which should win?

[MorpheusSandman]

People saying, "There are a lot of things and someone had to make all this," just leads to the question: who or what created the god you want to believe in? And what created that? Something HAD to have, right?

Good post on the matter: http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/

I meant no offense earlier by being frank. I respect everyone on Litnet. I don't feel the need to respect what is, in my experience, utter nonsense, but that doesn't have to be an impetus to discord here.

Just for the record, I'm an atheist, but I don't like when someone says "there have been studies done," but then when someone asks what the studies are that person says "go check Google." It makes the former statement seem like a lazy attempt at authority, so just keep that in mind in the future.

It's good advice!

Well, yeah, in general; but not after a person has claimed that there are studies. One would expect they'd know what studies they're referring to.

Oh come on, it's the web! There are reams of stuff on every speculation you can think of. This one even has a domain name:

Right, there are "reams of stuff on every speculation," but studies requires more than just speculation, they require some kind of tangible data. I'll look through the site later, but I'll be very curious as to how they get around the conjunction fallacy (the mathematical argument I was referring to). A simple version would be this: Either we're living in reality, or we're living in a simulation inside reality. Since the former probability is contained inside the latter, it is automatically more likely. The latter has to suppose that not only is there reality, but that there is another intelligence species that reached a stage where they could create computer simulations and did and that we are the result of those choices. Expressed in language, perhaps that doesn't sound far-fetched, but you have to compound a lot of probabilities making it more and more unlikely with each necessary element you apply (the probability of an above-human intelligence arising, the probability of this intelligence creating reality-reproducing simulation technology, the probability of them deciding to do this, the probability that they don't wipe themselves out before all of that happens, etc.), which makes it far more complicated than just "we're in reality." I doubt we even know yet what such a simulation would entail, technology wise, or if there are even enough resources in our own reality to reproduce them.

That would put the simulation theories in conflict with quantum mechanics.

Litnet needs a facepalm smiley.

[cacian]

Like Santa, it is kid stuff. Unfortunately, unlike Santa, it tends to involve kids with real guns. It's big stuff for anti-terrorist squads, but kid stuff for cosmologists.

that is not the way I see it. kids don't play withguns. adults do. let's put that into prospective. kids play with toys and adults with guns.

[mal4mac]

Right, there are "reams of stuff on every speculation," but studies requires more than just speculation, they require some kind of tangible data.

To be worth a Nobel prize they do, but there are studies on string theory, interpretations of quantum mechanics, exotic cosmologies, etc., that involve little if any tangible data. Are they any worse than good science fiction stories?

Either we're living in reality, or we're living in a simulation inside reality. Since the former probability is contained inside the latter, it is automatically more likely. The latter has to suppose that not only is there reality, but that there is another intelligence species that reached a stage where they could create computer simulations and did and that we are the result of those choices. Expressed in language, perhaps that doesn't sound far-fetched, but you have to compound a lot of probabilities making it more and more unlikely with each necessary element you apply

Good points, probably arguments that grant awarding bodies will use to put this speculation on the most distant back-burner. It's an area that young physicists without tenure should avoid! But I like it better than the God speculation, as the creators are at least "limited", like us humans, so we don't have to bring all sorts of other stuff like omnipotence, omniscience, etc, for which there is no evidence, and (again) compound the probabilities.

The biggest problem is that, if we accept the simulation speculation, we still need to find out who created the simulators, or is it simulations all the way down?

[MorpheusSandman]

To be worth a Nobel prize they do, but there are studies on string theory, interpretations of quantum mechanics, exotic cosmologies, etc., that involve little if any tangible data. Are they any worse than good science fiction stories?

I guess it depends on what we mean by "studies." I see "studies" as the gathering of data, facts, and the interpretation of that data. If there's no gathering and no data, where was the "study"? Otherwise, it's just an argument, or speculation, or an interpretation, or even an hypothesis, but I wouldn't call it a study. So I'd expect a "study" on a simulation universe to produce some factual data to argue for the hypothesis; it was that data that I doubted existed.

The biggest problem is that, if we accept the simulation speculation, we still need to find out who created the simulators, or is it simulations all the way down?

