• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,130
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
That quote is from Ken Ham, not me. I said "I'm not a supporter of Ken Ham".

Well God can apparently also give extreme rewards and punishments - eternal paradise and eternal torment.

Well Christians including Ken Ham believe God is perfectly benevolent...

Consequences in the afterlife...
Though in this case Ken's opponent wasn't very good at justifying their morality....
Pot, meet kettle. You haven't even made a stab at justifying your morality.
I haven't even mentioned my morality. I believe most of the Bible isn't true and a lot of it isn't moral.


So what's your point here? You field an argument, and when we refute it, you say, "It wasn't my argument."

If we point out what's wrong with your claim that atheists have more versions of morality than theists, will you say that that's not your argument either?

What do you want from us?

And that is the question I have asked several times earlier in this thread. With no answer. He claims he doesn't agree with Ken Ham's arguments on most things, but he keeps repeating those arguments as if he did, even the ones that have been refuted in this thread. Its as if we were talking to a poorly programmed AI.
 

abaddon

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,145
Looks to me like the goal is a totally impervious belief. Keeping it floating in the limbo of "possibly true" makes it impervious.
Any skeptic's input is used to find what he can shave away - any belief that, if held too tightly, becomes vulnerable to criticism.
Playing "devil's advocate" with other's beliefs leaves his own beliefs untouched but keeps the other creationist's beliefs in the realm of "the possible".
And if we're in a simulation then almost anything becomes possible.

Keeping the wanted beliefs inside the realm of "the possible" can seem to some folk like justification for believing those wanted beliefs.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Yeah, I get that. I didn't mean the Sims could figure out the actual code; I meant they could figure out some hypothetical code that if it had been the actual code would have led to the events they observe.
How could they be sure there was any code? I mean theists would usually believe the universe is physical and God interacts without the need for computer code....
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
.....Keeping the wanted beliefs inside the realm of "the possible" can seem to some folk like justification for believing those wanted beliefs.
I mean that Ken Ham would have counter-arguments, not that they are necessarily valid. Sorry for annoying people.
 

abaddon

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,145
.....Keeping the wanted beliefs inside the realm of "the possible" can seem to some folk like justification for believing those wanted beliefs.
I mean that Ken Ham would have counter-arguments, not that they are necessarily valid. Sorry for annoying people.

I'm not annoyed. I'm just wondering how "it's possible" becomes "I believe it".

----

Also, frankly, I find the theistic worldview perfectly horrible:

The notion of being assigned a meaning is the ultimate in meaninglessness. If a creator determines your purpose while creating you, that means you're no better than a tool in some fellow's shed.

If a creator says "here's what's morally right and I can say so because I'm superior", that's no better than a dictator saying "you'll obey or else, fucker!" Again, humans are rendered into tools - the slaves of a "superior".

If you need guidance in life, but the guide is in another "realm" altogether, maybe sending secret little signals at you, that's among the most dismal sorts of consolation.

An atheistic worldview is many times better than any of that. But pastors and priests keep turning out the BS that atheists have no bases (or have weak bases) for meaning and morals.

So even if anything about theism/creationism were possible but unproven, then WHY believe it? All the implications of it are abysmal.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,968
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
.....Keeping the wanted beliefs inside the realm of "the possible" can seem to some folk like justification for believing those wanted beliefs.
I mean that Ken Ham would have counter-arguments, not that they are necessarily valid. Sorry for annoying people.

Of course there will be counter arguments. They won’t be particularly good. A lot of emotion, manipulation, and finally accusation. Then, his ultimate answer in the gap... we just can’t explain it (AiG’s BS) yet.

What is annoying is you are tossing Ham BS up against the wall to see what ‘sticks’ as a third person and not getting involved in the conversation... apparently.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
.....The notion of being assigned a meaning is the ultimate in meaninglessness. If a creator determines your purpose while creating you, that means you're no better than a tool in some fellow's shed.
Related Bible verses:
Romans 9:20-21
But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Of course there will be counter arguments. They won’t be particularly good. A lot of emotion, manipulation, and finally accusation. Then, his ultimate answer in the gap... we just can’t explain it (AiG’s BS) yet.

What is annoying is you are tossing Ham BS up against the wall to see what ‘sticks’ as a third person and not getting involved in the conversation... apparently.
My intention was to share the castle analogy that I find interesting. And that it is saying that fundamentalists need a strong foundation with creationism rather that evolution. People didn't like that sometimes I didn't respond to some arguments but that is due to me not intending to fully defend Ken Ham. Me trying to explain myself might not be helping....
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
....The notion of being assigned a meaning is the ultimate in meaninglessness. If a creator determines your purpose while creating you, that means you're no better than a tool in some fellow's shed.
I think that is a similar concept to "destiny"....
 

abaddon

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,145
....The notion of being assigned a meaning is the ultimate in meaninglessness. If a creator determines your purpose while creating you, that means you're no better than a tool in some fellow's shed.
I think that is a similar concept to "destiny"....
It's a lame concept in any case.

If I tell you your purpose in life then you do not actually have a purpose in life - not from my Say-So.

It doesn't matter if God is "superior", that does not enable him to assign purposes to humans. He can proclaim "I made you to worship me", but that's just his POV.

It'd be entirely different for a tool like a screwdriver - it has no say in it. But we humans are self-aware beings so we can't avoid having a say in it.

Some people feel it's too stressful having their own say in it. So they try to live in bad faith. "Bad faith" means to be an inauthentic person for not living up to the inescapable fact that it's your choice how you'll live.

In the novel, Frankenstein's creature met his creator face-to-face and learned what that creator's purpose was in creating him. And after learning about it, he still had to figure out what he wanted in life for himself and to pursue it.

We don't know any creator, like Frankenstein's "creature" did. But even if we did, it'd be the same situation.

---

I think that I saw mention of "purpose in life" somewhere recently in this thread. Probably in connection with the "superior" god being able to make all the rules. But this same basic point applies to the alleged rule-making of the creator. The alleged creator can't determine morality for us either.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,968
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Of course there will be counter arguments. They won’t be particularly good. A lot of emotion, manipulation, and finally accusation. Then, his ultimate answer in the gap... we just can’t explain it (AiG’s BS) yet.

What is annoying is you are tossing Ham BS up against the wall to see what ‘sticks’ as a third person and not getting involved in the conversation... apparently.
My intention was to share the castle analogy that I find interesting.
That was 258 posts ago.
And that it is saying that fundamentalists need a strong foundation with creationism rather that evolution.
No. They just need to say they have a strong foundation. Kind of like saying they built their house on rock... without ever digging into the ground.
People didn't like that sometimes I didn't respond to some arguments but that is due to me not intending to fully defend Ken Ham.
Yeah, but the problem is you keep referring to Ham. So at some point you need to accept that people here (and most other places where education is not scorned, don't find Ham persuasive.
Me trying to explain myself might not be helping....
No, it is you insistence to keep up your Deviled Eggs with Ham Advocate position (yes, that was very forced).
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
.....If I tell you your purpose in life then you do not actually have a purpose in life - not from my Say-So....
I disagree and so would Christians. What if you were born to be a king? I'd say you were given a meaningful purpose....
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
....Yeah, but the problem is you keep referring to Ham. So at some point you need to accept that people here (and most other places where education is not scorned, don't find Ham persuasive.....
Yes and more than that, it might be impossible to ever convince them that Ham has persuasive arguments (though some Christians could find him persuasive).
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,968
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The persuasiveness of an argument << than its validity. Ham has made a career out of making invalid arguments persuasive.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,023
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
.....If I tell you your purpose in life then you do not actually have a purpose in life - not from my Say-So....
I disagree and so would Christians. What if you were born to be a king? I'd say you were given a meaningful purpose....
So your premise is that life as a king is more meaningful, purposeful than life as a non-king?

How are creators given meaning and purpose?

