Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[Bomb#20]

As I say I’ll have to reread it, but the Level IV mathematical multiverse really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. It says, as I recall, that every mathematical structure instantiates a real world. Why should we think that?

I saw an article somewhere arguing for this that I'll try to outline; with luck I won't mangle it up too badly. It was called something like "It doesn't matter whether you run the simulation". The general idea was:

1. If you run a computer simulation of a human brain in exact detail down to the level of basic physics, it will be conscious -- it will experience the exact same sensations and think the exact same thoughts the actual brain experiences and thinks.

2. The execution of a computer program is a consistent collection of simultaneous mathematical equations saying stuff like X = Y + Z. Even the apparently inconsistent equations like "X = X + 1;" that we use to indicate explicit state transitions are just shorthand for "X1 = X0 + 1; ... X77 = X76 + 1 ... ". Everything you can do with a sequence of conventional Fortran/C/Java von Neumann architecture instructions, you can equivalently do in a functional language like Prolog/pure Lisp/lambda calculus. They're all equivalent to Turing Machines.

3. Executing X = Y + Z does not cause X to equal Y + Z. In the system of simultaneous equations, X has always been equal to Y + Z. We don't execute a program to cause Y + Z to take on its value; we execute it so we can find out what Y + Z is. Execution of a program is fundamentally an output operation. It matters to those outside the program but can have no possible effect on those inside.

4. The mind modeled in the physics-level simulation of the human brain is therefore conscious whether you run the simulation or not.

5. It's straightforward to write a universal Turing Machine that implements a timesharing operating system and that systematically generates every possible Turing Machine and runs them all as coroutines, periodically context-switching from one to the next. Since it doesn't matter whether you run the simulation, all the inhabitants of all the consciousness-supporting systems of equations must exist and perceive their own universes as real, even if nobody actually builds and runs the universal Turing Machine.

As far as I can tell, it would mean, for example, that Potelemy’s geocentric system really does exist in some Platonist realm of a mathematical multiverse. Of course, that would also be consistent with Lewis’s modal multiverse.

Yes, that follows. It would be like living in a video game, a program that simulates its game physics in detail over a limited amount of space but supplies boundary conditions computed a completely different way.

 

[bilby]

3. Executing X = Y + Z does not cause X to equal Y + Z. In the system of simultaneous equations, X has always been equal to Y + Z. We don't execute a program to cause Y + Z to take on its value; we execute it so we can find out what Y + Z is. Execution of a program is fundamentally an output operation. It matters to those outside the program but can have no possible effect on those inside.

4. The mind modeled in the physics-level simulation of the human brain is therefore conscious whether you run the simulation or not.

OK, but is it also the case that the mind modeled in the physics-level simulation of the human brain is therefore conscious whether you build the simulation or not?

1+1=2 is true whether or not you add 1 to 1 and check the solution; But is this still true if nobody has defined "1" (or "+", or "=")?

We can say that the output of a program is irrelevent to those inside the program; But is the same true of the writing of the program?

 

[Bomb#20]

3. Executing X = Y + Z does not cause X to equal Y + Z. In the system of simultaneous equations, X has always been equal to Y + Z. We don't execute a program to cause Y + Z to take on its value; we execute it so we can find out what Y + Z is. Execution of a program is fundamentally an output operation. It matters to those outside the program but can have no possible effect on those inside.

4. The mind modeled in the physics-level simulation of the human brain is therefore conscious whether you run the simulation or not.

OK, but is it also the case that the mind modeled in the physics-level simulation of the human brain is therefore conscious whether you build the simulation or not?

1+1=2 is true whether or not you add 1 to 1 and check the solution; But is this still true if nobody has defined "1" (or "+", or "=")?

We can say that the output of a program is irrelevent to those inside the program; But is the same true of the writing of the program?

I'm not sure; I don't even know if the argument is any good. It has superficial plausibility to me, but it's metaphysics -- I can't see how to get a falsifiable prediction out of it. Presumably you'd need to calculate something about the probability of finding yourself in a simulated universe with this sort of law of physics versus that sort, but presumably that could vary depending on how the top-level Turing machine was coded, even if one could satisfactorily figure out what number equals infinity / infinity. And of course any such probability would be modified by anthropic considerations. And of course we don't even know our own laws of physics since QM and GR conflict and we haven't solved quantum gravity yet. And of course the whole line of argument from square one depends on the unproven assumption that a digital computer can be made sentient -- some people have hypothesized that consciousness depends critically on continuous variables so artificial intelligence would take an analog computer. But subject to all those caveats...

