|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 13, 2017 19:45:02 GMT
Because what you just provided isn't evidence. Evidence is testable and falsifiable. I don't know why you need to ask why the evidence isn't sufficient when there isn't any evidence at all.
Now, I agree that the steps in getting there make some level of sense, but that does not constitute evidence, and in fact there are several "if's" along the way. Do you know what, my atheist brother from a different mother, I can't be arsed. Do yourself a favour and actually read the paper. I will.
And my OP question still remains, why would anybody accept a god as true?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2017 19:57:36 GMT
The simulation hypothesis is becoming increasingly credible and numerous scientists are subscribing to this hypothesis. Anyway, for believers, 'God' is more believable only because God increases emotional comfort whereas the simulation hypothesis diminishes it.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Mar 13, 2017 20:29:18 GMT
The simulation hypothesis is becoming increasingly credible and numerous scientists are subscribing to this hypothesis. Anyway, for believers, 'God' is more believable only because God increases emotional comfort whereas the simulation hypothesis diminishes it. Why do you say that the simulation hypothesis diminishes comfort? Insofar as the simulation argument often seems to appeal to the assumption that our technological abilities will continue improving, to the point that they will become virtually limitless, I'd say it's rather comforting. I wouldn't be at all surprised if modern society collapses over the next few decades.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2017 20:34:47 GMT
The simulation hypothesis is becoming increasingly credible and numerous scientists are subscribing to this hypothesis. Anyway, for believers, 'God' is more believable only because God increases emotional comfort whereas the simulation hypothesis diminishes it. Why do you say that the simulation hypothesis diminishes comfort? Insofar as the simulation argument often seems to appeal to the assumption that our technological abilities will continue improving, to the point that they will become virtually limitless, I'd say it's rather comforting. I wouldn't be at all surprised if modern society collapses over the next few decades. It diminishes comfort for religiously-minded people and those given to spasms of existential angst. The main reason that religion is still so popular is that it reassures people that their lives are profoundly meaningful and infinitely valuable. Finding out that they are effectively a character in a computer game would be more likely to trigger an existential crisis. For someone such as myself, the concerns relating to the simulation hypothesis are that the creators of the simulation may have malevolent intentions and plan to torture us after death. They've already subjected us to great harm, apparently without any pause for ethical concern.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 13, 2017 21:30:57 GMT
It's amazing how often you try to be insulting and yet that nonsense was all you came up with. I was thinking the same thing about you.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 14, 2017 12:04:24 GMT
You don't subscribe to it, because there isn't sufficient evidence
Correct. There isn't sufficient evidence... for me. Because, there is sufficient evidence... for them. Sorry if I consider the guy that starts 5 threads a day about how much he can't stand religious thought to be a tad intolerant. I deal with it. We all have to deal with it. Ad nauseam.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 14, 2017 15:37:57 GMT
There isn't sufficient evidence... for me. Because, there is sufficient evidence... for them. And here is your problem
You think reality is up to the individual. No it isn't. Things are either true or their aren't, and all you are doing is promoting to believe whatever fantasy you like, which while legal, is what has divided the world for centuries. It's what leads to bigotry and scientific ignorance.
You aren't being the bigger person by saying it's evidence "for them", you're being the smaller minded one by continuing to think ignorance is some sort of virtue.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 14, 2017 17:33:17 GMT
I think we reject the simulation theory for 2 reasons: 1. It would make no practical difference to our life if it were true 2. Even though it is statistically plausible (and some have even argued fairly convincingly that it is more likely than not ), we're just not naturally inclined to believe such a thing - it just seems ludicrous even if it can be demonstrated mathematically not to be so
I don't think it's analogous to God because some people are obviously inclined to believe in God while as I've never met anyone who really "believes" we are living in a simulation in their heart of hearts.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Mar 14, 2017 17:51:26 GMT
I think we reject the simulation theory for 2 reasons: 1. It would make no practical difference to our life if it were true 2. Even though it is statistically plausible (and some have even argued fairly convincingly that it is more likely than not ), we're just not naturally inclined to believe such a thing - it just seems ludicrous even if it can be demonstrated mathematically not to be so I don't think it's analogous to God because some people are obviously inclined to believe in God while as I've never met anyone who really "believes" we are living in a simulation in their heart of hearts. Re (1), presumably the same would be the case for the proposition that we're not living in a simulation - it would be incoherent to hold that the truth/falsity of a proposition would make no practical difference to our lives, while the truth/falsity of its negation would make a practical difference to our lives. So the fact that simulation theory makes no practical difference can neither justify nor explain its rejection. Re (2), why does it matter what we are "naturally inclined" to believe? There are plenty of things that people are arguably not naturally inclined to believe, but that they do believe in any case. A whole host of surprising discoveries from the sciences could be listed here. Anyway, I don't think the simulation theory is ludicrous. There's no good reason to believe it in my view, but it doesn't strike me as crazy. Furthermore, my suspicion that most people, at least in Western society, would agree with me that it's not ludicrous. The idea that we're all living in a simulation is something that most people have probably pondered occasionally, as a result of media like The Matrix. I don't expect simulation theory would strike most people as a strange idea. Obviously though, we'd need to do some sort of empirical study to find out where people's intuitions actually lie. (Not that this really matters for evaluating the theory. Intuitions are no guide to reality.)
