Strutting one's funky Atheist stuff.

[Roses]

Does this pity and kindness manifest itself in almsgiving and financial donation?

We donate to charities, of which we approve, on a regular basis.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I am getting concerned with the progressive weakness of your arguments.

No you’re not, because there is no progressive weakness.

Of course Bostrom proposes a creator with a purpose. In Bostrom's case, An ancestor simulation. That is a purpose.

No it isn’t. Yes, a “simulator” (or simulators) may have decided to run simulations of its/their ancestors, but equally who’s to say that there might not be software of such huge complexity that it raids the historic records unbidden and creates simulations from them? For that matter, who’s to say that the simulator(s) aren’t long dead, but the algorithms they created are busy whirring away in all sorts of unplanned ways?

The point here is that at these extremes of speculation pretty much all possibilities are on the table. What you’re doing is selecting the one that suits you (purpose) and wrongly claiming it to be necessary. You’re also by the way ignoring the ones that don’t suit you (eg ancestry) so as to preserve your equally unnecessary notion of causelessness.         

Your second weakness is,…

You haven’t found a first one yet, but ok…

…for some reason majoring on the ancestor simulation part rather than the feat of creating a universe for any purpose. IMHO that is creator avoidance.

I’m not majoring on it – I’m just explaining to you that you cannot assert causelessness as “an element”, as a “logical consequence” etc of Bostrom when it’s no such thing. It’s quite possible to subscribe to Bostrom's SU conjecture with almost none of the components you think to be necessary for “god”.

Thus there’s no “creator avoidance” at all – rather there’s only “what Vlad thinks a god must be” avoidance because there’s no good reason to think that such a god exists – the SU conjecture notwithstanding.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No you’re not, because there is no progressive weakness.

No it isn’t. Yes, a “simulator” (or simulators) may have decided to run simulations of its/their ancestors, but equally who’s to say that there might not be software of such huge complexity that it raids the historic records unbidden and creates simulations from them? For that matter, who’s to say that the simulator(s) aren’t long dead, but the algorithms they created are busy whirring away in all sorts of unplanned ways?

This reads as if you are so wedded to the idea of a purposeless universe, you are prepared to kill off the creator and have a universe just running purposelessly. None of that however can detract from the purposeful creator and once you have proposed that you've opened a Pandora's box of possibilities of which the Christian God is just one, although a case could I suppose be made that the creator might be like the Christian God in all respects, save that of being the necessary being for all, yet still be the God of this universe. But then again God could be ''Base reality'', a term often used in connection with SU theory. Sorry if that extra component of SU theory i.e. The consideration of base reality from which all other realities spring from, disturbs your equilibrium.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This reads as if you are so wedded to the idea of a purposeless universe, you are prepared to kill off the creator and have a universe just running purposelessly.

Ah, your old burden of proof problem re-emerges I see. Try finally to understand your mistake here: I’m not “killing off” anything – far from it in fact. What I’m explaining to you though is that you cannot just assume that a conjecture implies a characteristic (purpose) when all it actually is is not incompatible with that characteristic. The SU conjecture works equally with or without a purposive simulator (or simulators). And that’s all you can say about SU and purpose.

Now write that down 100 times until it finally sinks in.

Actually, you’d better make that 1,000 times….   

None of that however can detract from the purposeful creator…

No-one says it “detracts” from the idea of purposive creator. What is being said though is that the SU conjecture does not imply a purposive creator – it functions equally either way.

Could you at least try to catch up with this – repeatedly explaining it to you only for you to ignore the explanation is becoming wearisome.     

…and once you have proposed that you've opened a Pandora's box of possibilities of which the Christian God is just one, although a case could I suppose be made that the creator might be like the Christian God in all respects, save that of being the necessary being for all, yet still be the God of this universe.

The Pandora’s box isn’t closed. Anything is possible. Your mistake though is to think that the SU conjecture takes you even one step closer to justifying the claim “god”.

But then again God could be ''Base reality'', a term often used in connection with SU theory.

Leaving aside for now your basic and continuing definitional problem with the term “God”, anything could be a “base reality” (assuming there even is such a thing). So what though?

Sorry if that extra component of SU theory…

It’s not an “extra component of SU theory” at all – it’s just separate speculation you’ve decided to attach to the SU conjecture, even though it doesn’t require it. You may as well have said, “sorry if my belief in unicorns is an extra component in biology”. Biology functions perfectly well without unicorns; SU functions perfectly well without “god”.   

