Faith is natural

[SqueakyVoice]

Faith is natural

...so is superstition.

[ProfessorDavey]

Have you seen the thread on life being a simulation? You think the people who propose that idea are talking of supernatural beings?

Yes I have - and my reading of that videos is that it is discussion a philosophical possibility rather than anything which has real scientific validity.

But actually were the argument in that video to be the case it wouldn't lead to 'god' at all - because the argument is about the advance in human-driven technology which attains a level of complexity that it can generate simulated worlds which is completely convincing. There is no place for 'god' within this philosophical argument.

[Sriram]

If the idea of intelligent beings simulating our universe is convincing....why do you keep referring to supernatural beings?

[ProfessorDavey]

If the idea of intelligent beings simulating our universe is convincing....why do you keep referring to supernatural beings?

Who is this comment directed to Sriram.

No I don't find the idea of intelligent beings simulating our universe convincing. I accept that is might be a vaguely plausible possibility within a philosophical 'thought experiment' context, but I don't find it convincing at all.

[Sriram]

Who is this comment directed to Sriram.

No I don't find the idea of intelligent beings simulating our universe convincing. I accept that is might be a vaguely plausible possibility within a philosophical 'thought experiment' context, but I don't find it convincing at all.

"the argument is about the advance in human-driven technology which attains a level of complexity that it can generate simulated worlds which is completely convincing".

[ProfessorDavey]

"the argument is about the advance in human-driven technology which attains a level of complexity that it can generate simulated worlds which is completely convincing".

Yes - I know - I watched the video. The person promulgating this argument is a philosopher, not a scientist. It is a philosophical 'thought experiment' type argument, and similar to ones promulgated for years - e.g. how do you know that all other people aren't just creations of our imagination.

But the problem with these arguments is you have to address elements of fundamental physics - not least that much of what we observe in the universe physics tells us has happened billions of years ago. So either a simulation would have to have been running for that long, or it would have to fundamental alter basic physics principles.

So, no I'm not convinced one iota. I accept the possibility of this being the case, however the evidence doesn't not point to the notion that this is somehow likely whatsoever.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes - I know - I watched the video. The person promulgating this argument is a philosopher, not a scientist. It is a philosophical 'thought experiment' type argument, and similar to ones promulgated for years - e.g. how do you know that all other people aren't just creations of our imagination.

But the problem with these arguments is you have to  - not least that much of what we observe in the universe physics tells us has happened billions of years ago. So either a simulation would have to have been running for that long, or it would have to fundamental alter basic physics principles.

So, no I'm not convinced one iota. I accept the possibility of this being the case, however the evidence doesn't not point to the notion that this is somehow likely whatsoever.

In what way does hard solipsism have to 'address elements of fundamental physics'?

[ProfessorDavey]

In what way does hard solipsism have to 'address elements of fundamental physics'?

Because the argument in the video is based on the simulation being simply highly advanced technology created initially by humans or other such intelligence. Hence this isn't something 'outside' the laws of physics, but something bounded by them. It isn't an argument that the universe is created by our mind, but that our mind is presented with a simulation generated by sophisticated technology.

[Nearly Sane]

Because the argument in the video is based on the simulation being simply highly advanced technology created initially by humans or other such intelligence. Hence this isn't something 'outside' the laws of physics, but something bounded by them. It isn't an argument that the universe is created by our mind, but that our mind is presented with a simulation generated by sophisticated technology.

I didn't ask anything about the video. I asked 'In what way does hard solipsism have to 'address elements of fundamental physics'? - perhaps you could address what was asked?

[SqueakyVoice]

...so is superstition.

Turns out, that was Stevie Wonder.

[torridon]

If the idea of intelligent beings simulating our universe is convincing....why do you keep referring to supernatural beings?

Surely this way of thinking just runs into the same problems of infinite regress as 'Goddidit'.  If some beings in a higher plane instantiated the reality that we call home, then who instantiated the reality of the simulators ? Beings even more intelligent still ?  As an explanation for our world, it is headed in an unfruitful, wrong, direction.

[Sriram]

You keep bringing up the infinite regress issue as though scientists have a complete and comprehensive answer to the origin of the universe. Infinite regress is always an issue regardless of the theory.

With regard to other points.....if the idea of life being a simulation is acceptable even as a philosophical possibility...then intelligent intervention is automatically relevant in all aspects of life, The idea of a biblical God is not relevant.

Secondly...if life is like a video game, all the laws of physics are only a part of the game and the 'real' world outside the game might have laws entirely different from them and these laws could be beyond our comprehension.

What we regard as the time span of the universe would naturally be only within the game and not 'real' in an absolute sense.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't ask anything about the video.

Yet your response included my comment which literally started "Yes - I know - I watched the video." While there was a little sideline into other related issues my comment was primarily about the video as should have been obvious to you. So to ask about things not related to the video is a clear derail. But nonetheless I will humour you - please see my next comment.

[Nearly Sane]

Yet your response included my comment which literally started "Yes - I know - I watched the video." While there was a little sideline into other related issues my comment was primarily about the video as should have been obvious to you. So to ask about things not related to the video is a clear derail. But nonetheless I will humour you - please see my next comment.

Asking you about what you wrote is not a derail.

[ProfessorDavey]

I asked 'In what way does hard solipsism have to 'address elements of fundamental physics'? - perhaps you could address what was asked?

Which was a derail, but nonetheless here is my response.

As far as I am aware solipsism is the notion that we cannot be sure that anything exists except the mind (and presumably the brain, but that second point isn't really necessary).

So let's take as a starting point that the laws of physics as we understand them remain - then this argument needs to address them. Specifically if the mind exists, what sustains the mind. As this would be an energy-using process where does that energy come from. If the mind is the only thing that exists, it would itself need to be energetically self sustaining - an energetic closed system so to speak. But that makes no sense on the basis that if certain processes in that mind are 'energy consuming' then others must be energy generating at the same rate. Either those second set of processes are part of 'the mind' in which case we should know they exist (solipsism is about the mind and the mind alone existing), so what are they. If they are outside the mind then we have incontrovertible evidence of existence outside of the mind.

If we take it in a slightly softer manner - i.e. we accept the brain - then how is the brain sustained without some level of external input - oxygen, nutrients etc.

So solipsism needs to address these fundamental elements of physics.

Alternatively we could posit that in this alternative reality there are different laws of physics - but this simply begs the questions.

What are those laws of physics
Do we have any evidence to support their existence and critically
How do these laws of physics sustain the processes of the mind without there being anything outside of the mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Hi everyone,

Belief in a God is not entirely because of religions. Religions only create images, legends and stories of God and gods. They cannot instill real faith. In fact, real faith leads to religious beliefs and ideas.....which help in forming anthropomorphic deities and images.

What is “real” faith as opposed to any other kind?
 

Faith is something that arises due to ones direct experience and insight. One feels and realizes the hidden hand of a superior intelligence in ones life.

You may think that “Faith is something that arises due to ones direct experience and insight. One feels and realizes the hidden hand of a superior intelligence in ones life” but you’ve yet to provide even the slightest cogent reasoning to indicate that there is a “hand of hidden intelligence” rather than just some unqualified guesses about that.

Most humans seem to have a natural  inclination towards faith and a subtle understanding of hidden patterns and influences in our life.

No, “most humans” have a propensity for seeking patterns and explanations and will often accept answers for that purpose that are entirely false – that is, for some a conspiracy theory is better than no theory at all. 

I for example, have had it from childhood.  But for this natural inclination, we would stop believing in a God regardless of religious teachings.

So you claim. How would you satisfy yourself that you are in fact detecting a “hidden hand” etc at all though rather than just indulging in some wishful thinking? 

Just some thoughts.

But ill-considered ones – see above.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

What is “real” faith as opposed to any other kind?
 
You may think that “Faith is something that arises due to ones direct experience and insight. One feels and realizes the hidden hand of a superior intelligence in ones life” but you’ve yet to provide even the slightest cogent reasoning to indicate that there is a “hand of hidden intelligence” rather than just some unqualified guesses about that.

No, “most humans” have a propensity for seeking patterns and explanations and will often accept answers for that purpose that are entirely false – that is, for some a conspiracy theory is better than no theory at all. 

So you claim. How would you satisfy yourself that you are in fact detecting a “hidden hand” etc at all though rather than just indulging in some wishful thinking? 

But ill-considered ones – see above.

I think I have already discussed  these points earlier.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/faith/

You can keep dismissing other peoples experiences as imagination or wishful thinking or whatever....but that brings us back to the stubborn blind man's denial of light. So...let us leave it at that.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which was a derail, but nonetheless here is my response.

As far as I am aware solipsism is the notion that we cannot be sure that anything exists except the mind (and presumably the brain, but that second point isn't really necessary).

So let's take as a starting point that the laws of physics as we understand them remain - then this argument needs to address them. Specifically if the mind exists, what sustains the mind. As this would be an energy-using process where does that energy come from. If the mind is the only thing that exists, it would itself need to be energetically self sustaining - an energetic closed system so to speak. But that makes no sense on the basis that if certain processes in that mind are 'energy consuming' then others must be energy generating at the same rate. Either those second set of processes are part of 'the mind' in which case we should know they exist (solipsism is about the mind and the mind alone existing), so what are they. If they are outside the mind then we have incontrovertible evidence of existence outside of the mind.

If we take it in a slightly softer manner - i.e. we accept the brain - then how is the brain sustained without some level of external input - oxygen, nutrients etc.

So solipsism needs to address these fundamental elements of physics.

Alternatively we could posit that in this alternative reality there are different laws of physics - but this simply begs the questions.

What are those laws of physics
Do we have any evidence to support their existence and critically
How do these laws of physics sustain the processes of the mind without there being anything outside of the mind.

Interesting points, since we are not discussing God here nothing is at all compromised as it were by my being convinced by it and yet I'm not.
I think it might be that you assume the conclusion.

A mind dependent does not describe the solipsistic mind does it. It assumes the physical mind and explains the solipsistic mind away and so your argument IMHO tends to lose any force.

Of course the solopsistic mind can be seen as a necessary being, It exists, it overcomes true nothingness because of it's necessary existence and it doesn't need anything external to it.......and then you bring your physics in vis the perception of time and change for a succesful challenge to solipcism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I think I have already discussed  these points earlier.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/faith/

Which I quickly falsified as drivel, in response to which you just ran away.

You can keep dismissing other peoples experiences as imagination or wishful thinking or whatever....

That’s called a straw man (as you should know by now). I don’t dismiss anyone’s experiences at all – what I actually dismiss is the epistemolgical value of the explanatory narratives some people attach to them.

Try to remember this – it may help you avoid making the same mistake in future.

..but that brings us back to the stubborn blind man's denial of light. So...let us leave it at that.

The “stubborn blind man's denial of light” analogy has been falsified several times here (it's a category error), so I don’t know why you’ve just returned to the same mistake once more. Are you incapable of learning anything?

"A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property...[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake