Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…235236238240241…327

Comments

  • #7112
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Morbert wrote: »
    Again, that isn't true.

    Why? What hypothesis is more compelling based on our current knowledge and observations?


  • #7113
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Why? What hypothesis is more compelling based on our current knowledge and observations?

    The hypothesis that the universe is not a digital computer.


  • #7114
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Morbert wrote: »
    The hypothesis that the universe is not a digital computer.

    What evidence is there that the universe is not a digital computer? Is there more evidence today that the foundational aspects of the universe are continuous (analog) rather than discrete (digital)?

    Are you familiar with the Foundational Questions Institute? Have you looked at its list of members, and the work they are presenting? Why would so many distinguished scientists now be working in the field of digital physics? Could it be that old ideas are being abandoned and a new paradigm emerging? A paradigm that involves top down causation in addition to bottom up causation.

    That must be a horrible concept for strong atheists to consider, and possibly explains why the only significant name not on the FQXi members list is Lawrence Krauss. I find that odd given that Guth and Vilenkin, among others, who did the work that Krauss draws on in his "Universe from Nothing" book are active members but Krauss is not. Like some on this thread I can only assume he finds the idea that the universe came from "information" rather than "nothing" a bit disconcerting if your worldview is "I hate the idea of God".

    I hasten to add I am not linking you in any way with Krauss or any strong atheist. In my view fundamentalist atheists are as much an enemy of science as fundamentalist religious, and at least as big a danger to society.


  • #7115
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    nagirrac wrote: »
    What evidence is there that the universe is not a digital computer? Is there more evidence today that the foundational aspects of the universe are continuous (analog) rather than discrete (digital)?

    Are you familiar with the Foundational Questions Institute? Have you looked at its list of members, and the work they are presenting? Why would so many distinguished scientists now be working in the field of digital physics? Could it be that old ideas are being abandoned and a new paradigm emerging? A paradigm that involves top down causation in addition to bottom up causation.

    That must be a horrible concept for strong atheists to consider, and possibly explains why the only significant name not on the FQXi members list is Lawrence Krauss. I find that odd given that Guth and Vilenkin, among others, who did the work that Krauss draws on in his "Universe from Nothing" book are active members but Krauss is not. Like some on this thread I can only assume he finds the idea that the universe came from "information" rather than "nothing" a bit disconcerting towards the "I hate the idea of God" worldview.

    Digital physics is not the claim that the universe is a digital computer.

    Digital physics is compatible with atheism.


  • #7116
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Morbert wrote: »
    Digital physics is not the claim that the universe is a digital computer.

    Digital physics is compatible with atheism.

    One of the claims of digital physics is that the universe is a computer. I agree it is one of the weaker claims, but if you have read Zues, Frankin and others, it is very much a claim. The claims of digital physics are that the universe is informational and computable, can be described digitally and is in essence digital and is itself a computer.

    Digital physics is compatible with atheism, theism and deism.


  • Advertisement
  • #7117
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    An interesting essay from the group nagirrac mentioned.

    http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Tong_integers.pdf


  • #7118
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    nagirrac wrote: »
    One of the claims of digital physics is that the universe is a computer. I agree it is one of the weaker claims, but if you have read Zues, Frankin and others, it is very much a claim. The claims of digital physics are that the universe is informational and computable, can be described digitally and is in essence digital and is itself a computer.

    Digital physics is compatible with atheism, theism and deism.

    The point is "physics is digital" and "the universe is a computer" are distinct claims, and while one might argue for digital physics, that does not automatically translate to evidence that the universe is a computer.

    Incidentally, the evidence does not even point to the conclusion that the universe is digital, and digital physics certainly isn't the mainstream view among physicists.


  • #7119
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    An interesting essay from the group nagirrac mentioned.

    http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Tong_integers.pdf

    Isn't that arguing that it may not be possible to simulate the universe digitally?


  • #7120
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Morbert wrote: »
    An interesting essay from the group nagirrac mentioned.

    http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Tong_integers.pdf[/QUOTE]


    A fine essay, and I could post the essays that argue for a discrete digital universe, or the comments from the community that disagree with Prof. Tong. That's the beauty of science, the same data can lead to many different hypotheses.

    Just for a bit of balance:

    http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/DAriano_FQXi.pdf


  • #7121
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Isn't that arguing that it may not be possible to simulate the universe digitally?

    Yes. He argues that many discrete properties of the universe emerge from solutions of equations involving continuous objects, and points out that the laws of physics have not yet been shown to be possible to run on a computer.


