Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Great you seem to accuse me of lying which is wrong because the personal creator implied by a simulated universe was missing. Read your post.

I have – why haven’t you? The “personal” isn’t necessary for a simulated universe conjecture. All that would be necessary is that a “something” (not necessarily a god) set the initial conditions. When you got this wrong the first time it was an error; when you’ve had it corrected several times and you keep ignoring the corrections, it’s a lie. 

You then go to explain what you take to be the definition of the implication.

No, I just explained to you that the single condition that’s necessary and sufficient for a “maybe the universe is a simulation” speculation is just a “simulator”, whereas the conditions necessary and sufficient for theism are multifarious. It’s not complicated.   

A personal creator…

Why are you still talking about a “personal” creator?

…is not obliged to take any interest in you personally.

Well that’s theism out of the window then. Good.

It is itself personal in that it has its purposes and design.

Now you’re shifting ground to, “it’s personal to itself”? What’s that tautology even supposed to mean – that the simulator could have been self-aware? So what?

In many of the arguments it has a name Kevin and a status Kevin. Not important in themselves but recognition of personal desires,will,goalsaims,intent and purpose.

No, all that’s necessary is that a simulator acted according to its nature. It need not have had any more notion of a universe than termites have of termite mounds, and besides the “personal” remains entirely irrelevant.

So again, if you want to argue your way across the huge leap from the speculation “maybe this is a simulation” to theism by all means give it a go. So far at least though all you’ve done is to make unqualified and unnecessary assertions about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I have – why haven’t you? The “personal” isn’t necessary for a simulated universe conjecture. All that would be necessary is that a “something” (not necessarily a god) set the initial conditions. When you got this wrong the first time it was an error; when you’ve had it corrected several times and you keep ignoring the corrections, it’s a lie. 

No, I just explained to you that the single condition that’s necessary and sufficient for a “maybe the universe is a simulation” speculation is just a “simulator”, whereas the conditions necessary and sufficient for theism are multifarious. It’s not complicated.   

Why are you still talking about a “personal” creator?

Well that’s theism out of the window then. Good.

Now you’re shifting ground to, “it’s personal to itself”? What’s that tautology even supposed to mean – that the simulator could have been self-aware? So what?

No, all that’s necessary is that a simulator acted according to its nature. It need not have had any more notion of a universe than termites have of termite mounds, and besides the “personal” remains entirely irrelevant.

So again, if you want to argue your way across the huge leap from the speculation “maybe this is a simulation” to theism by all means give it a go. So far at least though all you’ve done is to make unqualified and unnecessary assertions about it.

Hillside it seems to me that you are saying any cause could be a simulator. Even by extension one with no purpose goal aim or intent.

That certainly isnt simulated universe theory since all universes would be simulated! This is certainly not what is in Greenes mind when he makes it a special category. It is not true for NDGT It is not true for PZ Myers who rightly detects the teleological aspect...It is not true for Bostrom and it is not true for the sensible commentator.

The simulator is a class of creator.It is personal in the way you are for the reasons which have been outlined to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside it seems to me that you are saying any cause could be a simulator. Even by extension one with no purpose goal aim or intent.

If you want to conjecture a simulated universe then the only thing you can say about what simulated it was that it existed. That’s it – no rationale for god(s), purpose, behaviours, attributes, anything at all in fact other than an act of simulation. You know, all the stuff necessary for theism. 

That certainly isnt simulated universe theory since all universes would be simulated! This is certainly not what is in Greenes mind when he makes it a special category. It is not true for NDGT It is not true for PZ Myers who rightly detects the teleological aspect...It is not true for Bostrom and it is not true for the sensible commentator.

You obviously think you’re making a point here, but I have no idea what you think it is. The actual point though remains that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the conjecture “maybe a simulation” overlap with the conditions necessary for theism, but are in no way sufficient for it. As Stranger explained (and you just ignored) what you’re trying here is:

1.   All cats are animals
2.   Lions are cats
3.   Therefore all animals are lions.   

Can you see anything wrong with that?

The simulator is a class of creator.