I see what you did there, LOL. Seriously though, the problem of infinite regress exists in all of science, of always being able to ask "why" to any answer. Eventually, I think it has to get to a point where something was always there. I think that something is likely quantum fields, or other things that can, of their own nature, give rise to matter and spacetime. It's just difficult for us to imagine anything existing "beyond" time and space.

[mal4mac]

I guess it depends on what we mean by "studies." I see "studies" as the gathering of data, facts, and the interpretation of that data... I'd expect a "study" on a simulation universe to produce some factual data to argue for the hypothesis; it was that data that I doubted existed.

I think your definition of "study" is too narrow. What you are describing are "proper scientific studies", the ones that garner Noble prizes, or at least government funding, but you have to allow for more speculative studies. It doesn't seem wrong to say, "Barrow has studied the simulation hypothesis, and, although he finds it highly speculative, doesn't dismiss it out of hand." I think scientists, especially young scientists, should pursue "proper scientific studies" 95% of the time, but a little speculation is fun, if nothing else. So if Barrow, and his ilk, want to spend a few hours a week studying the idea of a simulated universe, in their spare time, they shouldn't be shot down for doing it. Who knows, one of these million-to-one chance speculations might lead somewhere.

[MorpheusSandman]

That's a fair enough point. My mind just went to "proper scientific studies" when Varenne mentioned studies on simulation universes.

[Methexis]

First off, thanks for your reply. It's always good to see a discussion going. I'm a little confused by your first argument though, as you seem to be implying (by asking who I am) that there are people with the authority to discuss (maybe even decide) this, but I'm not one of them, while from my point of view, anyone who can justify his opinion by means of reasoning is entitled to one. That aside, you've sort of misunderstood the essence of the argument (that it's not a common focus amongst scientists), I guess that happens. I just thought it was kind of funny to find your sort of reaction on a forum thread that asks specifically after people's opinion on a subject. It seems kind of off. Second, I don't see the point of regarding all believers, regardless of what they believe in, as naive, dangerous, or in dire need of scientific disproof of their beliefs. I'm not a believer myself, but I can see there's a value to it, in some cases. If Darwin, after having experienced his voyage on the Beatle, hadn't believed (for there was really rather little proof of it at that point, just some indications of movement amongst the tetonic plates) that the earth was in fact older than 6000 years, he might never have gotten to writing his opus magnum. Belief often precedes scientific or rational proof. That being said, not believing in global warming has some actual consequences while believing in god to most people is limited to a personal choice. In sum, to oppose irrationality is a noble enough goal, and the responsibility of any philosophically minded person (obviously, not just scientists), which means that whether god exists or not is as much of an issue to me as to a believer, as there is no evidence towards the contrary. I'm not sure in how much detail I want to go here, as this whole debate seems to miss the initial point of this threat. You're absolutely right about the god particle though, that was a poor example.

Who are you to say how most scientists should spend their spare time? No government will fund most scientists to do this, so its only ever going to be a spare time activity for most. Campaigning against irrationality seems a worthy way of spending ones spare time.



The opponents of the idea of global warming are just like Christian believers in ignoring the evidence. They believe there is no global warming so they can can carry on gobbling up the Earth's resources without feeling guilty. Why shouldn't they believe without knowing? Christians do it all the time. There are many crank doctors out there pushing quack medicine that, again, go against the scientific evidence. Why shouldn't they believe in the quack medicine? You don't need to to know, belief is enough, Christians have shown this.

To oppose irrationality in the pursuit of religious belief is to encourage rational thought in general, and to attack the basis on which irrationality holds sway in other areas.



The "God particle", the Higgs boson, has nothing to do with God, here "God" is used as a metaphor for "of central importance", it's like describing Alexander the Great as "a God amongst men". There is no "whatnot" in which scientists try to find God, unless you want to extend the title of scientist to include Biblical scholars who look for evidence of God in biblical texts (and have found no good evidence.)

