the internet you never know.) So, if we want to learn things about actual reality, we’re much better off looking for actual physical evidence in reality than resorting to probability arguments.

We already produce artificial life in computers - I killed off dozens of artificial living creatures just yesterday, playing a Grand Theft Auto game. Odds are real good that none of my victims knew they were in a simulation, either. But does this mean that we ourselves are likely to be video game characters?

I think not. The most powerful indication of this is the immense size and complexity of our universe. It’s much to huge to have been created just to contain us; look at all the wasted space! It’s also far too complex to have been created with just simulating humans in mind. Why simulate below the molecular level? That’s far enough down to encode all the chemical reactions. Why make atoms splittable? Unless the universe is actually entitled The Secret Lives of Quarks (500 googol-plux players supported at once! Drop in/drop out player support!), it makes no sense for it to have been ‘built’ to such a fine resolution. Not to mention it’s been running for a freakishly long time; much longer than any lifeform or set of lifeforms we know of has been around. Unimaginably longer. Why waste the prodigous amount of processing time/power it would take to run all this size and complexity for so long, if so much of that processor power will be essentially wasted?

And then there’s the matter that there appears to be no player interaction. There are no atheists in sim-city, with houses and buildings appearing from nowhere all the time (not to mention the tornados and godzillas that literally appear ex nihilo, thanks to their fickle diety). In our world, on the other hand, the ‘arbitrary’ things like the laws of physics and whatnot all seem remarkably consistent. If there’s a hand of god behind the mechanics of the universe, it hasn’t moved noticeably in hundreds or thousands of years. So it seems unlikely we’re a big game of SimEarth. This doesn’t rule out the ‘avatar’ game model, of course - though that runs back into the question of why make everything so large and detailed. No avatar could possibly explore it all.

In short, the universe just doesn’t really look like what we’d expect of a simulated world. So, until I see something that makes me change that opinion, I will be entirely unswayed by probabilistic arguments on the subject.

66

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
You’re saying that evidence of our being able to simulate a universe exactly like our own isn’t evidence that we are also indeed simulated? This is of course saying that there is no evidence that we can see in the real world. I think it is plenty of evidence purely on probability. Imagine an original universe. The “real” one if that is possible. If they can create a universe, would they stop at one? the only way would be is if it were impossible to create more. I can’t see of a reason why we would stop at one. So if you have two simulated and one real then your chances are already 66% that your entire brain resides on some memory chip.

And secondly, I don’t see how a creature running a simulation of our universe could NOT be god. Have you never played simulations before? That’s the point of it. You have the power to control everything or nothing. It’s your choice. I don’t know how much closer you can get.
[/QUOTE]

Simulation is hardly new. I heard the simulation hypothesis from Ed Fredkin at MIT in 1973. His take was that Planck time was the simulation step, and miracles were early bugs in the program.

However, I have written simulators (of computers) and as begbert2 said, when you write one you only handle the important stuff. If the simulation was about us, the far away galaxies wouldn’t have the structure they do. In fact, if I were writing one I’d minimize the event horizon of the universe to save cycles. It is more or less the same argument against any god caring about us creating the universe - why wait for 10 billion years for the sun to even be formed?

BTW, people have implied this but not stated it, atheism does not mean a claim to be sure about the absence of gods, only the lack of god belief and possibly the belief that there are no gods. There are so many possible gods, how can we be sure that none exist, or even consider them all?

Even if the simulation hypothesis were true, so what? The writer of the simulation has no moral suasion over us. He does not appear to be interfering, so we have no need of this hypothesis to explain anything. Our actions would be the same if it were true or if it wasn’t, so who gives a crap?

67

Firstly, how do we know that shortcuts aren’t being taken? You’ve written simulators and you obviously get rid of superflous information. But if the simulation is centered around humans wouldn’t anything we can observe be done in the appropriate detail? If said universe designer knew about human history up to the point of being able to simulate a universe, I’m sure he’d understand that it would be possible to travel or at least see other galaxies and fill in the appropriate detail. Maybe we would be unable to truly understand the nature of our universe until we get to the point where we can simulate our own? See what happens and use the results to test our own universe?

I consider the 70’s as being pretty recent, btw when talking about matters of philosophy and religion.

68

If we can’t tell the difference between a simulation and a non-simulation, in any way, we are perfectly justified in carrying on as if there is no simulation. It’s a pointless speculation. Call me when you see JPEG artifacts on the Microwave Background.

