Simulated reality and *ism

fergalr

One possible way of organising beliefs, on a spectrum:

1) Definite theism (e.g. certain belief in interventionist catholic God)
2) Uncertain, broad theism (belief in general categories of possibly interventionist Gods)
3) Deism (belief in non-interventionist God)
4) Agnosticism (uncertainty about existence of any God)
5) Strong Agnosticism (belief no certainty is possible)
6) Weak atheism (belief there's probably no God)
7) Strong Atheism (certain belief there's no God)


Anyway, my question:
If you accept the argument that:

- One individual objective possible universe is likely to contain many simulated universes
- Therefore its more likely we are in a simulated universe than in a real one
- Therefore our simulation was likely setup by someone

(henceforth 'simulation programmer argument')

Then wouldn't it be more rational to believe somewhere around 3, or 4 above, (or even 2) rather than 5, 6, or certainly 7?

I would be particularly interested in hearing from anyone who accepts the simulation programmer argument, or its general plausibility, but is in 6 or 7.

Or if anyone knows coherent writing on this topic, I'd also be interested.

I'm familiar with the simulation argument as set out by e.g. Bostrom.
I find the simulation argument plausible, and think that even accepting its plausibility moves you away from 5,6,7 above.

I'm curious if this sort of argument impacts how people class themselves.

Obliq

fergalr wrote: »

Anyway, my question:
If you accept the argument that:

- One individual objective possible universe is likely to contain many simulated universes
- Therefore its more likely we are in a simulated universe than in a real one
- Therefore our simulation was likely setup by someone
.

I don't accept this argument as I can see no proof of same. I am at your No.4/5 though, so my opinion would stand to reason (in my world :pac: )

BTW, in this argument, how does a) lead to b)? Why would one universe be more 'real' than another?

fergalr

Let me take this part first:

Obliq wrote: »

Why would one universe be more 'real' than another?

This is a good question. So, maybe any universe is equally real, to the people in it.

But lets say we want to argue about the possibility or presence of a supreme being, or creator. Being in a universe running on a big computer certainly admits the possibility of a creator.

By contrast, lets consider a strong atheist who believes that the universe just came into being without any design; just the result of a fluke of physics. With no creator. (A reasonable position, imo.)


The two positions make different predictions, in extremis.

Specifically, in the case of an intervention by the programmer/creator, if a message in the sky shows up one day, the strong atheist will be very more surprised than the person who admits the possibility they are running in a simulation.

Now, absent such extreme cases, where an intervention occurs, we don't have a testable difference between the two universes. (Probably; maybe its possible to detect whether we are running in a simulation through some other means; timing attack etc! but lets neglect that.)


But even if we dont have a way of testing which we are in currently, I think its clear there is a meaningful distinction to be made between the two models, as they give different levels of surprise in response to a future possible intervention.

So it is a real difference of model we are talking about, not just some semantic issue. I hope that makes sense?

Obliq wrote: »

BTW, in this argument, how does a) lead to b)? Why would one universe be more 'real' than another?

I assume that you are referring to these two parts:

Lets label them A & B:

a) - One individual objective possible universe is likely to contain many simulated universes
b) - Therefore its more likely we are in a simulated universe than in a real one

I accept that B doesn't follow directly from A, here.

For counter-example, maybe even though some 'real' (i.e. objective, baseline, non-simulated) universes can contain many simulated universes, perhaps most 'real' universes can't. And that as a result, we are in fact most likely to live in a non-simulated universe.

Its very hard to reason about other possible universes - or equivalently about the probability space of the universes we could be in. We have very little information to go on.

But I do think its possible to make some logical arguments about these things - weak ones, along similar lines to how arguments like the Drake equation work. Weak arguments, but there's little empirical evidence in all these matters; you work with what you have.

I think that we shouldn't really neglect these arguments, from deciding where on the *ism spectrum we might be.


To come at this from another tack:

I believe that, in this universe (the one universe I have any access to), we will probably soon have the ability, as humans, to simulate universes which appear real to the sentient beings that live within them.

Now I accept that this is not a widely held belief.
But I'm a pretty strong and, I would say informed, believer in the future potential of better software technology, and AI. (I dont have a lot of certainty, of course, but I think its rational to believe theres a reasonable probability that, extrapolating forward our development several hundred years, we'll get there. There's a huge variance on that estimate, of course, but for me, the probability is reasonable - maybe 70%?, assuming no cataclysms).


So, if I believe that in the one universe I have access to, it'll probably be possible to simulate many other 'universes', then that is a pretty compelling argument, to me, that the probability space of universes in general is one in which each real universe contains many simulations.
Hence I am more likely to be living in a simulation.


And so maybe when I think bad thoughts, maybe I should worry that there is some programmer person who is going to penalise me in future for thinking those thoughts. (I dont actually think that, but it illustrates the line of argument.)

Turtwig

Atheists don't take any position on the creation of the universe, or universes. They only take a position on the existence of deities. Whether these deities abilities comprise of being able to a blow out candle or create universes is irrelevant.

fergalr

Jernal wrote: »

Atheists don't take any position on the creation of the universe, or universes. They only take a position on the existence of deities. Whether these deities abilities comprise of being able to a blow out candle or create universes is irrelevant.

I don't really understand the point you are making there, or perhaps why its relevant here.

I am also not sure I agree with your assertion:

Jernal wrote: »

Atheists don't take any position on the creation of the universe, or universes.

Most religions, as I understand it, and most religious people, believe that one or more of their deities created the universe. This is a widespread belief. Atheists reject this belief, thus firmly taking a contrary position on the creation of the universe, surely?

Would you say that belief in the existence of an all powerful sentient creator of the universe, optionally with the capacity for arbitrary intervention, is compatible with an atheist belief structure? I would say it is not.

magicbastarder

fergalr wrote: »

I am also not sure I agree with your assertion:

i assume he means in the sense that atheism only goes as far as to state 'i do not believe god created the universe'. it says nothing about how the universe came into being; merely that it was not an omnipotent sky-being.

fergalr

magicbastarder wrote: »

i assume he means in the sense that atheism only goes as far as to state 'i do not believe god created the universe'. it says nothing about how the universe came into being; merely that it was not an omnipotent sky-being.

That question, of whether a 'god' created the universe, is at the heart of what my post is about, though.

In this context, I don't see any meaningful or useful distinction between an 'omnipotent sky-being' and a 'programmer that created and exerts arbitrary control over the simulation of our universe'. (Maybe Im missing something?)


As such, an argument that we are likely to be living in such a created simulation universe is very relevant to the core of atheist belief.

Pherekydes

fergalr wrote: »

As such, an argument that we are likely to be living in such a created simulation universe is very relevant to the core of atheist belief.

What core of atheist belief? Atheism is, generally speaking, about lack of beliefs.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

magicbastarder wrote: »

i assume he means in the sense that atheism only goes as far as to state 'i do not believe god created the universe'. it says nothing about how the universe came into being; merely that it was not an omnipotent sky-being.

Although I'd say a little more could be said. Religions aren't necessarily built around creator gods.

So we have to detach questions of how the universe was created from the question of believe in gods. It would strike me that a valid atheist position would be that the universe wasn't created, it was always here. (I'm not saying that is or isn't correct - just that it's a possible position that someone might advocate.)

I'd say atheism is simply the assertion that there are no gods. Now, clearly that must entail rejection of any theist creation myths. But it won't necessarily be the main point of difference.

fergalr

Pherekydes wrote: »

What core of atheist belief? Atheism is, generally speaking, about lack of beliefs.

Was what I meant by 'core of atheist belief' really unclear, in the context, in a way that made my meaning hard to understand?

Personally, I don't see a meaningful difference between "belief there is no god" vs "lack of belief in a god", in the context of this thread.


But to be super-clear, I have tried to update what I wrote to be compatible with your chosen semantics:

As such, an argument that we are likely to be living in such a created simulation universe is very relevant to the core of atheism, i.e. that atheists do not believe in a creator/god.

fergalr

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Although I'd say a little more could be said. Religions aren't necessarily built around creator gods.

True, but creator gods are certainly a pretty strong part of several major religions Im familiar with.

Regardless, creator gods are incompatible with atheism, 5&6 on my spectrum there, which is the relevant issue here.

Pherekydes

fergalr wrote: »

Personally, I don't see a meaningful difference between "belief there is no god" vs "lack of belief in a god", in the context of this thread.

Well, you should!

One is about a belief, the other is about a lack of belief. A not unsubtle difference, and not just a matter of semantics.

fergalr

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, you should!

One is about a belief, the other is about a lack of belief. A not unsubtle difference, and not just a matter of semantics.

To address that tangent:

To avoid semantic confusion, let me state some of the principles of my reasoning on this. These are not the only possible principles, but I believe they are suitable here. Let me know if you disagree with any of them.

There either is or is not a god.
There can not both 'be a god' and 'be no god'.
The 'there is a god' and 'there is no god' possibility spaces are exclusive, and provide a complete cover of the space of possibilities.
Lets call 'there is a god' A, and 'there is no god' B.

If we measure the subjective degree of belief in A as probability P(A), then the subjective degree of belief in B, P(B), is (1 - P(A)).


At any point in time, you should theoretically be able to answer what your P(A) is, and that will also reveal your P(B). Lack of belief in P(A) implies an increased belief in P(B) and vicea versa.


Do you think there's anything wrong with what Im doing here?

Pherekydes

fergalr wrote: »

To address that tangent:

To avoid semantic confusion, let me state some of the principles of my reasoning on this. These are not the only possible principles, but I believe they are suitable here. Let me know if you disagree with any of them.

There either is or is not a god.
There can not both 'be a god' and 'be no god'.
The 'there is a god' and 'there is no god' possibility spaces are exclusive, and provide a complete cover of the space of possibilities.
Lets call 'there is a god' A, and 'there is no god' B.

If we measure the subjective degree of belief in A as probability P(A), then the subjective degree of belief in B, P(B), is (1 - P(A)).


At any point in time, you should theoretically be able to answer what your P(A) is, and that will also reveal your P(B). Lack of belief in P(A) implies an increased belief in P(B) and vicea versa.


Do you think there's anything wrong with what Im doing here?

Your probability space covers the 'god' question, but not the 'belief' question. Many people believe in god(s) to a greater or lesser extent, but this in no way covers the entire populace. Many are non-believers. That is, they don't fall into either of your groups.

fergalr

Pherekydes wrote: »

Your probability space covers the 'god' question, but not the 'belief' question. Many people believe in god(s) to a greater or lesser extent, but this in no way covers the entire populace. Many are non-believers.

That doesn't make sense.

P(A) is the subjective degree of belief in there being a god.

A 'non-believer', in this model, is someone who has a P(A) of, or arguably close to, zero.

Pherekydes wrote: »

That is, they don't fall into either of your groups.

You are mistaken: I did not define two groups of people.


I defined two possibilities, which cover the possibility space.

In the model, individuals can have a subjective degree of belief in P(A) that varies between 0 and 1. It is not the case that an individual must have a P(A) of either zero or one. There are no groups of individuals in my model.

However, there would probably be clusters in the space (groups) due to the nature of the world, but thats irrelevant here.

fergalr

Are you trying to say that some individuals would have very low confidence in their value of P(A)? Of course that varies per individual; but individuals still have a P(A). And thats not relevant to the original statement I made which you objected to.