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 14, 2017 19:50:41 GMT
There isn't sufficient evidence... for me. Because, there is sufficient evidence... for them. And here is your problem
You think reality is up to the individual. No it isn't. Things are either true or their aren't, and all you are doing is promoting to believe whatever fantasy you like, which while legal, is what has divided the world for centuries. It's what leads to bigotry and scientific ignorance.
You aren't being the bigger person by saying it's evidence "for them", you're being the smaller minded one by continuing to think ignorance is some sort of virtue.
I am a realist. I believe in reality above all else. The difference in being an actual realist and a moron with an axe to grind against all those that don't think like him... is knowing that to some extent that what we do know about reality will be proven wrong at some point.... The nature of what we know the universe to be has changed a few times over the course of human discovery. The key is to not sweat other people's universe views too much... Yours is going to proven wrong eventually, too. And that's your problem. Our problem is that we have to read your problem over and over every day.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 14, 2017 20:10:41 GMT
The nature of what we know the universe to be has changed a few times over the course of human discovery. Yes, it's called learning, and I don't have a problem with that.
Your problem, is that you're still supporting fantasy, and making the excuse that it's valid based on the fact that we don't know everything, and that is asinine. It's not valid. It's fantasy.
Did you have anything else?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 14, 2017 20:17:20 GMT
The nature of what we know the universe to be has changed a few times over the course of human discovery. Yes, it's called learning, and I don't have a problem with that.
Your problem, is that you're still supporting fantasy, and making the excuse that it's valid based on the fact that we don't know everything, and that is asinine. It's not valid. It's fantasy.
I'm not supporting it... Nor do I think it's valid. Being a realist also means that you understand that people will always have beliefs outside the known world. You deal with it. You don't have to whine about it on the internet every day. Yeah. Try a Tic Tac... Your breath is horrendous.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 14, 2017 20:24:53 GMT
I'm not supporting it... Nor do I think it's valid. Being a realist also means that you understand that people will always have beliefs outside the known world. You deal with it. You don't have to whine about it like a little bitch on the internet every day. Being a realist you might have noticed how many people believing these ideas you don't support or think are valid.
And the problem with speaking out against them is what exactly? It's just amusing that you choose not to speak out against the ideas, but then those that do really bother you and you feel the need to tell them about it.
I take it from the completely pointless breath comment that you aren't interested in a serious conversation and/or don't want to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 14, 2017 20:39:41 GMT
I take it from the completely pointless breath comment that you aren't interested in a serious conversation and/or don't want to be taken seriously.
Dude... It's a message board.... Nothing here should be taken seriously.... ever. Yeah.. A shtload. It doesn't bother me. I'm not threatened by other people's beliefs. Well.. It does make you look like a whiney dick. Yeah... I'm not a whiney dick. Ah.. The irony of Man. To hate the hater...