  • Advertisement
  • #7122
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    nagirrac wrote: »
    http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/DAriano_FQXi.pdf

    Note that the article you posted is not arguing that the universe is actually digital, it is merely arguing how it might be possible that it is, and how we might test the hypothesis (The author, for example, mentions that a violation of Lorentz invariance would support the hypothesis, and violation of Lorentz invariance has never been observed).


  • #7123
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Morbert wrote: »
    Note that the article you posted is not arguing that the universe is actually digital, it is merely arguing how it might be possible that it is, and how we might test the hypothesis (The author, for example, mentions that a violation of Lorentz invariance would support the hypothesis, and violation of Lorentz invariance has never been observed).

    A multiverse has never been observed either, but a fair bit of effort has been expended exploring that hypothesis :) Even though it is very unlikely any universe other than the one we inhabit can ever be observed.

    Thanks for your inputs, as always you provide good food for thought.


  • #7124
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    Yes. He argues that many discrete properties of the universe emerge from solutions of equations involving continuous objects, and points out that the laws of physics have not yet been shown to be possible to run on a computer.

    Ah right, sorry I though you were posting this in support of nagirrac's claim that the universe is a computer simulation.


  • #7125
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    On the contrary, if our universe is likely to be a digital simulation then this is very related to this thread

    But that is one heck of an "if". There is no reason to think it is a simulation. At all.

    Now I am not unsympathetic to your impression here. I am aware many scientists out there, for good reason, make analogies to "computer code" and "pixels" and so forth when trying to explain their science to the lay man. Most of them however are not _actually_ implying we are living in a simulation or VR they are just using analogy.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    If hypothetically it is shown in the future that our observed universe is a simulation, would you still stick your head in the sand and refuse to consider where the simulation came from?

    I do not do hypotheticals. When arguments, evidence, data or reasoning shows something to be true then I accept it is true. Simple as that. Every time. When something has not been shown to be true but you are supporting it with little more than declaring it "makes sense to me" then I will not. Every time.

    Trying to paint that as if it comes from "anger" or "dogmatism" is just a non sequitur ad hominem rant. It is simply a basic fact about me that if there is no reason to think X is actually true then I will not go around thinking X is actually true. Where you see "anger" there I will never know.

    Unsubstantiated nonsense claims do not threaten anything, let alone my "world view". But it is typical of you and your ilk when you have no evidence to support your claims to instead go off on a tangent about how angry, dogmatic, defensive of ones world view and so forth other people are. All I hear however is "I have no evidence so I will pretend you have an issue instead".

    Stick to the evidence and facts. Put the fantasy nonsense picture you are painting of those people who do not buy what you are selling back in the cupboard.


  • #7126
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Why? What hypothesis is more compelling based on our current knowledge and observations?

    This is a poor approach to reasoning I am afraid. One should be gauging a hypothesis on its own merits. Not on a comparative to other hypothesis merits.

    An unsubstantiated nonsense hypothesis remains an unsubstantiated nonsense hypothesis even if all the other hypotheses around it are even more nonsense.

    It appears you have trouble with analogy but I will throw this little comparison out anyway. Imagine two young boys talking about where babies come from.

    Boy1: Where do babies come from.
    Boy2: The Stork Brings them.
    Boy1: Wow what makes you think that?
    Boy2: Well where do you think they come from?
    Boy1: I do not know.
    Boy2: Have you got any theories that make more sense than mine?
    Boy1: No.
    Boy2: Aha, then it is the most likely explanation that the stork brings them.

    I doubt I have to spell out to you that you are Boy2 in this comparison. You have no evidence whatsoever for your claim. Nothing lends it any credibility. You are however trying to lend it credibility in relation to the theories of others.

    But an unsubstantiated claim is an unsubstantiated claim, no matter what you compare it to. And substantiation does not and never has come in the form of pretending the people failing to accept your unsubstantiated claims are angry, not interested in science or whatever other ad hominem nonsense you decide to roll out in a failed but transparent attempt to derail the conversation by putting the other poster on some kind of personal defensive.


  • #7127
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    I think Nagirrac (correct me if I'm wrong) is merely speculating on what he believes the implications of the various 'interpretations' could mean in reality - which are in and of themselves 'metaphysical interpretations' - ALL of them let's face it.

    He's quite within his right to do this. Actually, I think it's quite fun when one does not put too much stock in any particular one as the be all and end all - and can lead to interesting discussion ( and the odd cat fight! because people do tend to stick the heels in) In the right spirit however, I think it can be very interesting.

    I agree that the likes of Chopra et al selling tons of books and selling their assumptions as factual or misleading others is a pain in the ar*e - but then who controls what others do really or what others may think? We're only passing through learning all the time, adjusting, reviewing endlessly....

