Strutting one's funky Atheist stuff.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Stop digging will you! Why would you think that the universe we seem to inhabit at an experiential level but that's actually a facsimile of that universe must necessarily therefore have been created purposively?

Not sure what you are trying to convey in this car crash post.
Simulated universe theory envisages purposeful creation. Purposeless simulation is never envisaged and looks as if the very idea isn't sensible.

A simulated universe which just is naturally and arose without purpose peddled as somehow a superior idea against which proposing a purposeful simulation is highly questionable is mere mindgaming and gaslighting on your part.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not sure what you are trying to convey in this car crash post.

You really should look up “irony” one day. Really – you should.

Simulated universe theory envisages purposeful creation.

It’s not a theory, and the SU conjecture does not require a purposive simulator. It’d help if you either found a citation to the contrary or just stopped lying about that. Any chance of either?

Purposeless simulation is never envisaged and looks as if the very idea isn't sensible.

Purposive creation isn’t required, and you have all your work ahead of you to explain why you think it isn’t sensible. 

A simulated universe which just is naturally and arose without purpose peddled as somehow a superior idea against which proposing a purposeful simulation is highly questionable is mere mindgaming and gaslighting on your part.

Occam’s razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Try again, only perhaps attempt an argument next time. 

PS Here’s a nice example of emergence for you by the way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix66tQ93bdU

[Outrider]

This maker, yes... the 'ultimate' maker, the maker of (to quote) '... all things, seen and unseen...', not just this simulated universe.

a)This universe could be the only universe there is. There is no logic that limits the maker of this universe to er, this universe or indeed all universes.

No.  If you're looking at this universe as a simulation there has to be at least one other universe in which this simulation occurs, that's the foundation of the conceptualisation of a simulated universe.

That universe then is looking for an explanation of its own.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No.  If you're looking at this universe as a simulation there has to be at least one other universe in which this simulation occurs, that's the foundation of the conceptualisation of a simulated universe.

That universe then is looking for an explanation of its own.

O.

So what? As I have pointed out elsewhere we are always directed back to something on which everything is dependent. Whether it is Russell’s the universe brute fact or God.

[Outrider]

So what? As I have pointed out elsewhere we are always directed back to something on which everything is dependent. Whether it is Russell’s the universe brute fact or God.

Because ultimately, whether our reality is simulated or not, you either have to try to explain the underpinnings, or you have to avoid explaining by falling back on magic, gods or other woo.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because ultimately, whether our reality is simulated or not, you either have to try to explain the underpinnings, or you have to avoid explaining by falling back on magic, gods or other woo.

O.

And how does science describe the underpinnings? As I’ve said even you have been led back here to something on which all depends, namely the underpinnings as you call them.

[Outrider]

And how does science describe the underpinnings? As I’ve said even you have been led back here to something on which all depends, namely the underpinnings as you call them.

Science describes the underpinnings through various formulae that quantify the interactions of various forms of energy.  They also describe, with evidentiary support, how that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, simply converted form one form to another; which suggests that reality is eternal, and the energy has always been there in one form or another, and we're simply one configuration of it.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science describes the underpinnings through various formulae that quantify the interactions of various forms of energy.  They also describe, with evidentiary support, how that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, simply converted form one form to another; which suggests that reality is eternal, and the energy has always been there in one form or another, and we're simply one configuration of it.

O.

Sorry you keep linking science to describing reality and that is just philosophical materialism since it is
A leap of faith from methodological materialism to ‘describing reality’

[Roses]

Sorry you keep linking science to describing reality and that is just philosophical materialism since it is
A leap of faith from methodological materialism to ‘describing reality’

Science proves things to be factual or not after a lot of research. People of faith may believe god exists, but there has never been any been any actual evidence that justifies their belief.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science proves things to be factual or not after a lot of research. People of faith may believe god exists, but there has never been any been any actual evidence that justifies their belief.

Science is described as provisional. If by actual evidence you mean scientific evidence you merely make a circular argument since science doesn’t do God....or morality for that matter.

[Andy]

Science is described as provisional. If by actual evidence you mean scientific evidence you merely make a circular argument since science doesn’t do God....or morality for that matter.

Evidence doesn’t do God either.

[Outrider]

Sorry you keep linking science to describing reality and that is just philosophical materialism since it is A leap of faith from methodological materialism to ‘describing reality’

No, it's a conclusion from available evidence. It's provisional, yes, but it's still overwhelmingly our best explanation for what's going on.  That we can't philosophically demonstrate that it's an absolute truth in no way reduces it to the level of magic, religion and other woo.

I keep reverting to science because it has a proven track record.  You keep dismissing it because it doesn't fit your preconception.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Science proves things to be factual or not after a lot of research. People of faith may believe god exists, but there has never been any been any actual evidence that justifies their belief.

Science does not prove things

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it's a conclusion from available evidence. It's provisional, yes, but it's still overwhelmingly our best explanation for what's going on.  That we can't philosophically demonstrate that it's an absolute truth in no way reduces it to the level of magic, religion and other woo.

I keep reverting to science because it has a proven track record.  You keep dismissing it because it doesn't fit your preconception.

O.

Your preconception is that the concept of cause necessarily implies that it is an effect. That deeply ingrained notion of yours is a derivation from your beliefs. I am just going by the plain concept of the term cause.

[Outrider]

Your preconception is that the concept of cause necessarily implies that it is an effect.

It's not my notion, it's the widely understood notion of cause and effect.

That deeply ingrained notion of yours is a derivation from your beliefs.

It's more likely the other way round, having had the notion of cause and effect explained to me, then demonstrated in absolutely every moment of every day of my waking life, it's become a reasonable proposition on which to base my understanding.

I am just going by the plain concept of the term cause.

But pretending like you have a special understanding of 'effect' as it's used in this context.

O.
[/quote]

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

...science doesn’t do God....

And nor does anything else. That's your epic problem you always run way from though. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And nor does anything else. That's your epic problem you always run way from though.

science does not do morality either. Philosophy frequently does God so any epic problems are probably in your head. Your post is pure philosophical empiricism imho.

[Nearly Sane]

science does not do morality either. Philosophy frequently does God so any epic problems are probably in your head. Your post is pure philosophical empiricism imho.

The idea that philosophy 'does God' is begging the question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

science does not do morality either.

“Science” doesn’t claim to “do” morality. Reason though (of which science is just one manifestation) does inasmuch as anything does. If not for reason, what else would you suggest for the job?

Philosophy frequently does God…

Not really – there’s no philosophy that establishes solid ground for the claim “god”.

…so any epic problems are probably in your head.

No, the epic problem of having no means to investigate and verify your religious claims is still all yours. That’s why whenever I ask you for a means to do that you always change the subject or just run away.

Your post is pure philosophical empiricism imho.

But your opinion is wrong for reasons that have been explained to you countless times and you always ignore.

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

“Science” doesn’t claim to “do” morality. Reason though (of which science is just one manifestation) does inasmuch as anything does. If not for reason, what else would you suggest for the job?

Tarot - it does it inasmuch as anything does. Given the ought is gap, where does rationality do morality in any way other than being efficient about a non rational decision?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS

Tarot - it does it inasmuch as anything does. Given the ought is gap, where does rationality do morality in any way other than being efficient about a non rational decision?

Surely we’re not going to go around this again are we? Vlad has got it into his head that morality needs to be absolute and certain (and ideally written down in a book he considers “holy”) to be “real”. That’s clearly nonsense as morality (like aesthetics and language) need only be “real enough” to be functionally useful, which all we can expect of it. Yes of course morality quickly drills down to axiomatic principles (like wellbeing) that can be debated endlessly (ie the gap you refer to), but when there’s enough cohesion around once such then reason can be applied to the axiom for practical purposes. It’s the same with aesthetics: ultimately who can say what’s good art, and yet a painting can be said to be trite, derivative etc and therefore not good art.

It happens though that morality plays a key role in deciding how we should co-exist, and reason and argument have a critical role in that endeavour. It’s messy and it’s uncertain and you don’t have to dig very deep before your reach the reason-impermeable axiom layer for sure, but what else is there – competing religions that assert moral positions because in each case “that’s my faith”? 

In short, in practice all we have to take us along the road is reason, always in the knowledge that the road could collapse beneath us. Remove reason and there's nothing left to replace it – the roads go in all directions.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS

Surely we’re not going to go around this again are we? Vlad has got it into his head that morality needs to be absolute and certain (and ideally written down in a book he considers “holy”) to be “real”. That’s clearly nonsense as morality (like aesthetics and language) need only be “real enough” to be functionally useful, which all we can expect of it. Yes of course morality quickly drills down to axiomatic principles (like wellbeing) that can be debated endlessly (ie the gap you refer to), but when there’s enough cohesion around once such then reason can be applied to the axiom for practical purposes. It’s the same with aesthetics: ultimately who can say what’s good art, and yet a painting can be said to be trite, derivative etc and therefore not good art.

It happens though that morality plays a key role in deciding how we should co-exist, and reason and argument have a critical role in that endeavour. It’s messy and it’s uncertain and you don’t have to dig very deep before your reach the reason-impermeable axiom layer for sure, but what else is there – competing religions that assert moral positions because in each case “that’s my faith”? 

In short, in practice all we have to take us along the road is reason, always in the knowledge that the road could collapse beneath us. Remove reason and there's nothing left to replace it – the roads go in all directions.       

We keep going round this because you keep wanting to link it my comments to Vlad's arguments. I'm not making his argument so your discussion of his argument here is pointless.


As you cover morality is the same as aesthetics, so in determining good art is the same as good morality is the same as good hummus.

What is the difference between tarot and rationality in determining morality?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

We keep going round this because you keep wanting to link it my comments to Vlad's arguments. I'm not making his argument so your discussion of his argument here is pointless.

But you weighed in on an exchange I was having with him, which was the context of my reply (to him). 

As you cover morality is the same as aesthetics, so in determining good art is the same as good morality is the same as good hummus.

But nonetheless, we do make judgements about these matters – and in the case of morality we have to moreover if we’re to co-exist in any sort of organised and sustainable manner. 

What is the difference between tarot and rationality in determining morality?

It’s the same difference as between a jig-saw with no pieces and a jig-saw with a handful of them. With the latter we might think the picture is a daffodil but it’s really a fire engine, but with the former it could be anything at all. 

Take an example: say my neighbour buys a really nice car, and I need to decide whether or not it would be morally ok to murder him so as to steal it. If I apply reason to that situation I can arrive at a rationale that produces the answer “no” (his right not to be murdered, the potential effect on me if society thought murdering for cars was ok, that I might be caught and punished etc).

Now consider what would happen if I used the tarot instead – the answer would be determined by whatever card I happened to pick, and could well be the opposite answer if I tried it again. As a method it’s chaotic.

Does that mean that reason gives us morality on an objectively true basis? Of course not – for all I know there could be a better answer somewhere for why killing my neighbour for his car would be fine – but it does give us a functional, workable, good-enough steer on moral codes that we can apply in the real world. And that’s all I’m arguing.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But you weighed in on an exchange I was having with him, which was the context of my reply (to him). 

But nonetheless, we do make judgements about these matters – and in the case of morality we have to moreover if we’re to co-exist in any sort of organised and sustainable manner. 

It’s the same difference as between a jig-saw with no pieces and a jig-saw with a handful of them. With the latter we might think the picture is a daffodil but it’s really a fire engine, but with the former it could be anything at all. 

Take an example: say my neighbour buys a really nice car, and I need to decide whether or not it would be morally ok to murder him so as to steal it. If I apply reason to that situation I can arrive at a rationale that produces the answer “no” (his right not to be murdered, the potential effect on me if society thought murdering for cars was ok, that I might be caught and punished etc).

Now consider what would happen if I used the tarot instead – the answer would be determined by whatever card I happened to pick, and could well be the opposite answer if I tried it again. As a method it’s chaotic.

Does that mean that reason gives us morality on an objectively true basis? Of course not – for all I know there could be a better answer somewhere for why killing my neighbour for his car would be fine – but it does give us a functional, workable, good-enough steer on moral codes that we can apply in the real world. And that’s all I’m arguing.     

I replied to you about a specific point in a public forum . It is idiotic to then expect me to believe the same as the other person even if this was the first exchange we had.

And no, the jump from is to ought isn't a jigsaw where you have more pieces. It's an absolute gap even if you don't want to face uo to that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I replied to you about a specific point in a public forum . It is idiotic to then expect me to believe the same as the other person even if this was the first exchange we had.

I said no such thing. To the contrary, I said expressly “Vlad has got it into his head that…” etc (Reply 145). I have no idea therefore why you’re complaining that I tried to ascribe Vlad’s position to you – I didn’t. 

And no, the jump from is to ought isn't a jigsaw where you have more pieces. It's an absolute gap even if you don't want to face uo to that.

You’re still not getting it. It’s an absolute gap if you want to demonstrate absolute moral positions. Trying to bridge it is a fool’s errand – that’s why I said that even with some pieces of the jig-saw that suggest a daffodil, the picture could nonetheless be a fire engine. Having some of the jig-saw says nothing at all about bridging the gap, and it’d help the exchange if you’d stop straw manning me about that.

We do nonetheless need a workable morality if we’re to co-exist – if not by the application of reason to do that job, what would you propose instead?