How is life as an anaerobic bacterium hundreds of millions of years ago less meaningful than life as a king today?
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,130
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
....Yeah, but the problem is you keep referring to Ham. So at some point you need to accept that people here (and most other places where education is not scorned, don't find Ham persuasive.....
Yes and more than that, it might be impossible to ever convince them that Ham has persuasive arguments (though some Christians could find him persuasive).

Why do you keep citing the arguments Ham makes? Do you find them persuasive? If yes, say so, and explain why. That would lead to a discussion about the argument. However, if you state the argument and then back away by saying "It's what Ham says and I don't necessarily agree", this does not go anywhere since Ham isn't here to defend his ideas.

Second, if you understand why Ham's arguments would not be persuasive to skeptics, i.e. you understand why Ham's arguments are flawed, why is it even necessary to bring them up? Are you looking for help from skeptics to convince you that Ham is wrong? Then just say so.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,130
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
.....If I tell you your purpose in life then you do not actually have a purpose in life - not from my Say-So....
I disagree and so would Christians. What if you were born to be a king? I'd say you were given a meaningful purpose....

Why would the role of a king be more meaningful than the role of a soldier or a common man in this hypothetical theatrical performance that God is staging? The outcomes are known to God, and we are merely automatons programmed to carry out our preordained tasks. What does God get out of this exercise? What do we get out of this exercise?
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
....How is life as an anaerobic bacterium hundreds of millions of years ago less meaningful than life as a king today?
I'm having trouble thinking up a persuasive response even though intuitively it seems to be very flawed statement. Other's peoples' recent posts are also very difficult to respond to in a satisfactory way. So I think I will retire from this thread. You all win.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,968
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Beating Ken Ham is like an NFL team thrashing a Pee Wee football team. Nothing to brag about, but thanks for not listening to a single post asking what you thought.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Beating Ken Ham is like an NFL team thrashing a Pee Wee football team. Nothing to brag about, but thanks for not listening to a single post asking what you thought.
Here are examples of what I personally think. Many were in response to people asking what I thought....

From post #19
ideologyhunter: Do you really want to suggest a god of genocide and chattel slavery as an avatar of morality?​
Me: I think it's a test to see if the believer truly believes that God is the basis of morality or not.​

Post #21:
I think abuse done in the name of God is a test to see whether the person thinks it wasn't actually God’s will or whether they will rationalize it as being just and loving.​

Post #45
I think most of the things in the Bible never happened. I think Genesis 1 is poetry​
I believe external intelligent forces exist. I don't think I can really know anything about them... as the Bible says "Satan can appear as an angel of light" (I find it a relevant concept)​

Post #52
I think it is significant for emperors to declare themselves to be a god​

Post #59
I don't believe that most of the Bible is historical or scientific and a lot isn't moral


Post #62
I think hubris was a central issue. [with my mental illness issue]​

Post #90
I think there isn't strong evidence for the simulation so that it is more immersive.​

Post #97
I think that's why I became an atheist after giving up YEC.

Post #102
Though for some reason I think scientists tend to be less likely to believe in the supernatural....​

Post #112
"I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations"​

Post #140
I think that there were no jumps in evolution - that it seems perfectly naturalistic....

Maybe you are talking about what I think about Ken Ham...

Post #243
I just thought his castle analogy, etc, was interesting

In post #59 I said that I think a lot of the Bible isn't moral so I obviously disagree with Ken Ham's view that in all of the Bible God's actions and commands are completely moral.

More thoughts about morality:
Post #45
atrib: How do you define morality?​
Me: Well I'm a fan of Kohlbergs stages of moral development.​

I don't think moralities are necessarily right or wrong (objectively). People might say genocide is objectively wrong but then some Christians would say that if God commands it then it is moral - perhaps so that they don't risk missing out on paradise and being sent to hell... my opinion could be called relativistic morality and Ken Ham is strongly against that in principle.
 
Last edited:

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,426
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Yeah, I get that. I didn't mean the Sims could figure out the actual code; I meant they could figure out some hypothetical code that if it had been the actual code would have led to the events they observe.
How could they be sure there was any code? I mean theists would usually believe the universe is physical and God interacts without the need for computer code....
They couldn't be sure. But this is science we're talking about -- science deals in probabilities and best currently known explanations, not in certainties. The Sims' smoking gun for computer code, to the extent there is one, would be that the world they can sense does everything in discrete steps. So their laws of physics are all implementable on a computer. Similarly, the smoking gun for our world not being a simulation, to the extent there is one, is that our best guesses at laws of physics are a bunch of differential equations that don't work right unless time and space are continuous. To get that right on a computer would take an infinite amount of calculation. Of course this is mere circumstantial evidence; it could be undermined any time if some clever physicist ever comes up with a theory with discrete spacetime that matches observation as well as the Standard Model does. But it's better than nothing.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
....How is life as an anaerobic bacterium hundreds of millions of years ago less meaningful than life as a king today?
I'm having trouble thinking up a persuasive response even though intuitively it seems to be very flawed statement. Other's peoples' recent posts are also very difficult to respond to in a satisfactory way. So I think I will retire from this thread. You all win.

Keeping this up in an advocate role, after many pages of posts, you've kept to the discussion quite well at least..1 rep.

Remember ... science and scientists don't do morality. Bible v science etc., which obviously can be approached from two different angles.

Usual missing element is EQ i.e. Emotional Quotent i.e. Emotional Intelligence. The bible IOWs reads differently with meanings, recognised on the level of emotions (meant to be, imo), obviously different from science. Funny enough, atheists used to (or still do) argue that theists believe because of the feeling fuzzy and warm inside ( I know you have a different perspective to the bible). I agree here to the fuzzy wuzzy feelings, to some extent lol.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
....The Sims' smoking gun for computer code, to the extent there is one, would be that the world they can sense does everything in discrete steps. So their laws of physics are all implementable on a computer.
I thought that the movements of the characters would be interpolated to about 60 frames per second... they don't have the ability to capture a video of that and slow it down.... I don't think they'd be able to determine what the framerate is.
Similarly, the smoking gun for our world not being a simulation, to the extent there is one, is that our best guesses at laws of physics are a bunch of differential equations that don't work right unless time and space are continuous. To get that right on a computer would take an infinite amount of calculation....
If it is truly completely continuous then it seems the "Achilles and the tortoise" paradox could apply....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise
Discrete time and space solves this paradox. I thought the Planck time and length means that time and space are discrete (quantized?). I think the simulation I think I'm in would just give the impression of things like the Sun being made up of 1057 atoms without having to have them all being continually explicitly simulated.... so it shows what we expect to see without necessarily being calculated in the way it gives the impression of... e.g. it could seem that there was a Big Bang with infinite density without having to simulate that in a simplistic brute force way. I think AI techniques like machine learning physics simulations could be used.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,244
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
If a Super Civilization exists and is able to simulate a Universe, they may be able to create what we would call an actual Universe, QM, probability wave/particles, gravity, stars, planets, gallaxies...the whole shebang. How would we know?
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
If a Super Civilization exists and is able to simulate a Universe, they may be able to create what we would call an actual Universe, QM, probability wave/particles, gravity, stars, planets, gallaxies...the whole shebang. How would we know?
I don't think we could know because I think the point is to be indistinguishable from reality (to skeptics) but it seems it is possible we are in a simulation.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,965
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
It's a misunderstanding of both what the supernatural is as well as natural/science. Whatever can be detected is science. So if science would be able to detect anything supernatural, it would stop being supernatural. It would just be natural. By definition, supernatural is something that cannot exist. This is by the definition theologists themselves formulated. A force that doesn't interact with anything in the natural world can just be ignored, by both scientists and religious people.
Would you consider the concept of a poltergeist to be supernatural? They apparently can interact with the natural world....