    Newtons apple today, could be tomorrows flying pig elsewhere..


  • #7128
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    lmaopml wrote: »
    I think Nagirrac (correct me if I'm wrong) is merely speculating on what he believes the implications of the various 'interpretations' could mean in reality - which are in and of themselves 'metaphysical interpretations' - ALL of them let's face it.

    He's quite within his right to do this. Actually, I think it's quite fun when one does not put too much stock in any particular one as the be all and end all - and can lead to interesting discussion ( and the odd cat fight! because people do tend to stick the heels in) In the right spirit however, I think it can be very interesting.

    I agree that the likes of Chopra et al selling tons of books and selling their assumptions as factual or misleading others is a pain in the ar*e - but then who controls what others do really or what others may think? We're only passing through learning all the time, adjusting, reviewing endlessly....

    Newtons apple today, could be tomorrows flying pig elsewhere..

    Speculation is fine. But the claim that the evidence supports a simulated/computer universe is not correct.


  • #7129
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Morbert wrote: »
    Speculation is fine.

    Thank goodness - everybody does it, and it's fun too.

    But the claim that the evidence supports a simulated/computer universe is not correct.

    Yes I know - he thanked you for correcting him on it Morbert.


  • #7130
    Geomy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    All jokes and banter aside.

    Is the Universe capable of having a diety or God like entity ?

    Do you remember Q in startrek ?

    Anything is possible :-D


  • #7131
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    But that is one heck of an "if". There is no reason to think it is a simulation. At all.

    Now I am not unsympathetic to your impression here. I am aware many scientists out there, for good reason, make analogies to "computer code" and "pixels" and so forth when trying to explain their science to the lay man. Most of them however are not _actually_ implying we are living in a simulation or VR they are just using analogy.

    Interesting that you accuse me of ad hominem and then devote almost the entirety of two posts to an ad hominem attack. I will take you at your word that you are a scientist, as am I. Scientists disagree on many things, on science and on non science subjects. Some scientists are strong atheists and see their primary role in serving society as attacking religious beliefs, I happen to believe this is largely a waste of time and highly arrogant. Some scientists are religious or at a minimum believe in God. To strong atheists that is delusional, conveniently ignoring that said scientists have arrived at their beliefs based on reasoning and question their beliefs all the time.

    I am not a "layman" so lay off the analogy sympathy angle. The hypothesis that the universe at its most fundamental is informational or "it from bit" was first proposed by John Wheeler decades ago. If you go on the FQXi site you will see the explosion in research in this area in the past decade. Could it be another fruitless rabbit hole that string theory now appears to be to some scientists (Lee Smolin)? absolutely.. or it could be the beginning of another great paradigm shift in science. We will have to wait and see and let the science unfold.

    Engage in the science and drop the mocking, it doesn't reflect well on you.


  • Advertisement
  • #7132
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Interesting that you accuse me of ad hominem and then devote almost the entirety of two posts to an ad hominem attack.

    Perhaps you should look up the term because I did no such thing. Pointing out that scientists use analogy all the time but that they do not mean by this to imply that the analogy actually is descriptive is not an attack. Of any sort. Let alone ad hominem.

    In fact you appear to have gone off entirely on a tangent that does not address a single thing I said. You have ignored the content of my post, imagined an attack that was not there, then gone off on some tangent talking about scientists. Nothing there is actually replying to a thing I actually wrote.

    Again you have a hypothesis that we are in some kind of VR simulation. Aside from a few scientists out in the world who have made analogy between current science and VR when explaining their work to the lay person like yourself... I am not aware of a single shred of substantiation for the hypothesis.


  • #7133
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    lmaopml wrote: »
    I think Nagirrac (correct me if I'm wrong) is merely speculating on what he believes the implications of the various 'interpretations' could mean in reality - which are in and of themselves 'metaphysical interpretations' - ALL of them let's face it.

    Just for clarity on my views (and I am sure morbert will correct me if I am wrong:)). The claim that the universe at its foundational level is informational is a scientific hypothesis and not speculation. It began with the "it from bit" hypothesis of John Wheeler, that everything we observe in the universe arises from information. He explains this very well in his autobiography, the evolution in his thinking from particles being fundamental, to fields being fundamental, to information being fundamental. The whole field of digital physics can be traced back to Wheeler's ideas.

    The idea that the universe is a simulation is a metaphysical argument as you have correctly pointed out. Many scientists engage in metaphysical arguments in addition to doing science. The line between physics and metaphysics can get somewhat blurry, especially in cosmology. There are many physicists for example who believe that the multiverse hypothesis is not physics as we have no evidence nor can we observe any other universe other than the one we are in.