Or perhaps you might say that its difficult to get individuals to reveal their actual beliefs of P(A), or perhaps you might even go so far as to argue that some people don't even have a value for P(A).

I would argue that non-believers most certainly do have a value for P(A), and that it is near 0, by definition of what it means to be a 'non believer'.

I would argue that everyone else has a value of P(A), either explicitly in their heads, or at least implicitly; although it might be hard to reveal, it is there. It would have to be, in order for us to make judgements about how to act, incultured as we are in the presence of so many religions telling us 'god is watching you', 'you will be judged later' etc.

18AD

You've just pushed the problem back. God still exists in wherever the "real" people are, the programmers.

How exactly does this sidestep the idea of God?

fergalr

18AD wrote: »

You've just pushed the problem back. God still exists in wherever the "real" people are, the programmers.

Indeed, a god either exists or does not exist in the baseline reality, whereever that may be.

Thats not so important to my discussion though, which is about whether a god exists in our particular reality.

18AD wrote: »

How exactly does this sidestep the idea of God?

On the contrary, it shows the difficulty of sidestepping the idea of a god - because even if no god exists in the baseline reality, a god (i.e. omnipotent programmer/creator) might in fact be probable in our reality (if we believe certain arguments about the likelihood that we exist in a simulation.)

My point is that this presents a problem for the stronger forms of atheist disbelief.


I should say, that if you are a religious person, that would argue that there is a particular God in the baseline reality, and that we are in that reality, then I don't think there would be much of interest to you in the discussion I started this thread with (although I could be wrong).

I.e., to be clear, I am explicitly not trying to argue "we are more likely to be in a reality created by programmers, therefore there is no need of a god in any reality, including the eventual, ultimate, non-simulated reality".

18AD

fergalr wrote: »

On the contrary, it shows the difficulty of sidestepping the idea of a god - because even if no god exists in the baseline reality, a god (i.e. omnipotent programmer/creator) might in fact be probable in our reality (if we believe certain arguments about the likelihood that we exist in a simulation.)

My point is that this presents a problem for the stronger forms of atheist disbelief.


I should say, that if you are a religious person, that would argue that there is a particular God in the baseline reality, and that we are in that reality, then I don't think there would be much of interest to you in the discussion I started this thread with (although I could be wrong).

I.e., to be clear, I am explicitly not trying to argue "we are more likely to be in a reality created by programmers, therefore there is no need of a god in any reality, including the eventual, ultimate, non-simulated reality".

Surely if a God existed in the ultimate reality he would permeate all other levels of reality too? It's kind of an old Platonist idea that God emanates from the central true existence out into the less existing spaces and realities.

From just the perspecitve of the simulated reality and I think it only impacts on our judgement of probability of God's existence. That is, the simulation has either been programmed to have one, or equally likely, it has not. You have just shifted the odds of there being a God in the simulation based on it being possible for it to have been programmed that way.

Maybe it's no so simple though, because I don't think a simulated God would be considered to be really God. If this is the case, then in both situations (programmed with or without God) it isn't about the real God and the probabilities haven't changed at all and we are back to square one. That is, it all still depends on the real reality.

Pherekydes

fergalr wrote: »

My point is that this presents a problem for the stronger forms of atheist disbelief.

Why is this a problem? What is your interest [in this so-called problem]?

For the record, I don't have any problem. I simply don't believe there is a god(s).

fergalr

18AD wrote: »

Surely if a God existed in the ultimate reality he would permeate all other levels of reality too?

That would make sense to me.

Im more interested in the case where we believe there is no God in the ultimate reality, though, and whether there might still be something in our particular reality - a sort of programmer creator - which might still, from our perspective, have all the characteristics that a God in the ultimate reality would have; and the problems this possibility might cause for atheism.

18AD wrote: »

It's kind of an old Platonist idea that God emanates from the central true existence out into the less existing spaces and realities.

From just the perspecitve of the simulated reality and I think it only impacts on our judgement of probability of God's existence. That is, the simulation has either been programmed to have one, or equally likely, it has not.

Even if the simulation we are in has been programmed to not have a god, my point would be that the programmer being would still have all the characteristics of a god which atheists typically reject.

Pherekydes

fergalr wrote: »

That would make sense to me.

Im more interested in the case where we believe there is no God in the ultimate reality, though, and whether there might still be something in our particular reality - a sort of programmer creator - which might still, from our perspective, have all the characteristics that a God in the ultimate reality would have; and the problems this possibility might cause for atheism.



Even if the simulation we are in has been programmed to not have a god, my point would be that the programmer being would still have all the characteristics of a god which atheists typically reject.

Do you honestly think we are part of some simulated reality?

fergalr

Pherekydes wrote: »

Why is this a problem? What is your interest [in this so-called problem]?

I'm not terribly sure my interest is important to the discussion. Its getting a little close to ad hominem territory.

But, in the spirit of transparency: I would have probably classed myself as weak atheist, or perhaps agnostic.

I would have thought 'Dont be ridiculous, no-one can possibly hear what you are thinking. Of course you wont be judged when you die.'

However, an argument that we are likely to be in a simulation changes that calculus. Perhaps it is probable that we exist in a simulation, with a creator? (yes, this is a very open question) In which case, perhaps I might be judged after I die?!


This is an interesting thing to think about.

Pherekydes wrote: »

For the record, I don't have any problem. I simply don't believe there is a god(s).

Thats fine, and what you believe is completely up to you.

I am interested in a discussion about what is rational to believe.

If I woke up tomorrow, and there was a giant pulsing message claiming to be from a creator written in the sky, my views on reality, and P(A) would change.

Equally, if someone provides me with a convincing argument for P(A), in my attempt to be rational, my beliefs might change.

So, when I say 'theres a problem', it is in the sense that a compelling argument for P(A) provides a problem for those who believe not P(A).