“Would be”, not “is” – it’s just a conjecture.

It is personal in the way you are for the reasons which have been outlined to you.

Nothing has been outlined to me – you just asserted it then ignored the rebuttal. The conjecture “maybe simulated” doesn’t require a simulator that's personal to me or to anyone else (including itself if by “personal” you mean self-aware or similar).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If you want to conjecture a simulated universe then the only thing you can say about what simulated it was that it existed. That’s it – no rationale for god(s), purpose, behaviours, attributes, anything at all in fact other than an act of simulation. You know, all the stuff necessary for theism. 

You obviously think you’re making a point here, but I have no idea what you think it is. The actual point though remains that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the conjecture “maybe a simulation” overlap with the conditions necessary for theism, but are in no way sufficient for it. As Stranger explained (and you just ignored) what you’re trying here is:

1.   All cats are animals
2.   Lions are cats
3.   Therefore all animals are lions.   

Can you see anything wrong with that?

“Would be”, not “is” – it’s just a conjecture.

Nothing has been outlined to me – you just asserted it then ignored the rebuttal. The conjecture “maybe simulated” doesn’t require a simulator that's personal to me or to anyone else (including itself if by “personal” you mean self-aware or similar).

Any more  from me would be mere repetition.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Any more  from me would be mere repetition.

Of the same lies, evasions and illogic? Sadly, on this occasion I believe you.

Avoidance noted though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Contributors to this sub thread on simulated universe
Might like Lane Craig's take on how a creator of the universe which is arrived at has to be personal.
I think why the conclusion of personal creator for a simulated universe is obvious.

As I and PZ Myers have noted simulated universe theory as applied to this universe is strongly Teleological.

[Gordon]

Contributors to this sub thread on simulated universe
Might like Lane Craig's take on how a creator of the universe which is arrived at has to be personal.
I think why the conclusion of personal creator for a simulated universe is obvious.

As I and PZ Myers have noted simulated universe theory as applied to this universe is strongly Teleological.

Just had a look at PZ Myers blog and did a search for 'simulated universe' - he doesn't seem to be a great fan of the notion, so why exactly are you citing him? Do you have other citations involving him?

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/?s=simulated+universe

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just had a look at PZ Myers blog and did a search for 'simulated universe' - he doesn't seem to be a great fan of the notion, so why exactly are you citing him? Do you have other citations involving him?

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/?s=simulated+universe

Hi yes.
PZ Myers is against the theory on the fact that it contains intent.
That of course is a characteristic of a personal rather than impersonal creator.
Im working from a phone so refs are not possible for an IT duffer like me. Strangers Hillside and myself have discussed Myers objections and links I believe were provided.

Myers viewing the simulation theory as merely intelligent design should be locatable on Myers blogsite Pharyngula going back 2 or 3 years.

No doubt Bluehillside will provide his recollections of the appropriate thread.

[Gordon]

Quoting my own post back at me with nothing added by you is a novel tactic, Vlad, though I'm not sure it is a very effective one.

Anyhoo, when you said earlier that "As I and PZ Myers have noted simulated universe theory as applied to this universe is strongly Teleological" I was rather hoping you'd point me in the direction of where Myers specifically says this, or discusses simulated universe theory, and it may well be in other than the link I posted - so do you have a link specifically for this?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quoting my own post back at me with nothing added by you is a novel tactic, Vlad, though I'm not sure it is a very effective one.

Anyhoo, when you said earlier that "As I and PZ Myers have noted simulated universe theory as applied to this universe is strongly Teleological" I was rather hoping you'd point me in the direction of where Myers specifically says this, or discusses simulated universe theory, and it may well be in other than the link I posted - so do you have a link specifically for this?

Sorry I had a technical issue.
See above. I shall fish through to find any links that were put on this MB.

[torridon]

Sorry I had a technical issue.

Brain not working correctly ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Brain not working correctly ?

Well,I'm conversing with you. Does that answer your question?

Pharyngula 26 April 2016  title.....we have a name for that Neil de grasse tyson.......intelligent design

[Enki]

Well that isn't atheism either.
Bostrom cites many purposes.
At its most basic  a personal creator creates for its own reasons and the universe created has a purpose for the creator.......but there we go. Back into theism again.

To take up your last two sentences,

The idea of a personal creator creating a simulation universe is a conjecture which cannot be discounted, of course, but is it any more likely than the idea of a hugely advanced species as a whole creating such a universe? Or even that said universe was created as a by-product or accident of some magnificent experiment? I suggest that all such conjectures have equal merit.

And if we were to say that that the idea of a simulated universe is basically a theist idea, is it any the less likely that the creator(s) of such a universe were not 'supreme' being(s) at all (which is necessary for the theist idea), but that they too are a result of natural forces worked upon by similar evolutionary influences such as exist in the universe that they created? I would say that all such conjectures have equal provenance.

As far as I am concerned I see no reason to believe any of these conjectures, hence, as with more traditional ideas of theist or even deist gods, I remain an atheist.

[Gordon]

Well,I'm conversing with you. Does that answer your question?

Pharyngula 26 April 2016  title.....we have a name for that Neil de grasse tyson.......intelligent design

Thank you, Vlad - got that, this is the link.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/#more-28024

Myers clearly thinks that Tyson had spouted off a shite argument, and looking at the content of the blog I can see why he thinks that. So, why bother citing Myers if all that does is show that what Tyson argued for was flawed?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To take up your last two sentences,

The idea of a personal creator creating a simulation universe is a conjecture which cannot be discounted, of course, but is it any more likely than the idea of a hugely advanced species as a whole creating such a universe? Or even that said universe was created as a by-product or accident of some magnificent experiment? I suggest that all such conjectures have equal merit.

And if we were to say that that the idea of a simulated universe is basically a theist idea, is it any the less likely that the creator(s) of such a universe were not 'supreme' being(s) at all (which is necessary for the theist idea), but that they too are a result of natural forces worked upon by similar evolutionary influences such as exist in the universe that they created? I would say that all such conjectures have equal provenance.

As far as I am concerned I see no reason to believe any of these conjectures, hence, as with more traditional ideas of theist or even deist gods, I remain an atheist.

I THINK WE NEED TO BEAR IN MIND that it is this universe they are talking about.
As I said the formulation is theistic.
Chalmers recognises that it is a version of the God hypothesis and Myers spots the link between the teleology of the argument and creationism.

For my part I would want to know the guarantees that this personal creator is not the one of say abrahamic theology and after all you've kind of endorsed theological formulations which conclude with personal creation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thank you, Vlad - got that, this is the link.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/#more-28024

Myers clearly thinks that Tyson had spouted off a shite argument, and looking at the content of the blog I can see why he thinks that. So, why bother citing Myers if all that does is show that what Tyson argued for was flawed?

Do you think its a shite argument for Myers reasons ie it is argument from design.
Do you agree with Chalmers that its a version of the God hypothesis and therefore shite or shite as a naturalistic argument.

I flagged it up because some find it a reasonable enough argument but are indenial of it being a version of the God hypothesis.

[Enki]

I THINK WE NEED TO BEAR IN MIND that it is this universe they are talking about.
As I said the formulation is theistic.
Chalmers recognises that it is a version of the God hypothesis and Myers spots the link between the teleology of the argument and creationism.

For my part I would want to know the guarantees that this personal creator is not the one of say abrahamic theology and after all you've kind of endorsed theological formulations which conclude with personal creation.

Firstly, I am 'bearing in mind' it is this universe they(and you, I take it) are talking about.  So?

Secondly, I haven't 'endorsed' anything, least of all the idea that 'personal creation' has any substance to it at all.

Thirdly, I have given suggestions that this 'personal' creator. might well be a)more than one b)not 'supreme' at all. What guarantees have you that this is any the less plausible than it being the god of abrahamic theology?

[Alan Burns]

The role of consciousness is utterly irrelevant to the logic ...

As you keep saying, but can you not see that whatever logic you put forward was conceived within your own conscious awareness?  So how can you claim the role of conscious awareness to be "utterly irrelevant"?