  • #7134
    Geomy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Perhaps you should look up the term because I did no such thing. Pointing out that scientists use analogy all the time but that they do not mean by this to imply that the analogy actually is descriptive is not an attack. Of any sort. Let alone ad hominem.

    In fact you appear to have gone off entirely on a tangent that does not address a single thing I said. You have ignored the content of my post, imagined an attack that was not there, then gone off on some tangent talking about scientists. Nothing there is actually replying to a thing I actually wrote.

    Again you have a hypothesis that we are in some kind of VR simulation. Aside from a few scientists out in the world who have made analogy between current science and VR when explaining their work to the lay person like yourself... I am not aware of a single shred of substantiation for the hypothesis.

    I think he told you he's a scientist and not a lay person.

    Didn't you read his post, or are you dyslexic like the other fellow. ...


  • #7135
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Geomy wrote: »
    All jokes and banter aside.

    Is the Universe capable of having a diety or God like entity ?

    Do you remember Q in startrek ?

    Anything is possible :-D

    Thats actually a really good question! Never mind is their a God? is God even possible?
    Well yes God is a possibility, could God exist in the universe we inhabit? As a believer in a version of the christian God then I say yes. The incarnation proves it.
    On the other hand (probably the left hand ;)) If the universe is a self contained object and God exists outside of it how dose that incarnation thing work?
    God reduces Himself to somehow fit? The universe changes to accommodate Him? Can God exist without the universe existing to be God of?
    Gonna have to think about all this but I suspect it's our definition of God thats at fault rather than any inherent property of God or the universe.
    'In the beginning was the word'


  • #7136
    Geomy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    Back to the beginning again lol


  • #7137
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Again you have a hypothesis that we are in some kind of VR simulation. Aside from a few scientists out in the world who have made analogy between current science and VR when explaining their work to the lay person like yourself... I am not aware of a single shred of substantiation for the hypothesis.

    So, in addition to mocking (something you would get an infraction for in A&A) you are now calling me a liar? I have a graduate degree and have worked in scientific research for >25 years, but carry on.

    For support for the simulation argument read Professor Nick Bostrom.

    http://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html

    For a good intro to digital physics and support for the universe as a digital computer read Ed Fredkin (digitalphilosophy.org). You can find his work online. Undoubtedly you will think he is a layperson as well, but you might want to check his resume first. I'm sure Carnegie Mellon University give out the Dickson Prize to any old layperson.


  • #7138
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Geomy wrote: »
    Back to the beginning again lol

    Out with my Jewish mysticism books or Soundings....whichever!
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0717148416


  • #7139
    Geomy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Out with my Jewish mysticism books or Soundings....whichever!
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0717148416

    Lol I ll get my references from John Moriarty s Night Journey to Buddh Gaia

    I know a lot of Atheists who read that book and enjoyed it. ..


  • #7140
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    nagirrac wrote: »
    So, in addition to mocking (something you would get an infraction for in A&A) you are now calling me a liar? I have a graduate degree and have worked in scientific research for >25 years, but carry on.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Again you have a hypothesis that we are in some kind of VR simulation. Aside from a few scientists out in the world who have made analogy between current science and VR when explaining their work to the lay person like yourself... I am not aware of a single shred of substantiation for the hypothesis.

    Nozz / Nagirrac - there have been a number of allegations of ad hominem attacks made here. Maybe I've spent too much time on Boards and the phrase "ad hominem" has lost all meaning to me, but I'm not seeing it in the last page or two (let me know by PM if either of you feel aggrieved though). I'd suggest that you both try to continue your discussion in a calmer fashion. It's probably best just to take someone at their word regarding whatever background they have - allegations of lying will not be tolerated.


  • Advertisement
  • #7141
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    The allegation by nozzferrahhtoo is that there is no support for the idea that the universe is a simulation, and that only a layperson would believe such. The evidence is that there are scientists who have proposed arguments in favor of the universe as a simulation (the simulation argument of Nick Bolstrom) and there are scientists who have proposed hypotheses that the universe is a digital computer (Ed Fredkin and many others).

    In addition there is strong support for the hypothesis that the universe should be thought of as top down in addition to bottom up, and there are numerous examples in a variety of scientific fields to support this. The attached essay from George Ellis from Cape Town University covers this in great detail:

    http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_FQXI_Essay_Ellis_2012.pdf


    The poster nozzferrahhtoo owes me an apology but I don't expect one.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement