It's all real

[Nearly Sane]

Ridiculously overblown headline but quite interesting stuff


http://www.newsweek.com/are-we-living-computer-simulation-scientists-prove-elon-musk-wrong-677251?amp=1

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Looks like curtains for NDG Tyson then and his atheist friendly brand of ID. Although since this universe would have to be simulated in another one has to wonder why the researchers are basing their objections on data about this universe.
It's almost like a figure in a Bosch painting saying we can't be a simulation because all the paint there's ever been is in this picture.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My sense though is that we will be denied any discussion on this since those who are sympathetic to the idea of simulated universe being valid as a hypothesis would face a grilling on why there opinions on ID have changed.

I also wonder how much enthusiasm there will now be in antitheist driven scientists for multiverse since it has opened the door to a version of ID.

[Sebastian Toe]

My sense though is that we will be denied any discussion on this since those who are sympathetic to the idea of simulated universe being valid as a hypothesis would face a grilling on why there opinions on ID have changed.

I also wonder how much enthusiasm there will now be in antitheist driven scientists for multiverse since it has opened the door to a version of ID.

What is your opinion on ID?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is your opinion on ID?

I didn't like it but simulated universe theory seems to have made it respectable.
What do you think of simulated universe theory and then can you tell me the difference?

[Outrider]

I didn't like it but simulated universe theory seems to have made it respectable.

I don't think they're the same things.

What do you think of simulated universe theory and then can you tell me the difference?

The simulated universe could a) have been programmed to be random, and see what emerges or b) could have been a modelled copy of an extant, naturally occurring, unguided universe.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

I didn't like it but simulated universe theory seems to have made it respectable.
What do you think of simulated universe theory and then can you tell me the difference?

I dont like it.
Nothing makes ID credible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think they're the same things.

The simulated universe could a) have been programmed to be random, and see what emerges or b) could have been a modelled copy of an extant, naturally occurring, unguided universe.

O.

If a simulated universe is a program then how are you basing your decisions as to what can be programmed. In other words why are you specially pleading only points a and points b?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I dont like it.
Nothing makes ID credible.

and therefore simulated universes are not credible?

[Outrider]

If a simulated universe is a program then how are you basing your decisions as to what can be programmed. In other words why are you specially pleading only points a and points b?

I'm not limiting what can be programmed, I'm pointing out that it specifically includes those two possibilities, no that it's limited to those. As it is, those are the possibilities that have actually been put forward by the proponents of the theory.

By contrast, Intelligent Design - as has been legally described as being religion by another name - by it's nature doesn't preclude these ideas, but goes beyond them in its usual formulation to claim that the 'real' universe is intelligently designed ex nihilo.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not limiting what can be programmed, I'm pointing out that it specifically includes those two possibilities, no that it's limited to those.

O.

PHEW.....then you have avoided the charge of Goddodging on that point.

However, that leaves you open to the possibility that the universe was intelligently designed. What then is your defence against lining up withthe IDers?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By contrast, Intelligent Design - as has been legally described as being religion by another name -

So it is the religious aspects you are specially pleading against.

[Outrider]

So it is the religious aspects you are specially pleading against.

I'm not specially pleading anything. The US Supreme Court (twice, I believe) has pointed out that this formulation of creationism is just religious pleading in a poor disguise. It makes claims that can't be supported by the arguments offered, I'm just refusing to accept it on that basis, I'm not pleading anything.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not specially pleading anything. The US Supreme Court (twice, I believe) has pointed out that this formulation of creationism is just religious pleading in a poor disguise. It makes claims that can't be supported by the arguments offered, I'm just refusing to accept it on that basis, I'm not pleading anything.

O.

Since the only difference between ID and simulated universe is 'religion' then the only thing being avoided is 'religion'. In other words you are dismissing ID on the grounds of religion...aside from your opening ID is not simulated universe.....apart from etc.

It is plain here that your qualms here are purely on religion.

Whether an IDer has to be a creation ex nihilo-ist is also I would move a contentious point.

The evidence here is that you are happy to admit to the possibility of something that is in all respects the same as ID apart from the 'religion'.

Since there is no scientific ground here for dismissing ID something else must be at play which manifests as avoidance of 'religious elements'.

[Outrider]

Since the only difference between ID and simulated universe is 'religion' then the only thing being avoided is 'religion'. In other words you are dismissing ID on the grounds of religion...aside from your opening ID is not simulated universe.....apart from etc.

And that's where your premise falls over - ID makes specific claims beyond those that are necessary for the simulated universe theory.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And that's where your premise falls over - ID makes specific claims beyond those that are necessary for the simulated universe theory.

Not what I heard. Apparently IDers argue there ideas only need an Intelligence....which is what simulated universe theory is.

Once you admit to an intelligent designer anywhere in the chain you cannot preclude intervention in the programme.

There is a case, a heavy case, to call simulated universe theory Scientific Theism.

Your Lord and Master PZ Myers recognised this when he criticised De Grasse Tyson over his simulated universe ideas.

[Outrider]

Not what I heard. Apparently IDers argue there ideas only need an Intelligence....which is what simulated universe theory is.

If that's where they stopped it'd be fine, but they go on to make claims about that Intelligence being uncaused, as I recall. To be fair, that's from the iteration that was prevalent around eight to ten year ago, there might be a more up-to-date version around now.

Once you admit to an intelligent designer anywhere in the chain you cannot preclude intervention in the programme.

No you can't, but you get into questions about the nature of the designer; that's, of course, accepting that the simulated universe hypothesis is just an hypothesis.

There is a case, a heavy case, to call simulated universe theory Scientific Theism.

No there isn't, there's no claim being made about the nature of the simulator or its potential maker.

Your Lord and Master PZ Myers recognised this when he criticised De Grasse Tyson over his simulated universe ideas.

You keep forgetting that atheism ('New' or otherwise) and science doesn't operate along the hierarchic structures of religious enterprises: no-one is infallible, we don't have 'lords and masters'...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If that's where they stopped it'd be fine, but they go on to make claims about that Intelligence being uncaused, as I recall. To be fair, that's from the iteration that was prevalent around eight to ten year ago, there might be a more up-to-date version around now.

No you can't, but you get into questions about the nature of the designer;

Congratulations......... you've just re invented theology.

[Outrider]

Congratulations......... you've just re invented theology.

Why shouldn't I get a go at it. Given that it's an entirely made up field from the start, I'm just as eminently qualified as anyone else.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why shouldn't I get a go at it.

That's my boy.

Given that it's an entirely made up field from the start, I'm just as eminently qualified as anyone else.

O.

Entirely made up? No. I'm sure there are lots of people who are doing it and have done it on the back of the mere question of ''Was this universe created by an intelligence'' or as I suppose we should call it today ''simulated universe'' theory.

[Outrider]

No. I'm sure there are lots of people who are doing it and have done it on the back of the mere question of ''Was this universe created by an intelligence'' or as I suppose we should call it today ''simulated universe'' theory.

Theology has already taken those questions for granted, and has moved on in the absence of any justification for those answers to presumptions about the nature of the thing they've not yet evidenced... Metaphysics is answering those questions, theology got bored and started a role-playing game at the back of the classroom.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

and therefore simulated universes are not credible?

Which ones?
However, firstly you will need to define;
Simulated
Universe
Credible

...before we start.

Careful now!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which ones?
However, firstly you will need to define;
Simulated
Universe
Credible

...before we start.

Careful now!

I'm sorry I'm not understanding your banter.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm sorry I'm not understanding your banter.

Could you define
Understand?
Banter?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Theology has already taken those questions for granted,

I THINK YOU ARE MISTAKING THEOLOGY FOR BIBLICAL STUDIES HERE.