[Gordon]

Do you think its a shite argument for Myers reasons ie it is argument from design.
Do you agree with Chalmers that its a version of the God hypothesis and therefore shite or shite as a naturalistic argument.

I flagged it up because some find it a reasonable enough argument but are indenial of it being a version of the God hypothesis.

The teleological argument is a shite one anyway, but I think that you are particularly picking up of Myers criticism of Tyson, based on Tyson delivering an especially clunky version of what is already a shite argument.

Therefore, the whole Tyson issue is really a distraction: even if Tyson does think that simulated universe argument implies a God, and even if Myers points that out while also noting that Tyson is making a Horlicks of a case, so what? As Myers points out, Tyson is opining outwith his area of expertise.

Whether or not the 'simulated universe' argument implies a 'god', personal or otherwise, is an irrelevance if it is an argument built on teleological foundations.     

[Stranger]

As you keep saying, but can you not see that whatever logic you put forward was conceived within your own conscious awareness?  So how can you claim that the role of conscious awareness to be "utterly irrelevant"?

Why did you edit my quote in order to remove the whole point? Just so you could do another mindless repetition instead of actually engaging with what I said?

Here is what I said: The role of consciousness is utterly irrelevant to the logic of the fact that if you could have done differently, in exactly the same situation, then then can be no possible reason for said difference, so it can only be random.

What is it you're finding so difficult? Regardless of to what extent logic (or anything else) is "conceived within your own conscious awareness", the above logic applies to it.

Your insistence that everything comes from "conscious awareness" does nothing to address the basic contradiction of being able to have done differently without randomness.

It wouldn't make a jot of difference to the contradiction you face if everything really did happen entirely in our "conscious awareness".

Do you understand?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly, I am 'bearing in mind' it is this universe they(and you, I take it) are talking about.  So?

Secondly, I haven't 'endorsed' anything, least of all the idea that 'personal creation' has any substance to it at all.

Thirdly, I have given suggestions that this 'personal' creator. might well be a)more than one b)not 'supreme' at all. What guarantees have you that this is any the less plausible than it being the god of abrahamic theology?

To point one I accept that and apologise for making it seem otherwise.

Point two I was using the word you as one.....sorry about that.

Point three. I agree that is how the argument stands.
I accept I cannot guarantee the God of Abraham to come out of the argument but neither can I not guarantee it isn't.

I do agree with Chalmers though in that it is a version of God hypotheses.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The teleological argument is a shite one anyway, but I think that you are particularly picking up of Myers criticism of Tyson, based on Tyson delivering an especially clunky version of what is already a shite argument.

Therefore, the whole Tyson issue is really a distraction: even if Tyson does think that simulated universe argument implies a God, and even if Myers points that out while also noting that Tyson is making a Horlicks of a case, so what? As Myers points out, Tyson is opining outwith his area of expertise.

Whether or not the 'simulated universe' argument implies a 'god', personal or otherwise, is an irrelevance if it is an argument built on teleological foundations.     

We are agreed then that this is a clunky version of the teleoligal argument then.

[Stranger]

As I said the formulation is theistic.

You can say it as much as you like, it's still bollocks.

For my part I would want to know the guarantees that this personal creator is not the one of say abrahamic theology...

It's because it only shares one characteristic. It isn't actually anybody else's job to provide guarantees, it's your job to say why the simulated universe conjecture is sufficient for any sort of being that's remotely like the Abrahamic god.

[Gordon]

We are agreed then that this is a clunky version of the teleoligal argument then.

It is probably somewhere in that area, which isn't saying much, but that doesn't get you to a personal 'god', or indeed any 'god'.

Not worth bothering about, Vlad.

[SusanDoris]

I heard the words Corona virus and then 'new' so I clicked on it It then disappeared, and I then managed to realise that it was in the prayers or Faith Sharing area. I posted a response to AB'  from his topic on the unread posts list but it was obviously confusing to have an almost identical title there.
Apologies to mods, but not to AB I'm afraid.