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 14, 2017 20:42:36 GMT
Dude... It's a message board.... Nothing here should be taken seriously.... ever. And thus there is no reason to speak to you, or respond to anything you say. Good to know. Way to make sure the internet is not productive.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 14, 2017 20:47:00 GMT
Dude... It's a message board.... Nothing here should be taken seriously.... ever. And thus there is no reason to speak to you, or respond to anything you say. Good to know. Way to make sure the internet is not productive. If you think that you are being productive... You are fa aaaaaarrrrr more delusional than anyone you claim to be.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 14, 2017 20:56:35 GMT
I think we reject the simulation theory for 2 reasons: 1. It would make no practical difference to our life if it were true 2. Even though it is statistically plausible (and some have even argued fairly convincingly that it is more likely than not ), we're just not naturally inclined to believe such a thing - it just seems ludicrous even if it can be demonstrated mathematically not to be so I don't think it's analogous to God because some people are obviously inclined to believe in God while as I've never met anyone who really "believes" we are living in a simulation in their heart of hearts. Re (1), presumably the same would be the case for the proposition that we're not living in a simulation - it would be incoherent to hold that the truth/falsity of a proposition would make no practical difference to our lives, while the truth/falsity of its negation would make a practical difference to our lives. So the fact that simulation theory makes no practical difference can neither justify nor explain its rejection. My thinking was more even if we concede that it is plausible or even likely, I reckon most of us just shrug our shoulders and think it makes no odds either way and get on with our lives without thinking of every tree as actually a simulation. I suppose the most obvious example is heliocentrism. It was considered a contrarian view that went against common sense by most thinkers pre-Kepler. It was only when Kepler demonstrably showed it to be the simpler and more elegant model that society took up the idea. The simulated world lacks a Kepler, and without that it seems a ridiculous contrivance. Sure most would admit it's plausible. Some would call it likely or even probable. But how many really look at a tree and think "yeah I reckon that's probably a computer graphic"? Like you say, it probably needs more research as to whether people believe it or not but I imagine the vast majority don't even if they accept the probabilistic argument for its likelihood. Never said they were. The OP was asking why we reject the simulated universe idea and suggested it was due to the lack of evidence and that this was a good reason to reject it. I disagree. I think even with no evidence, there actually is a good mathematical case for the simulated universe that means it probably should be taken a priori as more likely than the universe being unsimulated. But I don't think any of that matters because people just don't see the world that way. Evidence probably would change their minds (as it did with heliocentrism) but it shouldn't have to if the a priori argument is good enough. With no evidence for or against the simulation, we should fall back on the a priori and assess the theory based on that. I would say the a priori arguments for a simulated universe are better than the a priori arguments for God. The a posteriori arguments for both are equally poor. Yet you'll probably find a lot more people that say they believe in God than believe in the simulated universe as anything more than a theoretical exercise. The difference in my opinion is that with God the belief means something to the believer. While the simulated universe is nothing more than navel gazing.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 14, 2017 22:21:30 GMT
Re (1), presumably the same would be the case for the proposition that we're not living in a simulation - it would be incoherent to hold that the truth/falsity of a proposition would make no practical difference to our lives, while the truth/falsity of its negation would make a practical difference to our lives. So the fact that simulation theory makes no practical difference can neither justify nor explain its rejection. Re (2), why does it matter what we are "naturally inclined" to believe? There are plenty of things that people are arguably not naturally inclined to believe, but that they do believe in any case. A whole host of surprising discoveries from the sciences could be listed here. Anyway, I don't think the simulation theory is ludicrous. There's no good reason to believe it in my view, but it doesn't strike me as crazy. Furthermore, my suspicion that most people, at least in Western society, would agree with me that it's not ludicrous. The idea that we're all living in a simulation is something that most people have probably pondered occasionally, as a result of media like The Matrix. I don't expect simulation theory would strike most people as a strange idea. Obviously though, we'd need to do some sort of empirical study to find out where people's intuitions actually lie. (Not that this really matters for evaluating the theory. Intuitions are no guide to reality.) 1. Can we suppose a fact 'x' that is true in such a way that we can never discover it? Yes, but what's the point? There is no point. 2. There are people who play without purpose but play. Supposing some fact 'x' true in such a way that we can never discover it's true is a waste of time, unless you just want to waste time. Not with my money.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Mar 14, 2017 22:45:11 GMT
Re (1), presumably the same would be the case for the proposition that we're not living in a simulation - it would be incoherent to hold that the truth/falsity of a proposition would make no practical difference to our lives, while the truth/falsity of its negation would make a practical difference to our lives. So the fact that simulation theory makes no practical difference can neither justify nor explain its rejection. My thinking was more even if we concede that it is plausible or even likely, I reckon most of us just shrug our shoulders and think it makes no odds either way and get on with our lives without thinking of every tree as actually a simulation. But if we're to be coherent in that case, we should not think of trees as not simulations either. We should simply suspend judgement about simulation theory, rather than reject it. If it makes no odds either way between a proposition and its negation, we should neither accept nor reject either. My guess is that generally, people just don't consider it one way or the other. But if they're prompted to consider it, maybe because they're talking to a philosophical sceptic or because they've just watched The Matrix or whatever, my guess is that a lot of people would think "hmm, maybe the tree is a simulation". Anyway, even even for things that you believe, you don't always consider them. How often do you look at a tree and think, "wow, that's almost entirely empty space"? (Assuming you accept contemporary physical theory.) I didn't intend to attribute to you the view that intuitions are a guide to reality. I was just clarifying my own position there. Just curious if you could clarify this. Surely if there is a "good mathematical case" for the simulated universe, that would count as evidence for the simulated universe? Do you mean "evidence" as in just empirical or a posteriori evidence?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 14, 2017 23:41:54 GMT
Surely if there is a "good mathematical case" for the simulated universe, that would count as evidence for the simulated universe? Do you mean "evidence" as in just empirical or a posteriori evidence? Yes, this seemed to be what the OP was meaning by "evidence" since he seems to accept that there is some a priori grounds for the simulated universe theory. He seems to be saying we need a posteriori reason to accept it - if I understood him correctly at least.
|
|