Atheism and the Afterlife

Michael OBrien · 30-08-2016 03:51PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

You are simply wrong on this. I suspect you have failed to note the subtletly of the construction.

The first two points are not intended to be taken as definitely true. They are also not unprovable.

That is the strength of the construction.
All of the points can be considered for reasonableness. If a genuine person genuinely does that, they are forced to reach the same conclusions as Nick did. Because the conclusions logically follow on from the premises. Similar to other mathemathical proofs.

Many professional scientists and others agree that this argument has merit.

Do you believe that either point 1 or point 2 is true?

If not, then point 3 is very likely to be true, based on unassailable logic.

If point 1 is true we are in trouble.
Point 2 is almost certainly false.

(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

Remind anyone of Lewis trilemma about jesus?
1. is false because it assumes mankind WANT to reach the posthuman stage (of simulation). You need to show that there are NO other alternatives than that. You either shift the goal posts of what 'posthuman' means so that eventually humans become something 'else' (which does not lead necessarily to 3) or you assume that posthuman has to match the preconceived goal put forward by the person making the claim.
Also it is possible that we can be simulations without ever having been human in the first place. Another species has created a "No Man Sky" sim and we are nothing but an algorithm variant. This could mean point 3 is independent of point 1.

The reasoning is a philosophical ploy, used by theists, politicians and other manipulators to get the preconceived conclusion they want.

smacl · 30-08-2016 05:20PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);

You have to be very careful here with what you mean by posthuman and simulation. The argument assumes a single simulation is a working model of the observable (to humankind) universe accurate to a subatomic level of detail. The technology, cost and resource here would require your posthuman to have capabilities similar to an omnipotent god. Even then for the argument to hold, you would require enough such simulations to make the probability of a non-simulated version insignificant. Its not exactly SIMS or World of Warcraft.

I have no doubt that humankind may well transcend its current incarnation at some point with the probability of artificial intelligence, and persistence that could lead to extreme longevity, but even then might never approach being able to create the above simulations.

You could also flip it in an infinite number of ways, so for example a cheaper simulation would be just one mind and all that it could perceive. Maybe none of us here on boards exist except as a figment of your constructed imagination, and that its all just you. If you don't think this is the case, maybe explain why not?

starshine1234 · 30-08-2016 05:36PM

I am confident that the average boards.ie user has failed to understand the argument. Many of the objections raised have no merit, although in fairness some do. Many of the objections indicate that the objector doesn't understand the argument.

The simulation argument is Nick Bostrums argument, it is not mine. Therefore, criticism should be directed at Nick, not at me. I may have mis-described his argument. If so, I apologise to Nick.

I don't intend any insult by saying what I've said above so I'll explain how I've used logic to reach my conclusions.

Nick's argument is accepted as having significant merit by philosophers, scientists and mathematicians.
The average boards.ie user doesn't accept the argument, and says it has no merit.

There are several observations or conclusions we can draw from the above facts.

Either.
the average boards.ie user is actually a world class philosopher, mathematician or scientist.
OR
the average boards.ie user is wrong.

I know where I'd be putting my money.

smacl · 30-08-2016 05:52PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

Nick's argument is accepted as having significant merit by philosophers, scientists and mathematicians.

You keep leaving words out. Maybe "Nick's argument is accepted as having significant merit by some philosophers, scientists and mathematicians." It is similarly criticised and rejected by many. You also have to ask whether some or even many people believing something makes it true, because if this is the case, you've just become a Muslim

I know where I'd be putting my money.

I know a really nice guy from Nigeria who's actually a prince and offering great deals for investors such as yourself.

Pherekydes · 30-08-2016 05:57PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

I am confident that the average boards.ie user has failed to understand the argument.

Your categorical error is in assuming any average boardsies post in A&A.

Colour me skeptical that someone who believes that Islam should be banned also believes that we are all just part of a computer simulation.

I mean, why worry yourself about the nasty Jihadis? It's all just a computer program.

starshine1234 · 30-08-2016 06:16PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Your categorical error is in assuming any average boardsies post in A&A.

Colour me skeptical that someone who believes that Islam should be banned also believes that we are all just part of a computer simulation.

I mean, why worry yourself about the nasty Jihadis? It's all just a computer program.

It is still the only reality we have.

For example, you could say, what's the point?, I have no free will anyway as the universe is deterministic so I may as well kill myself.

Having read approx 15 of the scholarly articles and responses to Nicks argument I feel I understand it quite well.

I don't recall you interacting with me before. What's the point or relevance of your Islam comment?

starshine1234 · 30-08-2016 06:20PM

smacl wrote: »

. Maybe "Nick's argument is accepted as having significant merit by some philosophers, scientists and mathematicians." It is similarly criticised and rejected by many.

A person can disagree with an argument and still consider the argument to have significant merit.

Michael OBrien · 30-08-2016 06:20PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

I am confident that the average boards.ie user has failed to understand the argument. Many of the objections raised have no merit, although in fairness some do. Many of the objections indicate that the objector doesn't understand the argument.

The simulation argument is Nick Bostrums argument, it is not mine. Therefore, criticism should be directed at Nick, not at me. I may have mis-described his argument. If so, I apologise to Nick.

I don't intend any insult by saying what I've said above so I'll explain how I've used logic to reach my conclusions.

Nick's argument is accepted as having significant merit by philosophers, scientists and mathematicians.
The average boards.ie user doesn't accept the argument, and says it has no merit.

There are several observations or conclusions we can draw from the above facts.

Either.
the average boards.ie user is actually a world class philosopher, mathematician or scientist.
OR
the average boards.ie user is wrong.

I know where I'd be putting my money.

While I am not putting any criticism on you solely, you did bring it up and you support it. Any failure in your presentation to express it correctly ends with you.

There is a difference between accepting that an argument has merit and that it is true or likely true. You can have merit in saying the universe could be created 10 minutes ago with all the appearance of age and our memories. This is fully compatible with observed science and philosophically it is possible and has merit. It is not taken seriously as it is unprovable.

Also arguing that philosophers or scientists or playboys support an idea so that makes it valid is an argument from authority. A fallacy.

It is neither a consensus nor close to one.

starshine1234 · 30-08-2016 07:04PM

I have argued my points well. I am confident that many posters here fail to understand the subtletly of the argument.

Many posters are raising criticisms that 'aren't even wrong'.

In other words, if someone says 'the argument fails because of yellow unicorns', there is little that I, or anyone else, can say in response, except that the objection is 'not even wrong'.

There is a reason why many scientists accept that the simulation argument has merit. It is because it does have merit, and I agree with them.

I accept the conclusion is startling but so what, that makes no difference to its truth value.

My final attempt, and this is also very strong.
What will boardsies say if humans create simulated, artificial worlds which contain simulated artificial creatues?
That could happen in the near or medium near future.

At that stage both points 1 and points 2 will have been proven to be false. Nick's conclusion would then have to be accepted.

I will remind people that the conclusion is not that we DEFINITELY live in a simulated world; rather the conclusion is that it is EXTREMELY LIKELY that we live in a simulated world.

I would appreciate if people could actually engage with this argument and show me where it is wrong, or where it may be wrong.

The three points again for convenience. (one of which must be true).
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

One disclaimer.
Consciousness is very difficult or impossible to prove, even in other humans. Therefore, the simulation only has to contain simulation beings which can pass the turing test. If it walks like a duck...

Second disclaimer.
What does the Point 1 mean?
It doesn't mean humans who can fly or humans who can perform magic or telepathy. It simply means slightly more advanced humans than currently, who have access to artificial intelligence. Identical humans to today with access to artificial intelligence would be considered 'post human' for the purposes of the argument.

looksee · 30-08-2016 07:19PM

Where is Absolam when you need him?

However:

There is a reason why many scientists accept that the simulation argument has merit. It is because it does have merit, and I agree with them.

Isn't that a circular argument? That's a serious question, my head is a bit fried with these arguments.

The three points again for convenience. (one of which must be true).
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

Why does one of them have to be true? What happens if none of them is true?

starshine1234 · 30-08-2016 07:36PM

The first point has no merit. The argument is not proven by the fact that many scientists consider it to be proven. The argument is considered to be proven on the basis that it is a mathematical type argument and it follows the rules of logic and maths.

Second point.
The reason one of the three points is very likely to be true is because if there are a large number of simulated worlds, which contain a very large number of 'conscious' beings, then it is perfectly correct to say that if a 'conscious' being is chosen at random that that conscious being is very likely to exist in a simulation.

In other words, if there are huge numbers of artificial worlds, and only one real world, then it is very likely that a world chosen at random would be an artificial world.
We are in a world chosen at random.

looksee · 30-08-2016 09:02PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

In other words, if there are huge numbers of artificial worlds, and only one real world, then it is very likely that a world chosen at random would be an artificial world.
We are in a world chosen at random.

But if there are not huge (or even small) numbers of artificial worlds and only one real world then it is certain that a world chosen at random would be the real one. Why would 'if there are' take precedence over 'if there are not', especially given that we have no evidence that there are artificial worlds?

If this is a pure maths discussion disguised as religion it might be better to take it to the maths forum.

starshine1234 · 30-08-2016 09:09PM

looksee wrote: »

But if there are not huge (or even small) numbers of artificial worlds and only one real world then it is certain that a world chosen at random would be the real one. Why would 'if there are' take precedence over 'if there are not', especially given that we have no evidence that there are artificial worlds?

If this is a pure maths discussion disguised as religion it might be better to take it to the maths forum.

I'm not intending to be insulting by saying this but that is either incoherent or simply wrong. Or perhaps, 'not even wrong'.

In any event, I don't follow your argument.

What would you say if humans created artificial worlds populated by artificial creatures?
Do you say that is impossible?

If you don't say that's impossible then you concede the point that artificial creatues can exist.

If artificial creatues can exist then you must concede the possibility that you may be one yourself.

If there are 100 trillion artificial creatues, and only 10 billion 'real' humans, then it's 10,000 to 1 that a creature chosen at random would be real.
Do you like those odds?

Pherekydes · 30-08-2016 09:20PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

I'm not intending to be insulting by saying this but that is either incoherent or simply wrong. Or perhaps, 'not even wrong'.

Funny. We hear these types of arguments from defenders of religions on a regular basis.

"It's a [funny] statistical argument and you're too stupid/unintelligent to understand it."

According to your argument, there's a 1 in 300 million chance that I'm not one of my own sperm.

Or there's an astronomically small chance that I'm not just a bacterium.

Because like there's more of them.

starshine1234 · 30-08-2016 09:22PM

Of course I never said anything like

"It's a [funny] statistical argument and you're too stupid/unintelligent to understand it."

Very unfair to suggest I did.

Pherekydes · 30-08-2016 09:42PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

Of course I never said anything like

"It's a [funny] statistical argument and you're too stupid/unintelligent to understand it."

Very unfair to suggest I did.

No, as I said, it's a type of argument frequently seen from defenders of religion.

But, yet...

starshine1234 wrote: »

You are simply wrong on this. I suspect you have failed to note the subtletly of the construction.

starshine1234 wrote: »

I am confident that the average boards.ie user has failed to understand the argument.

starshine1234 wrote: »

I have argued my points well. I am confident that many posters here fail to understand the subtletly of the argument.

Many posters are raising criticisms that 'aren't even wrong'.

starshine1234 wrote: »

I'm not intending to be insulting by saying this but that is either incoherent or simply wrong. Or perhaps, 'not even wrong'.

starshine1234 · 30-08-2016 09:51PM

I stand by all of those comments.

It's not fair to quotemine many posts to try to present a picture that I'm some sort of argumentative weirdo.

I would never say 'you are too stupid to understand..'

Please address the points I have made if you wish to. At the moment you are clearly attacking the messenger and you haven't made a single point against my thesis or arguments.

looksee · 30-08-2016 09:58PM

Well I will readily admit that by some standards I am too stupid to understand the argument. On the whole I am grateful for this particular lack of understanding.

starshine1234 · 30-08-2016 10:03PM

That is unlikely to be true.

If humans create artificial life in machines then artifical life is possible.

If artificial life is possible then you or I could be artificial.

If there are huge numbers of artifical beings, and a much smaller number of 'real' beings, then it stands to reason that a creature chosen at random would be overwhelmingly likely to be artificial.

Therefore, you or I would be overwhelmingly likely to be artificial.

Nick Bostrum's argument is a much stronger version of that.

looksee · 31-08-2016 12:31AM

starshine1234 wrote: »

That is unlikely to be true.

If humans create artificial life in machines then artifical life is possible.

hmm, ok

If artificial life is possible then you or I could be artificial.

Not unless you have invented time travel as well

If there are huge numbers of artifical beings, and a much smaller number of 'real' beings, then it stands to reason that a creature chosen at random would be overwhelmingly likely to be artificial.

There are too many 'if's in this argument, and you have just done a leap from 'artificial life' to 'artificial beings'.

Therefore, you or I would be overwhelmingly likely to be artificial.

No, see above.

Nick Bostrum's argument is a much stronger version of that.

It would really need to be.

starshine1234 · 31-08-2016 12:41AM

Your second point contains an error. Therefore, all subsequent points can't be relied upon.

I had said
If artificial life is possible then you or I could be artificial.

Your reply.
Not unless you have invented time travel as well

That reply is not valid.

My point is that artificial life is possible. If that is correct then it does follow, completely logically and unassailably, that you or I could be artificial.

Time travel is not required.
I didn't say that humans had created either you or I. If artificial life is possible, then you or I, being life, could be artificial.

My point is entirely correct.
Your conclusion is false.

My language may appear stark but I am merely presenting my argument. I don't intend to be insulting or dismissive.

unfortunately · 31-08-2016 12:53AM

I agree with the sentiment that people are raising objections which show that they don't grasp the argument (references to time travel).

The argument is essentially that if you think it's likely that in the future we will have the ability to run countless highly advanced simulations of our history, then it's probable that we are in one of the countless simulations rather than the "real" reality (because there are exceedingly many more simulated realities)

If you think that technology is impossible, or that we wouldn't run innumerable simulations then you've got nothing to worry about.

starshine1234 · 31-08-2016 01:08AM

looksee wrote: »

There are too many 'if's in this argument, and you have just done a leap from 'artificial life' to 'artificial beings'.

I consider that 'artificial life' and 'artificial beings' are synonymous. My intention was that they would be understood to be the same thing.

Why would you think they are different?

smacl · 31-08-2016 09:02AM

unfortunately wrote: »

The argument is essentially that if you think it's likely that in the future we will have the ability to run countless highly advanced simulations of our history, then it's probable that we are in one of the countless simulations rather than the "real" reality (because there are exceedingly many more simulated realities)

But as has been pointed out, the same argument can be used to justify any piece of fantasy you care to imagine on the basis you have infinity as the denominator on one side of an equation. For example we are equally as likely to have been created by God or be living in the Farnsworth parabox. The fact is there are an infinite number of such fantasy propositions that must be true because they could possibly be true, that all directly contradict one another, means we now have infinity as a factor on both numerator and denominator sides of or equation.

Those holding this proposition true are doing so on the basis it has a probability of the order 1/∞ , but on inspection it is actually ∞/∞ which is undefined.

To those who suggest some of us don't grasp the argument, I would suggest they don't grasp the mathematics.

looksee · 31-08-2016 09:04AM

I am only mistaken if I accede that we are engaged in a philosophical discussion using arguments that have mostly been debunked, and omitting empirical evidence. I have not agreed to this and if you wish to use the musings of ancient Greeks to prove your points I suggest you go and do it in Philosophy.

seamus · 31-08-2016 09:08AM

unfortunately wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment that people are raising objections which show that they don't grasp the argument (references to time travel).

The argument is essentially that if you think it's likely that in the future we will have the ability to run countless highly advanced simulations of our history, then it's probable that we are in one of the countless simulations rather than the "real" reality (because there are exceedingly many more simulated realities)

If you think that technology is impossible, or that we wouldn't run innumerable simulations then you've got nothing to worry about.

I guess the issue is the pushing the theory as anything more than philosophical musings. That it holds some level of scientific backing.

It's a bit like the discussion of the Drake equation, particularly when talking about the Fermi paradox. The equation appears to be scientific and well constructed, but the variables are all functionally unprovable quantities. Every value output by Drake's equation is "correct" and rational, if the numbers used as input are correct.

Likewise, the "output" of this theory is "correct" and "rational" if and only if the conditional inputs are also correct.

As the inputs are unprovable speculation, then the output is just a thought experiment.

looksee · 31-08-2016 09:10AM

starshine1234 wrote: »

I consider that 'artificial life' and 'artificial beings' are synonymous. My intention was that they would be understood to be the same thing.

Why would you think they are different?

Artificial life could be an amoeba, a being has to be more complex than that. Whether or not I am a simulation, I am pretty sure I am not an amoeba.

And all this is irrelevant anyway, even if we accept that we could be simulations it does not go any way towards demonstrating an afterlife. Afterlive - you know, after life has finished, not in an alternate life.

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-08-2016 09:12AM

seamus wrote: »

As the inputs are unprovable speculation, then the output is just a thought experiment.

Indeed and subjectively this is very powerful.

When you postulate an unsubstantiated X people will look at it and realize it lacks credibility.

If however you present X as being supported by equally unsubstantiated Y and Z........ and merely ask the listener to consider X in the light of Y and Z being true......... then objectively nothing has changed in what you are presenting..... X remains entirely unsubstantiated in any way........ but subjectively to many people X now becomes decidedly more credible.

Sometimes to the point that they become emotionally invested in X being treated with the credibility they feel it is due.

Peregrinus · 31-08-2016 09:19AM

looksee wrote: »

Artificial life could be an amoeba, a being has to be more complex than that.

Why? If anything, surely it's the other way around? All a "being" has do to is, well, just be. Anything that exists is a "being". An amoeba is certainly a being.

looksee wrote: »

And all this is irrelevant anyway, even if we accept that we could be simulations it does not go any way towards demonstrating an afterlife. Afterlive - you know, after life has finished, not in an alternate life.

If we think "afterlife" means "after all life" then, whatever an afterlife it, it isn't any kind of life, since that would be a contradiction in terms.

But that isn't what "afterlife" normally means. It normally refers to a life after the present life.

If we're simulations, then an afterlife (in the sense of a life after the present life) is certainly possible. The operator just runs the simulation a second time. Viola! An afterlife!

Hotblack Desiato · 31-08-2016 09:30AM

starshine1234 wrote: »

An afterlife is entirley possible, entirely consistent with science and mathemathics, and entirely rational to believe in.

It is completely irrational to believe in something which has absolutely no evidence for it just because it is possible.

Any non-falsifiable argument is possible to be true. Religions (at least, the ones which survive and evolve successfully over time) are very carefully constructed to be entirely non-falsifiable.

The maths and science here is so strong that it basically requires you to believe in it.

Maths and science cannot require you to "believe" in anything unsupported by evidence. We hit a problem with the English language here as it uses the same word in two different senses. "Belief" in an observable phenomenon described by physical laws isn't the same as belief in a god. Or a belief in an unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific hypothesis.

And even if true (but how could we ever know?) anything outside our observable universe is wholly irrelevant to us. Same as the "infinite number of universes in the next dimension" idea. So what if it is true.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For the simulation argument to support the idea of an after life..... there would have to be some method by which the simulation survives without the simulator. So anyone using the Simulation Argument as evidence for an after life is STILL at square one in the same way as anyone not using the Simulation Argument..... for essentially all the same reasons.

This.

starshine1234 wrote: »

Nick's argument is accepted as having significant merit by philosophers, scientists and mathematicians.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

This is no better than saying that some scientists, philosophers and mathematicians believe in god and they are smart guys, so god must be true.

Atheism and the Afterlife

Comments