I think the writing of the program would be irrelevant as well. Proof by reductio ad absurdum: let's assume whether it's written matters. I'm pretty sure somebody somewhere has written a Turing Machine that systematically writes all possible strings of its character set. One of them must be the Multiverse-defining program I described. And it doesn't matter whether you run the all-strings-generator. But suppose I'm wrong and nobody has ever written an all-strings-generator, and suppose that matters. If you just go ahead and write an all-strings-generator for us next week, you'll have created the Multiverse. In the words of Heinlein, Thou art God!

 

[bilby]

In the words of Heinlein, Thou art God!

I dunno, I still think that Fiat Lux is an Italian limousine.

 

[Bomb#20]

In the words of Heinlein, Thou art God!

I dunno, I still think that Fiat Lux is an Italian limousine.

Hey man, you don't need to tell me about Fiat Lux.

Dark Star (1974) - IMDb

Dark Star (1974) Adam Beckenbaugh as Bomb #20

www.imdb.com

 

[Lion IRC]

But I guess that’s beyond an omnipotent god.

All powerful, but basically disinterested.
Can you blame him? Just look how lame and unappreciative his creations are.

Well, sure, and that’s why the all-loving God drowned nearly all of them in a worldwide flood.

God has to exist in order to be blamed for something.

...which reminds me.

As a doctor who worked with cancer patients for over 40 years, I can attest to the fact that God did a superb job of creating cancer and spreading it amongst the unsuspecting public. I have lost many more patients than I have saved in the long run over my career, so God clearly wins. Wonder why Christians don't brag about God creating cancer?

 

[Elixir]

God has to exist in order to be blamed for something.

Why?
Non-existent things and causes are blamed for stuff all the time.

It’s false/wrong/mendacious statements like that, that reveal the true nature of the religion scam.

 

[Lion IRC]

OK Pedantry for the win.

Let me rephrase.
God has to exist in order to be the cause of something

 

[pood]

EricH? Please take note of Lion’s post 182, just upthread. I believe you might wish to make another report for the exact same transgression, now brazenly repeated. If you don’t, I will, because now he is also taking my quote out of its larger context. I guess cherry-picking is just what theists do. They got nothin’ else.

 

[Elixir]

OK Pedantry for the win.

Let me rephrase.
God has to exist in order to be the cause of something

Thank you. Now you can spend the rest of the day pondering why there is a HUGE difference in those statements.

 

[Elixir]

I guess cherry-picking is just what theists do. They got nothin’ else.

Yes, that has ever been the case.
So... you want this (and the other religion threads) to just - go away?
Let 'em keep cherry picking, intentionally misconstruing etc to their hearts' content, so we can keep pointing out the ridiculousness of their primary assertion and the dissembly in which they constantly indulge to support it.

 

[bilby]

God has to exist in order to be blamed for something.

Not so. People have been blaming gremlins for mechanical failures since the 1940s; They were invented by Roald Dahl, and are known to be entirely non-existent.

 

[pood]

I guess cherry-picking is just what theists do. They got nothin’ else.

Yes, that has ever been the case.
So... you want this (and the other religion threads) to just - go away?
Let 'em keep cherry picking, intentionally misconstruing etc to their hearts' content, so we can keep pointing out the ridiculousness of their primary assertion and the dissembly in which they constantly indulge to support it.

I object to him cherry-picking — this is at least the second time, and it comes AFTER the staff issued a warning upthread against precisely this sort of underhanded tactic — EricH’s post to make it seem as if he were blaming God for causing cancer, which is an absurdity, since EricH is an atheist. I can also well imagine him scampering away with these cherry-picked quotes in hand to post at some loony bin like CARM to “prove” atheists really do believe in God but are just pissed off at him, a typical theist trope.

Eric, of course, was positing an IF, and the deeper problem in Lion’s continued cherry-picking is it allows him to evade the central issue, demonstrating that he has no intention of engaging in a good-faith discussion. And that issue is, IF God exists, WHY should he NOT be blamed for things like cancer, or indeed for EVERYTHING bad, since God is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect, supposedly? In his few lame gestures at answering this question he has essentially posited stuff like “Smoking causes cancer, not God,” [a paraphrase, not an exact quote] ignoring that under HIS OWN metaphysics, God also made nicotine and he made it addictive. Then, too, as I and I believe others have pointed out, there are many cancers not caused by smoking, including CHILDHOOD BRAIN CANCER. So I am asking Lion, if God exists, as you believe, why he is not to blame for CHILDHOOD BRAIN CANCER, among many other evils and misfortunes? More generally, I am asking you why you think — since you are the one who believes in God, not me — that your God should get all the credit for good things but none of the blame for bad things? Or do you also think he deserves no credit for good things? In that case, what good is he, under your own (not my) metaphysics?

Would you actually care to deal with this question and stop cherry-picking quotes?

 

[abaddon]

Let me rephrase.
God has to exist in order to be the cause of something

It's the existence of the idea of an all-good God that made/oversees a universe with suffering in it that creates the problem of evil. That problem applies to the idea.

The PoE is a logical consequence of the idea of an all-good God. The idea exists, so the problem with the idea exists. No effort to "get" atheists can make it go away, that's nothing but deflection.

 

[Lion IRC]

Let me rephrase.
God has to exist in order to be the cause of something

It's the existence of the idea of an all-good God that made/oversees a universe with suffering in it that creates the problem of evil. That problem applies to the idea.

The PoE is a logical consequence of the idea of an all-good God. The idea exists, so the problem with the idea exists. No effort to "get" atheists can make it go away, that's nothing but deflection.

Empirical evidence - science - would still point to smoking being a/the cause of lung cancer notwithstanding God's existence.

God can exist and NOT be the cause of a person smoking a pack a day.

 

[Elixir]

It's the existence of the idea of an all-good God that made/oversees a universe with suffering in it that creates the problem of evil. That problem applies to the idea.

ZACKTAMUNDO!
Absent that, there is no “problem of evil”, let alone any “problem with the problem”.

 

[Elixir]

Empirical evidence - science - would still point to smoking being a/the cause of lung cancer notwithstanding God's existence.

Yeah, and theists will regress the “problem” until the only their skydaddy can solve it.
After all, skydaddy created the universe, smoking and all.

God can exist and NOT be the cause of a person smoking a pack a day.

So what?
God can exist and not be the cause of ANYTHING. In fact, if a god exists that is quite apparently the case.

 

[bilby]

Let me rephrase.
God has to exist in order to be the cause of something

It's the existence of the idea of an all-good God that made/oversees a universe with suffering in it that creates the problem of evil. That problem applies to the idea.

The PoE is a logical consequence of the idea of an all-good God. The idea exists, so the problem with the idea exists. No effort to "get" atheists can make it go away, that's nothing but deflection.

Empirical evidence - science - would still point to smoking being a/the cause of lung cancer notwithstanding God's existence.

Sure, but IF (as most Christians believe) a god is the all knowing and all powerful first cause of everything, THEN it unavoidably follows that all proximate causes are caused by that god.

So god would then be the cause of smoking. Which causes cancer. Which god knew it would, and did nothing about.

God can exist and NOT be the cause of a person smoking a pack a day.

No, he can't.

Not if he is the ultimate cause of everything.

And not if he is all knowing, all powerful, and doesn't want people to suffer horribly.

"Free will" isn't a way out here; It is morally monstrous not to protect people from the consequences of their ignorance, if you are able to do so, and the excuse that you didn't want to impose on their freedom simply cannot work.

"I allowed my baby to crawl off a precipice, because I am a good person, so although I knew that the fall would severely injure him, and although I could easily have prevented it, I didn't want to infringe his freedom".

 

[pood]

The funny thing is that while Lion describes himself as a biblical theist, the god of the Old Testament, anyway, seems very far away from being an omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect Sky Daddy. Often he comes off as a clueless, vengeful, narcissistic turd, a kind of Donald Trump in the sky. Omniscient Sky Daddy couldn’t even find Adam and Eve in the garden. He had to call out, “Where are you?” It’s right there in the Bible! If he can’t find his own creation in the garden how the hell can he be called omniscient? Very frankly it sounds as if he couldn’t tell his ass from his elbow.

 

[abaddon]

Empirical evidence - science - would still point to smoking being a/the cause of lung cancer notwithstanding God's existence.

God can exist and NOT be the cause of a person smoking a pack a day.

This argument does nothing to fix the broken concept.

If a god exists and stands by while a person dying of cancer suffers, and the god can see there's nothing the dying person can learn from the torment he's going through, then the god's committing an act of evil to let the suffering continue.

Any instance of that is enough to be a problem with the concept of an all-good and all-powerful God.

You must excuse it, preferably in a more rational way than "people do it to themselves" which ignores that very little suffering in the world is self-inflicted (and let's not forget that other species than "sinful" humans suffer too). Or you must change your god-concept to fit better with what reality's like.