It's all real

[Nearly Sane]

Mmm this thread has taken a wee daunner around. I don't understand the connection between ID and a simulation. ID is a specific position on evolution not whether we are living in a simulation. It was rejected because it's bad science as Keith Milller, who believes the universe is created, argued.

what seems much more significant to me is that the science here seems both correct in its process but wrong in its conclusion. It reads as if it correct that the idea of a simulation is based on an underestimation of the complexity (which is the opposite of ID arguments) but then it cannot be true because we cannot conceive of it. Both the idea of a simulation and its impossibility seem to be based on probability calculations which are based on too little info and selecting different variables

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Mmm this thread has taken a wee daunner around. I don't understand the connection between ID and a simulation.

Both propose an intelligent designer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Both the idea of a simulation and its impossibility seem to be based on probability calculations which are based on too little info and selecting different variables

I haven't come across anyone arguing it's impossibility and certainly we can only accept it as a hypothesis given the blessing from certain quarters of the scientific community and an argument could be had that simulated universe hypothesis is itself Bad science.

On the other hand figures and probability has been offered as far as I can understand.

Could I also, respectfully, suggest that your post is precisely what a dogmatic agnostic would say. That said.....You still da man.

[Sebastian Toe]

.... and certainly we can only accept it as a hypothesis ..

Are you sure that you don't mean "theory"?

[Nearly Sane]

I haven't come across anyone arguing it's impossibility and certainly we can only accept it as a hypothesis given the blessing from certain quarters of the scientific community and an argument could be had that simulated universe hypothesis is itself Bad science.

On the other hand figures and probability has been offered as far as I can understand.

Could I also, respectfully, suggest that your post is precisely what a dogmatic agnostic would say. That said.....You still da man.

The impossibility was about the presentation of the findings in the link in the OP.

I have no idea what you mean by 'dogmatic agnostic' nor how it relates to any of this thread.


BTW given the bit of the post you edited out was exactly about the difference between ID and a simulated universry, but you choose to avoid that, can we expect a name change?

[Sebastian Toe]

I THINK YOU ARE MISTAKING THEOLOGY FOR BIBLICAL STUDIES HERE.

I think that you have s bad case of Sassy-capslock!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The impossibility was about the presentation of the findings in the link in the OP.

I have no idea what you mean by 'dogmatic agnostic' nor how it relates to any of this thread.


BTW given the bit of the post you edited out was exactly about the difference between ID and a simulated universry, but you choose to avoid that, can we expect a name change?

There will be no name change for the moment.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The impossibility was about the presentation of the findings in the link in the OP.

I have no idea what you mean by 'dogmatic agnostic' nor how it relates to any of this thread.


BTW given the bit of the post you edited out was exactly about the difference between ID and a simulated universry, but you choose to avoid that, can we expect a name change?

what has simulated universe got to do with ID

This from Pharyngula

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

[Nearly Sane]

what has simulated universe got to do with ID

This from Pharyngula

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

Did you actually read that? Because it says that the only connection is people using the same bad argument for different things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you actually read that? Because it says that the only connection is people using the same bad argument for different things.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

  It says the connection between ID and Simulated Universe as argued by Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the same bad argument. If you want to use the blog as a link, it means you think that ID uses a bad argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  It says the connection between ID and Simulated Universe as argued by Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the same bad argument. If you want to use the blog as a link, it means you think that ID uses a bad argument.

I think I said I didn't like ID and said that simulated universe might be bad science. But my purpose was to demonstrate that to think that simulated universe was an OK/valid hypothesis and yet effectively just editing out the word God or declaring the ID hypothesis invalid in all respects because of the word God or the rumour of God was specially pleading or Goddodging.

ID must after all be a subset of simulation theory so any objection to ID from somebody proposing simulation theory must be doing so on the grounds of some religious prejudice I would have thought.

On one hand we have N de Grasse Tyson, a scientific proposing simulation theory as a valid hypothesis and on the other hand Pharyngula by PZ Myers saying it's not valid because it's ID and that's religious.

So far everybody seems to have been on the side of NDG Tyson.

[Nearly Sane]

ID is not a subset of a simulated universe. As already covered, it's specifically about evolution and has been debunked on those terms.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ID is not a subset of a simulated universe. As already covered, it's specifically about evolution and has been debunked on those terms.

ID can be as debunked as you like. What I want to know is why an interventionist agent proposed to be responsible is unacceptable in the case of ID but seemingly perfectly acceptable in simulated universe theory? As far as I see it, it is phobia over one word........................
God.

When proposed by NDG TYSON. Pharyngula responded that that proposal WAS ID.
But that for me is secondary to people demonstrating phobia over the word God.

[Nearly Sane]

ID can be as debunked as you like. What I want to know is why an interventionist agent proposed to be responsible is unacceptable in the case of ID but seemingly perfectly acceptable in simulated universe theory? As far as I see it, it is phobia over one word........................
God.

When proposed by NDG TYSON. Pharyngula responded that that proposal WAS ID.
But that for me is secondary to people demonstrating phobia over the word God.

ID isn't unacceptable or wring because it proposes a designer but because it is bad science. As already covered Keith Miller believes in a created universe but thinks ID is drivel.

If you think that people are treating simulated universe differently then you ate arguing against your idea that the idea of a designer is anathema to those people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ID isn't unacceptable or wring because it proposes a designer but because it is bad science. As already covered Keith Miller believes in a created universe but thinks ID is drivel.

If you think that people are treating simulated universe differently then you ate arguing against your idea that the idea of a designer is anathema to those people.

I don't follow.
I think you should reread the exchange between myself and Outrider who IMHO represents somebody who finds the idea of an intelligent designer an acceptable hypothesis but cannot accept it being God even after you point out that God has the same abilities.

So simulated universe has an intelligent designer separate from its creation but responsible for it's maintenance, which can intervene and suspend the laws of the universe and that is an acceptable hypothesis.

God is proposed as an intelligent designer separate from its creation but responsible for it's maintenance, which can intervene and suspend the laws of the universe and that is an unacceptable hypothesis.

Also I think you'll agree both designers or should we say the designer because they are the same thing would be quite capable of ID.

The main point about ID is after all Intelligent design which is proposed by both ID and Simulated universe.

Why ID was discarded was on the lack of evidence and over a questionable claim of irreducible complexity and the court found it was more appropriately placed as religion. The case seemingly as you say had nothing to say about intelligent designers which must remain the main thrust of ID.

Simulated universe cannot avoid proposing an intelligent designer. It looks like it will take time for it to sink in that that opens the door to irreducible complexity and you can bet your bottom the IDers will be back in court.

To me though the real conflict is merely over the thought of God hence the mental contortion of Simulator of universes-acceptable hypothesis. God-unacceptable hypothesis.

Where PZ Myers and I agree is that NG Tyson has reintroduced God into the mix.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't follow.
I think you should reread the exchange between myself and Outrider who IMHO represents somebody who finds the idea of an intelligent designer an acceptable hypothesis but cannot accept it being God even after you point out that God has the same abilities.

So simulated universe has an intelligent designer separate from its creation but responsible for it's maintenance, which can intervene and suspend the laws of the universe and that is an acceptable hypothesis.

God is proposed as an intelligent designer separate from its creation but responsible for it's maintenance, which can intervene and suspend the laws of the universe and that is an unacceptable hypothesis.

Also I think you'll agree both designers or should we say the designer because they are the same thing would be quite capable of ID.

The main point about ID is after all Intelligent design which is proposed by both ID and Simulated universe.

Why ID was discarded was on the lack of evidence and over a questionable claim of irreducible complexity and the court found it was more appropriately placed as religion. The case seemingly as you say had nothing to say about intelligent designers which must remain the main thrust of ID.

Simulated universe cannot avoid proposing an intelligent designer. It looks like it will take time for it to sink in that that opens the door to irreducible complexity and you can bet your bottom the IDers will be back in court.

To me though the real conflict is merely over the thought of God hence the mental contortion of Simulator of universes-acceptable hypothesis. God-unacceptable hypothesis.

Where PZ Myers and I agree is that NG Tyson has reintroduced God into the mix.

Thanks for this post - it's very interesting.

I thin you are right that if you regard those proposing ID as not doing science but trying to distort it then they will seize on the idea of a simulated universe as useful.  However, ID is specifically talked of in relation to the hypothesis in relation to evolution and irreducible complexity, and I think both yourself and PZ Myers are making a mistake to remove that context. I think it blurs the discussion to talk about hypotheses purely on the basis of the perceived motivation of those putting them forward. To illustrate, is Myers saying that Keith Miller while saying ID is drivel, is actually an IDer himself because he believes in a God? It just seems messy to me. I think though that Myers is right that some of DGT's arguments seem to be driven by a need to believe rather than any clear point


As to the idea of the possibility of a god being behind a simulated universe - I think the problem is what is a god? Since I haven't seen a logically consistent meaningful definition of a god, you may as well say perhaps it was a pojitu doing the simulation.

I'm not sure if a simulated universe cannot avoid proposing an intelligent designer - I think it heavily implies it but I've seen some discussion of the simulation being 'accidental' in terms of quantum effects - note I haven't looked into it as if it's correct I probably wouldn't understand why, and I'm not that interested in the idea to put in that amount of effort into it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks for this post - it's very interesting.

I thin you are right that if you regard those proposing ID as not doing science but trying to distort it then they will seize on the idea of a simulated universe as useful.  However, ID is specifically talked of in relation to the hypothesis in relation to evolution and irreducible complexity, and I think both yourself and PZ Myers are making a mistake to remove that context. I think it blurs the discussion to talk about hypotheses purely on the basis of the perceived motivation of those putting them forward. To illustrate, is Myers saying that Keith Miller while saying ID is drivel, is actually an IDer himself because he believes in a God? It just seems messy to me. I think though that Myers is right that some of DGT's arguments seem to be driven by a need to believe rather than any clear point


As to the idea of the possibility of a god being behind a simulated universe - I think the problem is what is a god? Since I haven't seen a logically consistent meaningful definition of a god, you may as well say perhaps it was a pojitu doing the simulation.

I'm not sure if a simulated universe cannot avoid proposing an intelligent designer - I think it heavily implies it but I've seen some discussion of the simulation being 'accidental' in terms of quantum effects - note I haven't looked into it as if it's correct I probably wouldn't understand why, and I'm not that interested in the idea to put in that amount of effort into it.

Yes my position and it seems PZ Myers position is that ''the simulator'' as described by me is indistinguishable from God. You seem to be questioning that judgment. My response would then be to question your motivation to doubt given the characteristics are identical and classify it as a form of special pleading....No offence. There is a debate to be had as to whether simulated universe is religion or science or that holy grail of being both.

Where I have deeper concerns over your idea that simulation could be an accidental thing without any intelligent involvement and fail to see how a universe arising in  the way you describe could be described as simulated

[Outrider]

I think you should reread the exchange between myself and Outrider who IMHO represents somebody who finds the idea of an intelligent designer an acceptable hypothesis but cannot accept it being God even after you point out that God has the same abilities.

God is not depicted as just a universe-engineer.

So simulated universe has an intelligent designer separate from its creation but responsible for it's maintenance, which can intervene and suspend the laws of the universe and that is an acceptable hypothesis.

Yes.

God is proposed as an intelligent designer separate from its creation but responsible for it's maintenance, which can intervene and suspend the laws of the universe and that is an unacceptable hypothesis.

Partially. God is not merely depicted as a creator, but as something self-creating, the source not just of us but of all, and with an inherent moral 'integrity' (for want of a better description) by its nature. This is a significantly more encompassing description than 'just' a creator of us.

The main point about ID is after all Intelligent design which is proposed by both ID and Simulated universe.

Except that it wasn't, the main point about ID was that it was an attempt to squeeze religious ideas into school science lessons.

Why ID was discarded was on the lack of evidence and over a questionable claim of irreducible complexity and the court found it was more appropriately placed as religion. The case seemingly as you say had nothing to say about intelligent designers which must remain the main thrust of ID.

It was discarded because they overstepped what a scientific hypothesis could carry - a higher-level computer engineer concept is valid (although perhaps unfalsifiable) but it doesn't give the option of introducing prayer or worship or moral lessons, which ultimately was the point of the ID movement.

Simulated universe cannot avoid proposing an intelligent designer. It looks like it will take time for it to sink in that that opens the door to irreducible complexity and you can bet your bottom the IDers will be back in court.

No, irreducible complexity is a nonsense argument attempted in support of the theory, but it's independent and demonstrably false.

O.

[Rhiannon]

I THINK YOU ARE MISTAKING THEOLOGY FOR BIBLICAL STUDIES HERE.

You know that isn't true.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes my position and it seems PZ Myers position is that ''the simulator'' as described by me is indistinguishable from God. You seem to be questioning that judgment. My response would then be to question your motivation to doubt given the characteristics are identical and classify it as a form of special pleading....No offence. There is a debate to be had as to whether simulated universe is religion or science or that holy grail of being both.

Where I have deeper concerns over your idea that simulation could be an accidental thing without any intelligent involvement and fail to see how a universe arising in  the way you describe could be described as simulated

No I'm not questioning your judgement. I'm questioning what the definition of a god is since as stated I haven't see a logically coherent meaningful definition. If you and or Myers said it was indistinguishable from pojitu, it would make exactly as much sense to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I'm not questioning your judgement. I'm questioning what the definition of a god is since as stated I haven't see a logically coherent meaningful definition. If you and or Myers said it was indistinguishable from pojitu, it would make exactly as much sense to me.

Creator, maintainer, saviour/reprogrammer.

[Nearly Sane]

Creator, maintainer, saviour/reprogrammer.

This is an appeal to the Religion and Ethics community, after many years of faithful but erratic service, the Vladbot, our own cross between R2-D2 and Stanley Unwin has finally broken down completely and is now just putting posts up with random words. Are there any of you that can offer a home, maybe a garage, even a shed, oh ok then a hutch will do, to allow the Vladbot to see out its last days while shouting out random words?

He was among the very .... postiest of us..

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is an appeal to the Religion and Ethics community, after many years of faithful but erratic service, the Vladbot, our own cross between R2-D2 and Stanley Unwin has finally broken down completely and is now just putting posts up with random words. Are there any of you that can offer a home, maybe a garage, even a shed, oh ok then a hutch will do,

What? After all the service and effort I've put in, you owe me at least a, er, simulated universe.

[Nearly Sane]

What? After all the service and effort I've put in, you owe me at least a, er, simulated universe.

Or even a little hutch can be made an everywhere?


Do you have a definition of a god or is the random word generator what we get?