Its only important to people who want to attempt to be rational about their beliefs, and has no impact on people who just want to maintain a position.

18AD

fergalr wrote: »

Im more interested in the case where we believe there is no God in the ultimate reality, though, and whether there might still be something in our particular reality - a sort of programmer creator - which might still, from our perspective, have all the characteristics that a God in the ultimate reality would have; and the problems this possibility might cause for atheism.

Even if the simulation we are in has been programmed to not have a god, my point would be that the programmer being would still have all the characteristics of a god which atheists typically reject.

OK. But the programmer still doesn't have all the characteristics. I mean, if it's a person, he has only created a universe, or a simulation of one. Let's take the simulation as being real, for us. The creator still lacks omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Even if he had all these things and knew everything of this simulated universe, could alter it in any way and somehow permeated it, there would still be somewhere, i.e. another universe, in which he couldn't exercise these powers. Thereby, he still has none of the primary characteristics.

fergalr

Pherekydes wrote: »

Do you honestly think we are part of some simulated reality?

What do you mean? An argument by popular belief? Social consensus? An ad hominem attack?

Said in 1800: Do you honestly believe there's no god?


Genuinely, I honestly believe its a possibility that is worth serious consideration, yes.

Does it impact me hugely on a day to day basis? No. We are discussing very uncertain things here, and abstract things; it doesnt affect my food supply etc.

Worthy of consideration as a possibility? Yes, definitely.


If its 200 years in the future, and a large number of people spend a lot of time in simulated realities, running on hardware they dont control, it won't seem like such an abstract thought.
Do I believe such a future is possible? Yes, even probable. With high confidence? No, the medium term future is v hard to predict, as we know.

Peanut

fergalr wrote: »

..because even if no god exists in the baseline reality, a god (i.e. omnipotent programmer/creator) might in fact be probable in our reality (if we believe certain arguments about the likelihood that we exist in a simulation.)

I don't think it's ever possible to get any meaningful value for this probability, because of Godel's incompleteness etc. when looking at a closed system.

(Some people may argue that logical arithmetic limitations are not relevant to physical reality, however if we're trying to establish a formal or logical argument about existence or non-existence of something, I think it's fair to consider these constraints.)

fergalr

18AD wrote: »

OK. But the programmer still doesn't have all the characteristics. I mean, if it's a person, he has only created a universe, or a simulation of one. Let's take the simulation as being real, for us. The creator still lacks omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Even if he had all these things and knew everything of this simulated universe, could alter it in any way and somehow permeated it, there would still be somewhere, i.e. another universe, in which he couldn't exercise these powers. Thereby, he still has none of the primary characteristics.

Well, you are assuming those particular three characteristics are necessary for a god. That might be your personal definition, fair enough. But I would say those characteristics would not be necessary for an atheist. Indeed, I believe there are religions where the gods dont have all those characteristics (although they are present in, e.g. christianity as I understand it).

A creator that can change any aspect of our reality, that has the ability to change our minds, to know any of our thoughts, to pause the simulation, etc I would argue would violate the beliefs a typical atheist has, even if they werent exactly omniscient.

Its true that the creator wouldnt be able to exercise their powers in other universes, but still, the existence of such a creator would make atheism impossible, to my mind.

You could just say 'well, in my book, its still not a god' and leave it at that. I couldn't argue with that position - if such a creator doesn't meet your definition of god, then thats fair enough, and I cant say anything further - my argument would stop there.

Such a creator would meet my definition of god, to all intents and purposes, as I try to answer the question, for me personally, 'is there a god'. But thats very subjective, and I wouldnt seek to convince someone other than they currently think.

fergalr

Peanut wrote: »

I don't think it's ever possible to get any meaningful value for this probability, because of Godel's incompleteness etc. when looking at a closed system.

What? What has Godels theorems got to do with this?

Which of Godels theorems, and how exactly does it apply here? I dont see the relevance.

18AD

fergalr wrote: »

A creator that can change any aspect of our reality, that has the ability to change our minds, to know any of our thoughts, to pause the simulation, etc I would argue would violate the beliefs a typical atheist has, even if they werent exactly omniscient.

Its true that the creator wouldnt be able to exercise their powers in other universes, but still, the existence of such a creator would make atheism impossible, to my mind.

But by the very act of introducing this through the idea of a programmer, you have explained away any Godlike activity as being that of a programmer. For all in tents and porpoises, if we saw this psuedo-omniscient activity we could explain it as the work of the programmer.

You have to consider that any such miraculous activity, under the rubric of there being a programmer, become merely semblances of acts of God. The programmer appears to behave like a God, but we know that it only appears TO US like that. So we know it's not really a God.

There's also the problem that if we can't rule out completely the idea of the traditional God, the one described by religion, then atheism will still exist counter to this, regardless of whether we are in a simulation and there is a programmer.

fergalr

Peanut wrote: »

I don't think it's ever possible to get any meaningful value for this probability, because of Godel's incompleteness etc. when looking at a closed system.

(Some people may argue that logical arithmetic limitations are not relevant to physical reality, however if we're trying to establish a formal or logical argument about existence or non-existence of something, I think it's fair to consider these constraints.)

I dont think you can do that - I'm certainly not accepting that

Its been a while since I read Godel Escher Bach, which had a pretty good intro to Godels theorems, but those are results about formal systems of logic.

I don't see how you can go from Godels incompleteness theorem to a statement that says its impossible to get a meaningful probability for the existence of god.

There are certainly other good obstacles, and you could argue that we'll never be able to make good logical arguments that move P(A) either up or down. But we aren't talking about manipulating rules in a formal system here, right?

You'd be saying that there's some statement that is true that we can't prove is true from within the system (like the diagonal number in the proof) - but then you are trying to say 'oh look, our universe is like a big formal system, and so there are some things that are true that we cant prove'. But thats a very fuzzy last step; I dont how it works, anyway! And further, theres no evidence that P(A) would be one of those things.

I think you are spoofing

fergalr

18AD wrote: »

But by the very act of introducing this through the idea of a programmer, you have explained away any Godlike activity as being that of a programmer. For all in tents and porpoises, if we saw this psuedo-omniscient activity we could explain it as the work of the programmer.

If we could reason about that. If the programmer, staghetti-monster style, didnt just reprogram us! Or if the programmer wasnt an intelligence sufficiently smarter than us to just fool us reliably, with complete control over our universe. But we are getting back to Decartes demon there... its a fair point you make.

18AD wrote: »

You have to consider that any such miraculous activity, under the rubric of there being a programmer, become merely semblances of acts of God. The programmer appears to behave like a God, but we know that it only appears TO US like that. So we know it's not really a God.

You know, we are setting a very high bar of proof, for 'the real god'. All of Jesus' miracles are right out. If the real god ever does show up, we'll just be like 'Oh, you are just our simulation programmer, go away.'

18AD wrote: »

There's also the problem that if we can't rule out completely the idea of the traditional God, the one described by religion, then atheism will still exist counter to this, regardless of whether we are in a simulation and there is a programmer.

Yes, that's a fair point.

I think those are good points; I think they are somewhat different to where I was going with the start, which was really looking for someone to justify atheism, if they believed the simulation argument - they do sort of address that, but I think they are in a slightly different direction - interesting stuff, though...

18AD

fergalr wrote: »

I think those are good points; I think they are somewhat different to where I was going with the start, which was really looking for someone to justify atheism, if they believed the simulation argument - they do sort of address that, but I think they are in a slightly different direction - interesting stuff, though...

It certainly is interesting!
I'm just not sure simulation presents that big a problem for atheism, or theism for that matter.

Peanut

fergalr wrote: »

What? What has Godels theorems got to do with this?

Which of Godels theorems, and how exactly does it apply here? I dont see the relevance.

It's very relevant in any simulation argument, since it goes to the core of computability and what exactly can be "proven" (or even guessed) in any logical system, e.g. a simulation running on some sort of computer.


When posing any question in such a system, it needs to be logically consistent, such that we can't get both a yes and no answer at the same time.

But what Godel showed is that you can't have both consistency and completeness at the same time. If we really want a consistent system, we have to accept that it will be incomplete - in other words, there will be certain questions in such a system that are unprovable. These questions tend to be those that are self-referential within such a system (such as what I suspect any reasonable form of your imagined question would most likely be).

Actually, probably a better reference is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem.

"arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic"

Replace arithmetic with simulation and you can see the connection.

fergalr wrote:

..but then you are trying to say 'oh look, our universe is like a big formal system, and so there are some things that are true that we cant prove'. But thats a very fuzzy last step; I dont how it works, anyway! And further, theres no evidence that P(A) would be one of those things.

Ok - fair enough - but you're suggesting the simulation model, and really if we throw that away then what's left of the question? Anything goes in that case...

fergalr wrote:

I think you are spoofing

Cheers :)

fergalr

Disclaimer: while Im a computer scientist, Im not a hard core theoretical logician. I have understood pretty well at least the sketch of godels theorems at one point, but I might be off the mark with any particular technicality.

Peanut wrote: »

It's very relevant in any simulation argument, since it goes to the core of computability and what exactly can be "proven" (or even guessed) in any logical system, e.g. a simulation running on some sort of computer.

It applies in any logical system... ...that obeys certain rules of formal logic, and has a sufficient expressiveness, so that you can make statements about the truth of theorems within the system - certain self referential statements, so that you can set up contradictions.

But there are a whole lot of provisios there. You can build a system outside the logical system of interest, that reasons about the truth or falseness of the logical system. You can do this many times. Eventually, yes, the 'outermost' system still suffers the incompleteness problem. But is that really a problem? Why do you think that such a system wouldnt be powerful enough to simulate a universe, in which it was possible to reason about P(A), the probability of the existence of god? That's a massive assumption.

Its another huge assumption that rules of formal logic are even necessary to simulate a universe.

Perhaps everything could be done in a much simpler, more ad-hoc fashion? Why do you need to go around proving theorems? We dont need to go around proving theorems to simulate many things. If you look at some physicists simulating subatomic particles, you won't find theorem proving in there. (Not a strong argument; but a reasonable point, I think).


And here we are, higher order complex systems, in this reality/simulation. Why should a probability statement that we make be a system level theorem at all? Surely it wouldn't?
Why does it even need to be a theorem?
Humans basically never reason in formal logic, at a high level, right? If someone shoulds you a math proof, its pretty much never the machine verifiable, formal one. Does that mean we can't reason about math proofs? No. We can't do it mechanically - or at least we are pretty crap at it - but we still manage to make reasonable predictions about the world, from our math.


We are in to very speculative territory here - but if you want to invoke Godel's theorem, to a really high level argument, I think the burden of proof is on you to show its relevant somehow, and I don't see any argument for that.

Peanut wrote: »

When posing any question in such a system, it needs to be logically consistent, such that we can't get both a yes and no answer at the same time.

But what Godel showed is that you can't have both consistency and completeness at the same time. If we really want a consistent system, we have to accept that it will be incomplete - in other words, there will be certain questions in such a system that are unprovable. These questions tend to be those that are self-referential within such a system (such as what I suspect any reasonable form of your imagined question would most likely be).

There are certain theorems that we can construct, which can't be proven from within the system. But again, so what?

Peanut wrote: »

Replace arithmetic with simulation and you can see the connection.

Yeah, but you can't just do that. And even if you could, there's no evidence it would matter.

Peanut wrote: »

Ok - fair enough - but you're suggesting the simulation model, and really if we throw that away then what's left of the question? Anything goes in that case...

All the simulation stuff is still valid - I still dont see at all how invoking godels theorem is an argument against it.

I apologise for saying you were spoofing - even in jest - but you get a lot of people throwing around godel's theorem; and (while its really cool and generalises across systems of formal logic, with a certain expressiveness) its a really technical thing, with a lot of provisos; you cant just apply it to your analogous situation, and hope it sort of transfers - it doesn't work like that. At least as far as I know

joseph brand

Are we talking about The Matrix?

fergalr

joseph brand wrote: »

Are we talking about The Matrix?

I'm sure that it really annoys philosophers, when they are discussing simulated realities, and people keep mentioning The Matrix.


Thankfully, I'm a computer scientist, and so I mainly just think The Matrix is a cool movie.

So, yes. Yes we are discussing The Matrix.

In fact, this message is just for you Joesph.
No one else on boards can see it.
There will be an man knocking on your door shortly, with a pill for you.

nagirrac

For full disclosure I am an agnostic deist, so between a 3 and a 4 (depending on the day). On balance, the evidence to me is highly suggestive of a sophisticated simulation, to the extent that we can glimpse aspects of what lies behind the curtain without getting close to understanding it. The debates regarding God are very interesting, with one of the fascinating arguments on the nay side being that something is "impossible", when such a restriction is a very human concept. The whole universe is "impossible" to a large degree, nevermind trying to elucidate what may have brought it into being.

The most interesting question to me is whether a potential creator is outside of, or is part of, its own creation. If the latter then intervention on the local reality level may be a practical restriction. I agree fully with the OP regarding the potential future of mankind as virtual, in fact this is almost certainly the only way we can survive as a species long term. Ray Kurtzweil's "The Singularity is Near" is the best source for a detailed treatment of this topic. If we survive long enough to duplicate ourselves and populate the galaxy and eventually the whole universe, do we then not become Gods ourselves? Perhaps that is the point, we certainly seem very driven to innovate as a species.

A few other thinkers worth considering in this area are Frank Tipler (The Physics of Immortality) and Thomas Campbell (My Big TOE). Campbell was the out of body experimenter described in Robert Monroe's Far Journeys, and although his 3 volume TOE is a slog to get through, it is very convincing of the simulation argument.

joseph brand

fergalr wrote: »

I'm sure that it really annoys philosophers, when they are discussing simulated realities, and people keep mentioning The Matrix.


Thankfully, I'm a computer scientist, and so I mainly just think The Matrix is a cool movie.

So, yes. Yes we are discussing The Matrix.

In fact, this message is just for you Joesph.
No one else on boards can see it.
There will be an man knocking on your door shortly, with a pill for you.

Already took that pill.

Here's a short clip of me dealing with an aggressive Jehovah's Witness.



:cool:

Sierra 117

The Jehovah's Witness is Neo, I take it?

:pac:

the culture of deference

Jernal wrote: »

Atheists don't take any position on the creation of the universe, or universes. They only take a position on the existence of deities. Whether these deities abilities comprise of being able to a blow out candle or create universes is irrelevant.

I would consider myself to be 7 on the scale.

There are 2 version's of god for the religious

A. The one who started all this 15 billion years ago

B. The one in the christian bible that they made in their own image is about 1,800 years old

and remember they have no problem for god not to have a creator, but not the universe.

If god is omnipotent why did he take 13 billion years to make us? Why doesn't the bible have exact instructions (DNA, physics, particle explanation) described in it. Anti matter exists, it took 300,000 years for atoms to form. Why would you believe god did it?

The religious argument says that god must have done it, because ...... well JUST because. They allow god to exist without a creator, but pooh pooh the idea for anything else.

Who made the universe ? Hawkings reply

"The laws of nature themselves tells us that not only can the universe have popped into existence like a proton and have required nothing in terms of energy but also that it is possible that nothing caused the big bang"

"You only need three ingredients to make a universe, matter or mass, energy and space. But using Albert Einstein's famous equation, Hawking argued that mass and energy are basically the same thing.
The big bang created the now two necessary ingredients for a universe: energy and space.

While some argue that this is where God comes into the picture because you can't create something out of nothing, Hawking argued that it is entirely possible. Particles such as protons, he said, behave according to quantum mechanics and can appear at random, then vanish, and then reappear somewhere else."

Pherekydes wrote: »

Do you honestly think we are part of some simulated reality?

It is possible. You would never be able to tell the difference anyway.

the culture of deference

Sierra 117 wrote: »

The Jehovah's Witness is Neo, I take it?

:pac:

Thanks for making me laugh.:pac:

Zombrex

Forgive me if this point has already been made (I didn't read the thread because it seems a little too "ha ha silly atheists" for my liking)

But atheism is the rejection of theistic claims, not a position on the existence of any possible intelligent creator.

I have absolutely no idea if this universe was or wasn't created by some sort of intelligence. I'm not even sure how to even classify the concept of intelligence outside of this universe, or what "created" means in the context of a reality devoid of the rules of this universe such as causality and time.

Atheism is the rejection of the claims theists make that they already know that we were created and that the creator has certain properties and communicates with us.

An analogy I use is this story

Two men come to a door. The first man (Man A) says "I know there is a white tiger behind that door". The second man says "Don't be silly, how can you possibly know that". Man A replies "It is my faith, I believe it!". The second man says "Well I think that is nonsense"

It is important to note that Man B is not commenting on what is behind the door. He is not even saying he knows there isn't a white tiger behind the door, though he may believe hat is very doubtful. The entire substance of his position is the rejection of the idea that Man A knows what is behind the door. Man B believes that Man A is just as clueless as he is, but for some reason has chosen to latch on to a belief he cannot justify.

I have no idea how the universe was created. But then neither does anyone else. Hence why I'm an atheist.

Sycopat

fergalr wrote: »

I'm sure that it really annoys philosophers, when they are discussing simulated realities, and people keep mentioning The Matrix.

IME discussion of simulated realities tends to annoy philosophers because it's an inherently irresolvable question intended to raise discussion about the nature of knowledge and certainty, but instead often ends up being used as an argument to show that one can never truly know anything about the nature of reality, or to infer the existence of a simulation programmer in what is essentially a metaphysical version of the 'Irreducible Complexity' argument.

And here's the rub, accepting the possibility that this is possibly a simulated reality leads only and totally to option 5 in the OP.

Strong agnosticism: No certainty is possible.

About anything.

Ever.

This is the only possible result from any argument which relies on the idea that reality might not be real.

edit: and to illustrate that: inferring a simulation programmer for a simulated world relies on the knowledge that programs in the simulated world having simulated programmers. But as the programs and their programmers are simulations one cannot actually infer that that is the order of things in the non-simulated universe which contains the simulation.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

the culture of deference wrote: »

If god is omnipotent why did he take 13 billion years to make us?

But, sure, if he's ominpotent, time doesn't apply to him. Both us and the 13 billion years could be made in a microsecond of divine time.

Zombrex wrote: »

I have no idea how the universe was created. But then neither does anyone else. Hence why I'm an atheist.

I know it might just be a point around definition of terms, but I'd say the 'hence' there should be leading to agnosticism. I'd take atheism to be that extra step of asserting 'there is no god', which doesn't necessarily follow from an absence of evidence.

Zombrex

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I know it might just be a point around definition of terms, but I'd say the 'hence' there should be leading to agnosticism. I'd take atheism to be that extra step of asserting 'there is no god', which doesn't necessarily follow from an absence of evidence.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, nor do they lead on from each other.

I have no idea if there is a creator intelligence, hence I am strongly agnostic about it.

I believe very strongly that theists don't know either, hence I am an atheist.

Atheism really has nothing to do with gods, and everything to do with human claims. It is a statement about human knowledge and human claims, not the existence of possible deities.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

I have no idea if there is a creator intelligence, hence I am strongly agnostic about it.

I believe very strongly that theists don't know either, hence I am an atheist.

I still don't see the 'hence'.

As I see it, your statments should be:

I have no idea if there is a creator intelligence, hence I am strongly agnostic about it.

I believe very strongly that theists don't know either, hence I believe they know nothing that would change my agnosticism about a creator intelligence.

I don't see how the expectation that theists don't know leads to statement that they are certainly wrong.

fergalr

nagirrac wrote: »

For full disclosure I am an agnostic deist, so between a 3 and a 4 (depending on the day). On balance, the evidence to me is highly suggestive of a sophisticated simulation, to the extent that we can glimpse aspects of what lies behind the curtain without getting close to understanding it.

That's a big claim - I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue that there is actual evidence that we are in a simulation. Sounds pretty deep in left field - but what sort of aspects are you talking about?

nagirrac wrote: »

The debates regarding God are very interesting, with one of the fascinating arguments on the nay side being that something is "impossible", when such a restriction is a very human concept. The whole universe is "impossible" to a large degree, nevermind trying to elucidate what may have brought it into being.

Im not sure about that line of thought:

I'm sure all our concepts could be characterised as 'human', so Im not sure what it means to say that 'impossible' is a very 'human concept'.

I also don't understand how anyone could say the universe is impossible; like, we define the universe by the reality that we can see and interact with in some form - I don't know what 'impossible' means, if the universe can be described as 'impossible'.

nagirrac wrote: »

The most interesting question to me is whether a potential creator is outside of, or is part of, its own creation. If the latter then intervention on the local reality level may be a practical restriction. I agree fully with the OP regarding the potential future of mankind as virtual, in fact this is almost certainly the only way we can survive as a species long term.

I also think our future will probably be 'virtual', or in software.

nagirrac wrote: »

Ray Kurtzweil's "The Singularity is Near" is the best source for a detailed treatment of this topic.

Kurzweil is a smart guy, and very accomplished, but I'm very skeptical about his predictions. There's a lot of good stuff in his general argument that technological progress is not linear, and that we shouldn't linearly extrapolate progress into the future.

But I'm not at all convinced by his predictions either, or his prediction methodology. It seems like pseduo science. I don't buy most of the 'is near' parts of his argument. Thats not to say his conclusions are wrong - just that there is very little evidence for them.

nagirrac wrote: »

If we survive long enough to duplicate ourselves and populate the galaxy and eventually the whole universe, do we then not become Gods ourselves? Perhaps that is the point, we certainly seem very driven to innovate as a species.

A few other thinkers worth considering in this area are Frank Tipler (The Physics of Immortality) and Thomas Campbell (My Big TOE). Campbell was the out of body experimenter described in Robert Monroe's Far Journeys, and although his 3 volume TOE is a slog to get through, it is very convincing of the simulation argument.

I'm not familiar with those writers; will take a look.

fergalr

the culture of deference wrote: »

I would consider myself to be 7 on the scale.

There are 2 version's of god for the religious

A. The one who started all this 15 billion years ago

B. The one in the christian bible that they made in their own image is about 1,800 years old

and remember they have no problem for god not to have a creator, but not the universe.

If god is omnipotent why did he take 13 billion years to make us? Why doesn't the bible have exact instructions (DNA, physics, particle explanation) described in it. Anti matter exists, it took 300,000 years for atoms to form. Why would you believe god did it?

The religious argument says that god must have done it, because ...... well JUST because. They allow god to exist without a creator, but pooh pooh the idea for anything else.

Sure - that is a long standing problem in particular religions - if you introduce 'god' as the answer to 'what made the universe', then you are still left with the chicken-and-egg problem of 'well then, what made god?'.


But, as you say you are a 7 on the scale, can I ask, would you still consider yourself a 7, if you got strong evidence (hypothetically), that the universe we were in was a simulation, created by a much more powerful intelligence than us?

If that would change your certainty, then would a reasonable argument that we were likely to be in a universe created by a superior intelligence, also move you from a 7?

the culture of deference wrote: »

Who made the universe ? Hawkings reply

"The laws of nature themselves tells us that not only can the universe have popped into existence like a proton and have required nothing in terms of energy but also that it is possible that nothing caused the big bang"

"You only need three ingredients to make a universe, matter or mass, energy and space. But using Albert Einstein's famous equation, Hawking argued that mass and energy are basically the same thing.
The big bang created the now two necessary ingredients for a universe: energy and space.

While some argue that this is where God comes into the picture because you can't create something out of nothing, Hawking argued that it is entirely possible. Particles such as protons, he said, behave according to quantum mechanics and can appear at random, then vanish, and then reappear somewhere else."

Right - this is interesting stuff. Now, I won't pretend to understand the deep physics at all; but I'm prepared to believe that the universe could just have spontaneously arisen from nowhere, like how pairs of quantum particles just pop into existence. I'm prepared to believe this is a plausible possibility because a lot of smart physicists believe it is.

Hence this goes some way to removing the necessity of a creator god, and gives at least some answer to 'what created the universe'.

So, this would seem to be a really good thing, for the strong atheist position:
that there doesn't need to be a creator god, is certainly compatible with believing that there is none.


But what I'm wondering, is, even if you believe that a universe just spontaneously popped into being, perhaps there is still an argument against being a strong atheist:

Perhaps even if real universes just spontaneously arise, we are in fact more probably living in a simulated one, therefore it is still more probable we have a creator?

And so on.

nagirrac

fergalr wrote: »

Right - this is interesting stuff. Now, I won't pretend to understand the deep physics at all; but I'm prepared to believe that the universe could just have spontaneously arisen from nowhere, like how pairs of quantum particles just pop into existence. I'm prepared to believe this is a plausible possibility because a lot of smart physicists believe it is.

I dont have time at hand right now for a detailed answer to your response to my post and to this point, but there is a critical point I would like to make on the issue of a universe from nothing:

The nothing Krauss and Hawkins refer to is not "nothing" as we normally think of it, it is a scientific defintion of nothing called the quantum vacuum. How a field of energy can be defined as nothing is beyond me and its a view that I don't think is shared by many physicists. In my view Krauss in particular has made anti religious dogma out of his theory.

fergalr

Zombrex wrote: »

Forgive me if this point has already been made (I didn't read the thread because it seems a little too "ha ha silly atheists" for my liking)

...

Zombrex wrote: »

But atheism is the rejection of theistic claims, not a position on the existence of any possible intelligent creator.

Atheism is a contentious word.

Many theists say that the existence of an intelligent creator is a key part of their theism.
I'd argue that many would define atheists as rejecting the existence of an intelligent creator.

You are saying that 'atheism' would be compatible with the existence of an intelligent creator.
Thats up to you - I guess I'm using a different definition of the word than you are.

Zombrex wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea if this universe was or wasn't created by some sort of intelligence. I'm not even sure how to even classify the concept of intelligence outside of this universe, or what "created" means in the context of a reality devoid of the rules of this universe such as causality and time.

If this universe exists as a simulation within another universe, there is nothing to say that the 'outer' universe is devoid of rules such as causality and time.
There's nothing to say the rules are the same, either, but assuming certain similarity seems like a good starting point to me.

But we are trying to reason about possibilities and probabilities here. We aren't going to get much in the way of certain knowledge about a universe beyond our own, almost by definition; but that doesn't suffice as a general attack on any attempt to reason about the possibilities, or even probabilities.

Zombrex wrote: »

Atheism is the rejection of the claims theists make that they already know that we were created and that the creator has certain properties and communicates with us.

You are defining atheism as rejecting the claims made by specific religions.

I find that very unsatisfactory.
If I invent a new religion, that would mean that atheism changes, as it now has to reject the claims of my new theism?

Zombrex wrote: »

An analogy I use is this story

Two men come to a door. The first man (Man A) says "I know there is a white tiger behind that door". The second man says "Don't be silly, how can you possibly know that". Man A replies "It is my faith, I believe it!". The second man says "Well I think that is nonsense"

It is important to note that Man B is not commenting on what is behind the door. He is not even saying he knows there isn't a white tiger behind the door, though he may believe hat is very doubtful. The entire substance of his position is the rejection of the idea that Man A knows what is behind the door. Man B believes that Man A is just as clueless as he is, but for some reason has chosen to latch on to a belief he cannot justify.

I have no idea how the universe was created. But then neither does anyone else. Hence why I'm an atheist.

I would label you an agnostic.

If your analogy about whether there is a tiger, is replaced by whether there is a god, and if you are saying that you don't know there isn't a tiger behind the door, and that you just don't know, then you meet my definition of agnostic, not atheist.

You'd be a 4 or 5 on the scale I gave, not a 6 or 7.

If you want to use the word 'atheist' for that, that's your choice.

If, on the other hand, you 'believe that there being a tiger is very doubtful', then you are no longer taking an agnostic position. But you are no longer just commenting on the lack of certainty of other people. You can't just say 'I think that because I have no information'. You also need some other beliefs about the world - such as that white tigers are rarely found behind doors.

Sycopat

fergalr wrote: »

Perhaps even if real universes just spontaneously arise, we are in fact more probably living in a simulated one, therefore it is still more probable we have a creator?

Why does a simulated universe need a creator any more than a spontaneously arisen but real one?