69

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
I consider the 70’s as being pretty recent, btw when talking about matters of philosophy and religion.
[/QUOTE]

Not really. Computers, chaos theory and network thinking have created a recent revolution of sorts, in the philosophy of mind especially.

70

Some chemicals,physical laws and a tiny electrical field cause life and a step further on sentience,beyond that intelligence.

So on a Macro level the colossal number of galaxies including supernova,plus matter,Dark Matter,Anti Matter,light,Cosmic Rays,Quasars,Gravity plus the physical laws and Time/Space and all the rest of it surely make it a not totally unlikely possibility that that there is some sort of sort of superorganism resulting from the combination?

Not necessarily omnipotent or omniscient but god like in its capacity to us.

Saying that I’m not saying that if such an entity does exist that it would have any interest in planet Earth or even think in a way that is not totally alien to us.

71

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
Some chemicals,physical laws and a tiny electrical field cause life and a step further on sentience,beyond that intelligence.

So on a Macro level the colossal number of galaxies including supernova,plus matter,Dark Matter,Anti Matter,light,Cosmic Rays,Quasars,Gravity plus the physical laws and Time/Space and all the rest of it surely make it a not totally unlikely possibility that that there is some sort of sort of superorganism resulting from the combination?

Not necessarily omnipotent or omniscient but god like in its capacity to us.

Saying that I’m not saying that if such an entity does exist that it would have any interest in planet Earth or even think in a way that is not totally alien to us.
[/QUOTE]
Unlikely. For one thing, due to the scale involved there’s not really much feedback between various parts, and what feedback does occur would be extremely slow.

And even if such a thing existed, there’s no reason it would be godlike in most ways; it wouldn’t have, or need intelligence for example. Nothing to use it on, and not enough time to develop any before the universe dies given how incredibly slow it would be.

72

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Not really. Computers, chaos theory and network thinking have created a recent revolution of sorts, in the philosophy of mind especially.
[/QUOTE]

What the hell is the point of that? Are you seriously saying that my point isn’t valid? Being able to specifically spell out a technology that would allow a simulated world IS new considering the length of time that people have been questioning the nature of reality. You’re wrong buddy.

73

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Unlikely. For one thing, due to the scale involved there’s not really much feedback between various parts, and what feedback does occur would be extremely slow.

And even if such a thing existed, there’s no reason it would be godlike in most ways; it wouldn’t have, or need intelligence for example. Nothing to use it on, and not enough time to develop any before the universe dies given how incredibly slow it would be.
[/QUOTE]

As to the godlike aspect I wasn’t trying to liken it to human ideas or motivations of supernatural beings but a sheer awesomeness of scale.

I get the point on feedback but Quantum physics has pretty much established that Creation is definitely multi dimensional and very probably composed of multiple universes both of which could be information highways for the entity or as you say operating at a very slow speed,I dont think that physicists have cracked the future life span of our local universe as quite frankly Astrophysics seems to have one hell of a lot of guesswork at the moment to fill in the"Here be monsters"gaps in the Cosmic map.

74

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
Firstly, how do we know that shortcuts aren’t being taken? You’ve written simulators and you obviously get rid of superflous information. But if the simulation is centered around humans wouldn’t anything we can observe be done in the appropriate detail? If said universe designer knew about human history up to the point of being able to simulate a universe, I’m sure he’d understand that it would be possible to travel or at least see other galaxies and fill in the appropriate detail. Maybe we would be unable to truly understand the nature of our universe until we get to the point where we can simulate our own? See what happens and use the results to test our own universe?

I consider the 70’s as being pretty recent, btw when talking about matters of philosophy and religion.
[/QUOTE]

But why make the universe look so old? It makes no sense at all. That doesn’t mean it is impossible, but there is no data that it explains better than a purely natural universe.

75

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
What the hell is the point of that? Are you seriously saying that my point isn’t valid? Being able to specifically spell out a technology that would allow a simulated world IS new considering the length of time that people have been questioning the nature of reality. You’re wrong buddy.
[/QUOTE]

Hey, back then we designed computers with stone knives and bearskins. :slight_smile: In the same talk, Ed bravely predicted that some day memory would be sold for as little as a penny a bit. In computer science, 35 years is an eternity, especially considering that he was speaking probably about a decade after the very first simulator was done.