More like delusions and 'mass hysteria'. Consider the radio broadcast of War Of The Worlds. People thought the fake news reoports of alien inversion was true. People called police claiming they saw ETs and smelled poison gas.

I knew a Christian who believed in faith healing. He recited many examples but never saw it himself.

In the 70s-80s there were numerous controlled experiments to try and demonstrate the paranormal, all failed. In the 09s I took a psych class Alternate States Of Awareness. The instructor ran an experiment. He held up a series of envelopes with a symbol inside and we had to deduce each one. We knew what the symbols looked like.

The result, statistically random choices. 10 symbols a correct choice 1 in 10 times. Yu can do the experiment yourself.


The so called paranormal is human imagination fed by interpretation of experience and conditioning. How many peole do yiu think believe vampires may actually exists?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,968
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
If a Super Civilization exists and is able to simulate a Universe, they may be able to create what we would call an actual Universe, QM, probability wave/particles, gravity, stars, planets, gallaxies...the whole shebang. How would we know?
I don't think we could know because I think the point is to be indistinguishable from reality (to skeptics) but it seems it is possible we are in a simulation.

Can tell we are in a simulation or can’t tell... both evidence for simulation.
 

abaddon

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,145
I don't think we could know because I think the point is to be indistinguishable from reality (to skeptics) but it seems it is possible we are in a simulation.

You add "(to skeptics)" in parentheses. So I wonder, how is it different for believers than for skeptics? Isn't it simply that they want to believe, regardless how irrational it is to believe merely because "it's possible"?

The way you talk about how the appearances fool the skeptics, it sounds like there's something that disadvantages skeptics. If it's that they don't follow an irrational impulse to believe, on the lame basis that "it is possible", then that's their advantage.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
I don't think we could know because I think the point is to be indistinguishable from reality (to skeptics) but it seems it is possible we are in a simulation.
You add "(to skeptics)" in parentheses. So I wonder, how is it different for believers than for skeptics?
I believe in a non-obvious intelligent force/God partly based on my experiences. If things can seem to involve "coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations" then skeptics would think a naturalistic explanation is a better one.
Isn't it simply that they want to believe, regardless how irrational it is to believe merely because "it's possible"?
Personally I think it is more than just possible we're in a simulation, it is likely - based on Elon Musk's reasoning:
"...the games will become indistinguishable from reality. ...there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes. ...it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality (NOT a simulation) is one in billions"
For me it makes sense that an non-obvious force and a simulation exists rather than it being a case of me wanting to believe....
The way you talk about how the appearances fool the skeptics, it sounds like there's something that disadvantages skeptics. If it's that they don't follow an irrational impulse to believe, on the lame basis that "it is possible", then that's their advantage.
Perhaps whether someone is correct in their belief that it is a simulation or not doesn't really have major consequences.... though a belief in an intelligent force can be comforting.... but the reason I believe isn't due to me wanting to comfort myself....
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,965
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Some people loose or never had the ability to distinguish reality from phantasy and imagination.

With social media it is already difficult to spot 'unreality'. If you are not grounded in reality being immersed in games with perhaps the addition of drugs I imagine one can loose any sense of what is real and what is not. Like relgion one becomes totally immersed and it is imposable to see your condition.

Ghosts are the power of suggestion. The mind creates them.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,023
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Some people loose or never had the ability to distinguish reality from phantasy and imagination.

With social media it is already difficult to spot 'unreality'. If you are not grounded in reality being immersed in games with perhaps the addition of drugs I imagine one can loose any sense of what is real and what is not. Like relgion one becomes totally immersed and it is imposable to see your condition.

Ghosts are the power of suggestion. The mind creates them.
And why is that? The answer is brain anatomy.

This raises the question of how a simulation makes any sense. A simulation assumes some kind of equality among human brains, all the brains are fundamentally the same in their ability to perceive the universe.

But we know this is not the case. This obvious fact does not square with a simulation belief. Of course, just like a belief in a god I can say that is the purpose of the simulation or the simulator or whatever. It just goes on and on and on, the fantasy never ends. And of course this is obviously all part of the simulation, all very mysterious and full of woo, very matrix like once you get past the first episode, layer upon layer upon layer of simulation.