…i.e. The consideration of base reality from which all other realities spring from, disturbs your equilibrium.

If you want to disturb my equilibrium a good place to start would be (finally) to show that you have some understanding at least of the arguments that undo you.

Good luck with that. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Working on the principle that SU is analogous/homologous to theistic creation. The dead simulator idea is SU's version of deism.

To say that simulation theory works as well without a simulator is just taking the mickey. A handwave which conflates suggestion of a purposeless naturalistic answer to the existence of the universe with the idea of a simulator.

We are as near to legitimately suggesting God as we are suggesting SU since in essentials they are the same.

Those who embrace SU or it's possibility are saddled with working through the consequences of the line of argument they have chosen, I'm afraid an SU proponent would be unable to suggest anything that could not apply to gods nor are their suggestions immune from comparisons with theism. 

[jeremyp]

Working on the principle that SU is analogous/homologous to theistic creation. The dead simulator idea is SU's version of deism.

To say that simulation theory works as well without a simulator is just taking the mickey. A handwave which conflates suggestion of a purposeless naturalistic answer to the existence of the universe with the idea of a simulator.

We are as near to legitimately suggesting God as we are suggesting SU since in essentials they are the same.

Those who embrace SU or it's possibility are saddled with working through the consequences of the line of argument they have chosen, I'm afraid an SU proponent would be unable to suggest anything that could not apply to gods nor are their suggestions immune from comparisons with theism.

I accept that, if we are in a simulation, the entity that created the simulation is God from our perspective.

Where does that actually get you? Nowhere. Why? Because there's no evidence that we are living in a simulation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I accept that, if we are in a simulation, the entity that created the simulation is God from our perspective.

Where does that actually get you? Nowhere. Why? Because there's no evidence that we are living in a simulation.

I don't think i've suggested that there is.
All I am saying is that those sympathetic to SU theorists whether they want to or not , find themselves, were they to develop philosophy around the premise, in the same landscape more or less of theologians of old.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Working on the principle that SU is analogous/homologous to theistic creation. The dead simulator idea is SU's version of deism.

The SU conjecture and many religious beliefs are analogous, but only in one limited respect. Both suggest an act of creation/simulation by an agency (or agencies) that did it. That’s it though. None of the other components necessary for theism (causelessness, purpose, intervention in human affairs etc) are required for the SU conjecture.

I know you struggle with analogies conceptually, but try this: “Finding a good husband is like finding a needle in a haystack”. That’s an analogy – two entirely different objects (husband/needle) have the common characteristic of being hard to find, but that’s all they have in common. None of the other characteristics necessary for “husband” are present in “needle”, and vice versa.

And that’s what we have here – the creation/simulation part could relate to simulator(s)/god(s), but that’s all.           

To say that simulation theory works as well without a simulator is just taking the mickey. A handwave which conflates suggestion of a purposeless naturalistic answer to the existence of the universe with the idea of a simulator.

It might be if anyone had actually said, “simulation theory works as well without a simulator”. No-one has said that though. What I actually said was that simulation theory works as well without a purposive simulator, which is simply true.

We are as near to legitimately suggesting God as we are suggesting SU since in essentials they are the same.

Only if you think suggesting “needle” thereby legitimately suggests “good husband”.

Can you see where you’ve gone wrong now?

Those who embrace SU or it's possibility are saddled with working through the consequences of the line of argument they have chosen,…

Perhaps, but you now know that “the consequences” are not what you thought they are so you’ll have to look elsewhere for support for your notion “god”.

I'm afraid an SU proponent would be unable to suggest anything that could not apply to gods…

An SU proponent could suggest anything he liked, but if he wanted to confine himself to statements that would be necessary for the conjecture to be coherent then aside from an act of creation/simulation none of the characteristics you think to be necessary for “god” would be present. I could be a “needles in haystacks are hard to find” proponent, but that would tell nothing at all about good husbands other that is than that they’re hard to find too.     

…nor are their suggestions immune from comparisons with theism.

One very narrow part of theism, but none of the other components that theism requires.

Same with needles and husbands.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The SU conjecture and many religious beliefs are analogous, but only in one limited respect. Both suggest an act of creation/simulation by an agency (or agencies) that did it. That’s it though. None of the other components necessary for theism (causelessness, purpose, intervention in human affairs etc) are required for the SU conjecture.

I know you struggle with analogies conceptually, but try this: “Finding a good husband is like finding a needle in a haystack”. That’s an analogy – two entirely different objects (husband/needle) have the common characteristic of being hard to find, but that’s all they have in common. None of the other characteristics necessary for “husband” are present in “needle”, and vice versa.

And that’s what we have here – the creation/simulation part could relate to simulator(s)/god(s), but that’s all.           

It might be if anyone had actually said, “simulation theory works as well without a simulator”. No-one has said that though. What I actually said was that simulation theory works as well without a purposive simulator, which is simply true.

Only if you think suggesting “needle” thereby legitimately suggests “good husband”.

Can you see where you’ve gone wrong now?

Perhaps, but you now know that “the consequences” are not what you thought they are so you’ll have to look elsewhere for support for your notion “god”.

An SU proponent could suggest anything he liked, but if he wanted to confine himself to statements that would be necessary for the conjecture to be coherent then aside from an act of creation/simulation none of the characteristics you think to be necessary for “god” would be present. I could be a “needles in haystacks are hard to find” proponent, but that would tell nothing at all about good husbands other that is than that they’re hard to find too.     

One very narrow part of theism, but none of the other components that theism requires.

Same with needles and husbands.

Obviously SU proponents are going to include sappy enthusiasts who think they are entering a brave new world of thinking. As I said they just have the prospect that whereever they go with this in terms of the philosophy they will find that a theologian will have probably been there before.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Obviously SU proponents are going to include sappy enthusiasts who think they are entering a brave new world of thinking. As I said they just have the prospect that whereever they go with this in terms of the philosophy they will find that a theologian will have probably been there before.

So I took the time to correct you point-by-point, and you just ignored all that in favour of irrelevant gibberish. An SU proponent might want to go to where theologians have gone before (or for that matter where leprechaunists have gone before). He’d have no need to do either though to make a coherent SU argument nonetheless.

That’s the point.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So I took the time to correct you point-by-point, and you just ignored all that in favour of irrelevant gibberish. An SU proponent might want to go to where theologians have gone before (or for that matter where leprechaunists have gone before). He’d have no need to do either though to make a coherent SU argument nonetheless.

That’s the point.

You THOUGHT you were correcting me, but then you are the guy who, as far as I could tell suggested that simulation theory does not actually need a simulator. Amerite?

The SU conjecture works equally with or without a purposive simulator (or simulators).

[Gordon]

You THOUGHT you were correcting me, but then you are the guy who, as far as I could tell suggested that simulation theory does not actually need a simulator. Amerite?

You're wrong (again), Vlad: try reading again what BHS actually wrote since you missed an important word (clue: it begins with 'p').

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're wrong (again), Vlad: try reading again what BHS actually wrote since you missed an important word (clue: it begins with 'p').

Simulation IS the purpose. Although Bostrom states the creator could be naturalistic(i.e. the product of evolution) Simulation is still the purpose. As many an atheist commenting on the purpose of life has said ''We make our own purposes''. Simulation is a purpose.

 

[jeremyp]

All I am saying is that those sympathetic to SU theorists whether they want to or not , find themselves, were they to develop philosophy around the premise, in the same landscape more or less of theologians of old.

You mean unable to satisfactorily explain where the simulation creator came from? Maybe it's simulations all the way down.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean unable to satisfactorily explain where the simulation creator came from? Maybe it's simulations all the way down.

I think the notion of ''Base reality'' in SU is familiar to both you and I, Jeremy, God is mine and this universe is yours if I understand your suggestion that we should accept that the universe just is.

I think in a recent Sabine Hossenfelder has done a youtube video on infinities outside mathematics and has I believe given them the thumbs down.

But then it may be....and then we can ask the question ''why an infinity of whatevers  rather than nothing?''

[Gordon]

Simulation IS the purpose. Although Bostrom states the creator could be naturalistic(i.e. the product of evolution) Simulation is still the purpose. As many an atheist commenting on the purpose of life has said ''We make our own purposes''. Simulation is a purpose.

So, if you have a 'simulator' that, having done a bit of simulating, then fucks off permanently, how is that analogous to the Christian idea of a 'God' that remains actively involved with what it created?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, if you have a 'simulator' that, having done a bit of simulating, then fucks off permanently, how is that analogous to the Christian idea of a 'God' that remains actively involved with what it created?

I haven't claimed that. I said that a simulator who as you say ''fucks off permanently'' is analogous to a deistic God. Now such a God or simulator might appeal to the atheist or Asimulist, but it is only one possibility and I would imagine many deists have to have their fingers crossed that such a God doesn't show up again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You THOUGHT you were correcting me,…

No, I corrected you. As you’ve shown no sign of engaging with the corrections, they stand.

…but then you are the guy who, as far as I could tell suggested that simulation theory does not actually need a simulator. Amerite?

No. The first time you claimed falsely that I’d said that it was a mistake. As I corrected you and you just repeated the false claim, now you’re lying.

The SU conjecture works equally with or without a purposive simulator (or simulators).

Exactly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Simulation IS the purpose. Although Bostrom states the creator could be naturalistic(i.e. the product of evolution) Simulation is still the purpose. As many an atheist commenting on the purpose of life has said ''We make our own purposes''. Simulation is a purpose.

Wrong again. An observed simulation would be just an outcome. Purpose requires intentionality, and observing an outcome would tell you noting about whether it's also intentional.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I haven't claimed that. I said that a simulator who as you say ''fucks off permanently'' is analogous to a deistic God.

No it isn’t. Bostrom’s simulator has ancestors – deities (or so the story goes) don’t.

Now such a God or simulator might appeal to the atheist or Asimulist, but it is only one possibility and I would imagine many deists have to have their fingers crossed that such a God doesn't show up again.

No-one says that Bostrom’s simulator of its own ancestors is the only possibility. You can tack on as many other types as you like, just as I can tack unicorns onto biology. SU though no more requires gods for its model than biology requires unicorns for its model.

How can I put this any more plainly for you?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Simulation IS the purpose…

Just to put the final nail in that coffin of non-thinking, let’s try an example: until recently various Pacific atolls were considered too dangerous for commercial shipping to navigate so they were avoided. With the advent of GPS though ships could pass close to these islands safely, but when they did they also emptied their ballast tanks and so introduced non-native species which then caused significant environmental degradation.

Now let’s say you were a local biologist who observed the change, and let’s say too that you knew the role GPS had played in causing it.

Would you then say that the purpose of the GPS inventors was to damage the flora and fauna of Polynesian atolls? 

OK, now do you understand that observing a phenomenon and knowing its cause does not thereby tell you something about purpose?   

QED

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just to put the final nail in that coffin of non-thinking, let’s try an example: until recently various Pacific atolls were considered too dangerous for commercial shipping to navigate so they were avoided. With the advent of GPS though ships could pass close to these islands safely, but when they did they also emptied their ballast tanks and so introduced non-native species which then caused significant environmental degradation.

Now let’s say you were a local biologist who observed the change, and let’s say too that you knew the role GPS had played in causing it.

Would you then say that the purpose of the GPS inventors was to damage the flora and fauna of Polynesian atolls? 

OK, now do you understand that observing a phenomenon and knowing its cause does not thereby tell you something about purpose?   

QED

Anyone?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Anyone?

You cannot just assume that phenomena are purposive.

I really don’t know how to make this any simpler for you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You cannot just assume that phenomena are purposive.

I really don’t know how to make this any simpler for you.

I think you are coming at this the wrong way. We all know Simulation theory is just one proposal (see Greenes's classification of multiverses) It just happens to be the one we are discussing at the moment.

Your point however does have a purposeless phenomenon ( something we should also perhaps not assume ) but an obvious purposeful creator of that phenomena.

All in all you shouldn't have bothered to counter what everybody understands as SU with the suggestion that the universe is an accident perpetrated by an intelligence. That situation is in no ways a simulation and thus your contribution is Non SECKWITTER.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you are coming at this the wrong way. We all know Simulation theory is just one proposal (see Greenes's classification of multiverses) It just happens to be the one we are discussing at the moment.

So? You’re the one who introduced SU, and who mistakenly asserted it to support your assertion “god”. If you think there are other conjectures that can do that though, by all means jump ship and make your case.   

Your point however does have a purposeless phenomenon ( something we should also perhaps not assume ) but an obvious purposeful creator of that phenomena.

Incoherent. What are you trying to say here?

All in all you shouldn't have bothered to counter what everybody understands as SU with the suggestion that the universe is an accident perpetrated by an intelligence.

As ever, you have the burden of proof backwards. You’re the one who asserts that an SU would have occurred purposively. All I need to show is that it need not be so – a purposive SU would be possible, but a non-purposive SU would also be possible (and is all Bostrom's conjecture requires) – so it’s your job to explain why it’s the former but not the latter.

Good luck with that.     

That situation is in no ways a simulation and thus your contribution is Non SECKWITTER.

Said the puddle:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70827-this-is-rather-as-if-you-imagine-a-puddle-waking