76

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
What the hell is the point of that? Are you seriously saying that my point isn’t valid?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I am. I’m saying that the 1970s may as well be the 1770s for all that it matters today. Things in the field of philosophy of mind have moved on, and moved rapidly. Yes, there are still people playing around with simulism today, but IMO it’s a dead-end street, philosophically & scientifically, that only happens to make for the odd nice movie and story. It doesn’t address such questions as “what difference does it make” and “how should we act if this is true”.
[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
Being able to specifically spell out a technology that would allow a simulated world IS new considering the length of time that people have been questioning the nature of reality.
[/QUOTE]
Not really. Spelling out one possible technology (and if you think a Universe simulation is possible on anything even remotely resembling 1970s tech or even current tech, you’re mistaken) is one thing, but doesn’t actually philosophically differ from the much earlier “Brain in a Jar” gedankenexperimente.
[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
You’re wrong buddy.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not your buddy. Please refrain from calling me one.

77

One reason I’m dubious that we’re in a simulation is, well, this Universe sucks.

I mean, first let’s ask, why would a sentient species run a simulation?

If it’s to perform some sort of experiment then the simulation can take no short cuts and every force and every particle would have to be simulated. This seems implausible given that to simulate our Universe for example, would require a computer much more complicated and much larger than our Universe (consider: even empty space would require lots of calculations of virtual particles).

Another answer is for entertainment / curiosity value. But if it’s this latter reason then wouldn’t we expect a Universe of almost limitless adventure, surprise, beauty and fairness? When humans imagine their own realities, they often have many of these properties, and I would expect any sentient species to have similar notions of what makes for an interesting reality.

For some reason, at the moment it’s very unfashionable to diss nature in any way. But suffice it to say, I don’t believe we’re living in a Universe of almost limitless adventure, surprise, beauty and fairness.

If, suddenly, this reality got a lot more interesting then I would start to wonder if we were in a simulation (and that the past was merely a fake memory, existing to provide a solid starting scenario).

78

[QUOTE=Voyager]
But why make the universe look so old? It makes no sense at all. That doesn’t mean it is impossible, but there is no data that it explains better than a purely natural universe.
[/QUOTE]

Totally wild guess.

Someone was saying that the big bang wasn’t just an event that happened it is still going on. The Universe is constantly in flux. Still Expanding. Religion often views creation as something that was put in place with all it’s details and laws complete and intact. Perhaps creation happens as we think, wonder, seek. In our desire to explain and understand the world around us, the concept of time and the need to measure it was “created”

I agree , there’s no data to support it. I just have a natural aversion to the “that makes no sense” argument. It seems clear that lots of things we accept now “made no sense” at some point. We have to deal with what we see and know right now but we are free to explore and test the horizons. Even just imagining what they might be. Indeed it seems very important for us to do that.

I don’t need to cling to specific unprovable beliefs to function, but I can believe what we see and think we know now may be only a very limited vision of what reality really means.

79

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Totally wild guess.

Someone was saying that the big bang wasn’t just an event that happened it is still going on. The Universe is constantly in flux. Still Expanding. Religion often views creation as something that was put in place with all it’s details and laws complete and intact. Perhaps creation happens as we think, wonder, seek. In our desire to explain and understand the world around us, the concept of time and the need to measure it was “created”

[/QUOTE]

I can certainly agree that the Big Bang is still going on, but that doesn’t make the universe any less old. And even if the universe makes no sense, that doesn’t mean that the hypothesis of an intelligent entity running an inefficient simulation does make sense.

One more viable hypothesis is that the simulation was created to study some other created species or world. If so, it might be just about over. Let’s all hope that their funding doesn’t run out.

80

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I can certainly agree that the Big Bang is still going on, but that doesn’t make the universe any less old. And even if the universe makes no sense, that doesn’t mean that the hypothesis of an intelligent entity running an inefficient simulation does make sense.

One more viable hypothesis is that the simulation was created to study some other created species or world. If so, it might be just about over. Let’s all hope that their funding doesn’t run out.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe. Perhaps it’s only inefficient because of our limited perspective. The universe is old based on our perspective as well. I’m only saying that it’s safe to assume there’s a lot left to discover and understand. That leaves a lot of possibilities open.

Looking back a few centuries what we accept as common today wasn’t even entertained as a possibility by the masses. Can’t we expect that to be true a few centuries from now as well?