Why would a simulation purposely impact the ability of one brain to be perceptive. It would be as if when I build my computer I make one of the sims less capable of processing information than the next sim. Does that make any sense? Does it make any sense to give one pinball in the cue a special ability to do better at the game, bounce of the rails and paddles differently? Of course it doesn't, unless I'm attracted to the power of woo, fantasy, and willing to suspend reality or even lack the ability to perceive reality.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,965
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
TG

In tje 60s-70s there was a book The Bicameral Mind.

As I remember right the author posed the idea that seeing images superimposed on reality and talking to them was a natural process, as is hearing a voice taking to you. A way of working through problem and communcating. God woud then ne a talking point, a point of reference.

The claim was made that this was bred out with the rise of western logic where all things have to be reduced to logic or it is irrational. Today hearing voices can be deemed a mental illness.

I do not understand what you mean by simulation and the brain.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,023
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
TG

In tje 60s-70s there was a book The Bicameral Mind.

As I remember right the author posed the idea that seeing images superimposed on reality and talking to them was a natural process, as is hearing a voice taking to you. A way of working through problem and communcating. God woud then ne a talking point, a point of reference.

The claim was made that this was bred out with the rise of western logic where all things have to be reduced to logic or it is irrational. Today hearing voices can be deemed a mental illness.

I do not understand what you mean by simulation and the brain.

If you were constructing a machine, why would you make every "identical" part purposely different? If I am writing a program and use certain commands such as back in the day with mainframes and PL1, what would be the purpose of using IF/THEN statements in which no two identical statements do the same thing?

The only conclusion that would make any sense is that the simulator is itself a simulation. Where does that get us?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,426
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
....The Sims' smoking gun for computer code, to the extent there is one, would be that the world they can sense does everything in discrete steps. So their laws of physics are all implementable on a computer.
I thought that the movements of the characters would be interpolated to about 60 frames per second... they don't have the ability to capture a video of that and slow it down.... I don't think they'd be able to determine what the framerate is.
The human eye can't distinguish 25 frames per second from continuous; but we can reason about what we see and draw inferences beyond the unaided eye. For instance, you see the wagon wheel spokes rotating slowly in the wrong direction and you deduce you're seeing a series of frames and not continuity. The Sims could do likewise -- we're presuming highly intelligent Sims here.

Similarly, the smoking gun for our world not being a simulation, to the extent there is one, is that our best guesses at laws of physics are a bunch of differential equations that don't work right unless time and space are continuous. To get that right on a computer would take an infinite amount of calculation....
If it is truly completely continuous then it seems the "Achilles and the tortoise" paradox could apply....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise
I think that's not so much a real paradox as it is an ancient Greek mortal fear of infinities. Infinite series add up to finite sums all the time.

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + ... = 2

Discrete time and space solves this paradox. I thought the Planck time and length means that time and space are discrete (quantized?).
They don't mean that -- that's just the scale where quantum gravity effects are expected to become dominant, and we don't have a working theory of quantum gravity yet. So it's not that current theory says there are no distances and times smaller than the Planck scale; rather, our theory says we don't know what happens below that scale so we need better theories.

There are a couple of big obstacles to discrete spacetime hypotheses. One is the dilemma of how the individual discrete spacetime points are laid out. Jokodo was talking about this issue here a few years ago. If they're laid out in a regular pattern like a crystal then we'd expect to see different physics in directions lined up with the crystal's axes from what we see in directions that cut across the axes; but as far as we can tell physics is completely uniform in all directions. Contrariwise, if the discrete spacetime points are laid out randomly like atoms in glass, then we'd expect energy to leak out of propagating waves and turn into heat, the way sound waves die out so much faster in glass than in crystals; but as far as we can tell there is no energy leakage, and we can see light that's traveled half way across the universe. (Of course maybe there's some aperiodic quasicrystal pattern that resolves the dilemma; if so we haven't found it.)

The other obstacle is Relativity. Duration and distance aren't absolute -- they're relative to the motion of the observer. So if two particles are the Planck length apart from my point of view, to somebody who's moving at 9/10 the speed of light the same two particles are less than half a Planck length apart. But that's impossible if no distances are shorter than the Planck length. So it pretty much means if space and time are discrete then Relativity must be wrong; but as far as we can tell by looking, Relativity is right.

I think the simulation I think I'm in would just give the impression of things like the Sun being made up of 1057 atoms without having to have them all being continually explicitly simulated.... so it shows what we expect to see without necessarily being calculated in the way it gives the impression of... e.g. it could seem that there was a Big Bang with infinite density without having to simulate that in a simplistic brute force way. I think AI techniques like machine learning physics simulations could be used.
That's a nifty speculation. But how would a simulator know when it can get away with bulk estimates and when it needs to simulate subatomic particle by particle? It would need to be able to tell if anybody is watching closely. Glad I'm not the programmer who has to code that one... :)
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
.....
I think the simulation I think I'm in would just give the impression of things like the Sun being made up of 1057 atoms without having to have them all being continually explicitly simulated.... so it shows what we expect to see without necessarily being calculated in the way it gives the impression of... e.g. it could seem that there was a Big Bang with infinite density without having to simulate that in a simplistic brute force way. I think AI techniques like machine learning physics simulations could be used.
That's a nifty speculation. But how would a simulator know when it can get away with bulk estimates and when it needs to simulate subatomic particle by particle? It would need to be able to tell if anybody is watching closely. Glad I'm not the programmer who has to code that one...
It is basically about "level of detail" - including being based on distance and field of view (like a telescope)

Also consider the following AI that currently exists: (DALL-E)
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-generating-images-from-text&highlight=dall-e
It generates highly creative photorealistic scenes - or cartoon style...
I think it is incredible and it wasn't all coded by a programmer.

Elon Musk believes that a video game that is indistinguishable from reality could run on a computer or set-top box (in the far future). i.e. it would take shortcuts... Elon helped create OpenAI which that mentioned AI (DALL-E) is a part of...
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
This raises the question of how a simulation makes any sense. A simulation assumes some kind of equality among human brains, all the brains are fundamentally the same in their ability to perceive the universe.
In a simulation there could be NPC philosophical zombies - and they wouldn't have the sensation of qualia/pain/etc. Brains that perceive the world in different ways can be simulated - and the simulation would involve future technology - it isn't necessarily about current simulations.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,965
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
TG

In tje 60s-70s there was a book The Bicameral Mind.

As I remember right the author posed the idea that seeing images superimposed on reality and talking to them was a natural process, as is hearing a voice taking to you. A way of working through problem and communcating. God woud then ne a talking point, a point of reference.

The claim was made that this was bred out with the rise of western logic where all things have to be reduced to logic or it is irrational. Today hearing voices can be deemed a mental illness.

I do not understand what you mean by simulation and the brain.

If you were constructing a machine, why would you make every "identical" part purposely different? If I am writing a program and use certain commands such as back in the day with mainframes and PL1, what would be the purpose of using IF/THEN statements in which no two identical statements do the same thing?

The only conclusion that would make any sense is that the simulator is itself a simulation. Where does that get us?

Wow..PL1 isa blast form the past, an oldie but a goodie.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,968
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
This raises the question of how a simulation makes any sense. A simulation assumes some kind of equality among human brains, all the brains are fundamentally the same in their ability to perceive the universe.
In a simulation there could be NPC philosophical zombies - and they wouldn't have the sensation of qualia/pain/etc. Brains that perceive the world in different ways can be simulated - and the simulation would involve future technology - it isn't necessarily about current simulations.
The key to demonstrating simulation is quantum mechanics. Yet, it seems the only posts you talk about simulations just use the words 'could', 'might', 'Elon Musk'... pretending hypothetical statements are actually evidence.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
This raises the question of how a simulation makes any sense. A simulation assumes some kind of equality among human brains, all the brains are fundamentally the same in their ability to perceive the universe.
In a simulation there could be NPC philosophical zombies - and they wouldn't have the sensation of qualia/pain/etc. Brains that perceive the world in different ways can be simulated - and the simulation would involve future technology - it isn't necessarily about current simulations.
The key to demonstrating simulation is quantum mechanics. Yet, it seems the only posts you talk about simulations just use the words 'could', 'might', 'Elon Musk'... pretending hypothetical statements are actually evidence.
I think quantum mechanics is difficult for a simulation to explain because it makes the simulation a lot more CPU intensive. But I think it is there in order to simulate the outside world more closely... and it is interesting to have a non-deterministic simulation - allowing a non-obvious intelligent force to nudge things around....
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,968
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The key to demonstrating simulation is quantum mechanics. Yet, it seems the only posts you talk about simulations just use the words 'could', 'might', 'Elon Musk'... pretending hypothetical statements are actually evidence.
I think quantum mechanics is difficult for a simulation to explain because it makes the simulation a lot more CPU intensive. But I think it is there in order to simulate the outside world more closely... and it is interesting to have a non-deterministic simulation - allowing a non-obvious intelligent force to nudge things around....

QM would BE the simulation!
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,965
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
You are hopeless.
I'm looking into simulating quantum computers... I'll ask my fellow simulation argument fans what they think....



Interesting, you must be very knowledgeable in QM. Such s simulation for me would be well above my pay grade.

Dows a Turing Machine model apply an algorithmic process?
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
I'm looking into simulating quantum computers... I'll ask my fellow simulation argument fans what they think....

Phillosophically (my simplistic and limited view of the concept,) I gather that any shape and form should be able to be produced in the QM realm, the facility, in which would also mean, emulations (or copies?) of anything physical/virtual, having existing prior, or anything you can think of (as you see in the designer sense... sims etc.,).

(EDIT: I think I was stating an obvious to the concept , apologies)



I think the simulation would only simulate QM phenomena when necessary to minimize CPU usage.... I guess QM (or similar) in the outside world is required to simulate quantum computers....

Thats a thought to the concept. There could always be endless energy and power, in terms of eternal, but the very processing i.e. the gargantuan multi-task processes of the CPU to keep maintaining and holding shapes, forms and logic rules, so to speak, could have its processing stresses, if due to being a shape and form itself, in which then I suppose, there may have to be more than one. Only some parts of the universe become entropic-like, due to CPU maintance or breakdown, or a new CPU and new universe all together replacing the old one (not to mean in similar reference to the bible).

(I used to be intrigued with the matrix, hollogram universe theory)
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,968
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
You are hopeless.
I'm looking into simulating quantum computers... I'll ask my fellow simulation argument fans what they think....
What are you talking about? The quantum foam, elementary particles coming in and out of existence, that'd be the building blocks of the simulation... not trying to simulate a Quantum Computer.

You mean to tell me, you've been pondering us as a simulation for a while and it has never occurred to you to look at what the building blocks of such a simulation would be or behave like?

Is your entire premise of simulation a quote by Musk and vague curiosity?
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
I'm looking into simulating quantum computers... I'll ask my fellow simulation argument fans what they think....
What are you talking about? The quantum foam, elementary particles coming in and out of existence, that'd be the building blocks of the simulation... not trying to simulate a Quantum Computer.

You mean to tell me, you've been pondering us as a simulation for a while and it has never occurred to you to look at what the building blocks of such a simulation would be or behave like?
I think the simulation could be "top down" - so it isn't constantly simulating all of the elementary particles (like the 1057 atoms in our Sun). But I think a quantum computer can't be approximated. In "bottom up" all of the particles are always explicitly simulated.
Is your entire premise of simulation a quote by Musk and vague curiosity?
Also many experiences that I think could involve an intelligent force. It is common in video games for an outside player to intervene...
 
Top Bottom