[Vota]

Science or religion? Hmm. I read somewhere inside an intro to ethics book sitting on my shelf, that Existentialism makes the claim that reason is an inadequate means for formulating morals because it does not account for desire. At this moment in time I feel that reason is subservient to desire and passion because desire and passion provide the impetus for action or reasoning. We do things because we desire to do them. We WANT things. One can make the case that we do things that we don't want to do, but I think in most of those cases you could make the counter argument that you only do them because you do not want to suffer the consequences of not doing them. Many people work, doing a job they don't have passion for and do not desire to do, but they do them anyway because reason says that if they don't then there will be negative consequences. The thing is though, reason makes a great case, but desire tramples over reason ALL the time. Love is a good example. Faith is another. The desire and passion for love will make people do completely unreasonable things and even cause them to make up reasons to support these irrational actions. The stronger the desire or passion, the more likely it is to over-ride reason.

Science is all about reason, and thanks to applied science we enjoy all the technological marvels we currently have and use on a daily basis, but reason has a hard time dealing with emotions, consciousness, morality, faith, life, death, God etc.

I guess my point is that science may never be able to adequately explain everything. Maybe it will. AI/robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology are all exponentially progressing so maybe science will have ALL the answers some day, but at the moment it doesn't, and I think for that reason alone, both science and religion should exist. If one day science can answer all the questions and finds religion little more than myth making then religion should be abolished because at that point it is a demonstrable impediment to the progress of humankind, but until then can't we all just get along?

[glennr25]

Science or religion? Hmm. I read somewhere inside an intro to ethics book sitting on my shelf, that Existentialism makes the claim that reason is an inadequate means for formulating morals because it does not account for desire. At this moment in time I feel that reason is subservient to desire and passion because desire and passion provide the impetus for action or reasoning. We do things because we desire to do them. We WANT things. One can make the case that we do things that we don't want to do, but I think in most of those cases you could make the counter argument that you only do them because you do not want to suffer the consequences of not doing them. Many people work, doing a job they don't have passion for and do not desire to do, but they do them anyway because reason says that if they don't then there will be negative consequences. The thing is though, reason makes a great case, but desire tramples over reason ALL the time. Love is a good example. Faith is another. The desire and passion for love will make people do completely unreasonable things and even cause them to make up reasons to support these irrational actions. The stronger the desire or passion, the more likely it is to over-ride reason.

Science is all about reason, and thanks to applied science we enjoy all the technological marvels we currently have and use on a daily basis, but reason has a hard time dealing with emotions, consciousness, morality, faith, life, death, God etc.

I guess my point is that science may never be able to adequately explain everything. Maybe it will. AI/robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology are all exponentially progressing so maybe science will have ALL the answers some day, but at the moment it doesn't, and I think for that reason alone, both science and religion should exist. If one day science can answer all the questions and finds religion little more than myth making then it should be abolished because at that point it is a demonstrable impediment to the progress of humankind, but until then can't we all just get along?

You hit it on the nail, Vota. Bravo. This is exactly what I've been telling people in both camps. Both science and religion operate on boundaries. On the one hand scientists can only really know as far as their data and theories tell them. Aristotle thought the Earth was the center of the universe, it was later disproved by another popular scientist, Galileo. But then Galileo thought comets were optical illusions, and that there was no way the moon could cause the ocean's tides, of course, his theory was later disproved by another well known scientist, Isaac Newton, who, mind you, would later die eating mercury. On the other hand you have religious leaders trying to tell you exactly when Jesus was born, and that they found his coffin in some cave somewhere in the Middle East.

Point is both science and religion operate on faith. Each side tries to convince the masses that what they say is the truth and nothing but the truth. Nobody here has seen any of the data that scientists dig up in their research, same as nobody's actually seen God. Nobody will ever win as long as both sides remain in their shells.

[MorpheusSandman]

At this moment in time I feel that reason is subservient to desire and passion because desire and passion provide the impetus for action or reasoning. We do things because we desire to do them. We WANT things.

One famous philosopher said (I forget who): "We can choose what we will, but we can't will what we will." A great many have discussed how most "reason" is really just rationalization for unconscious desires and passions. That's one of the reasons for the more rigorous forms of logical studies out there, to try and make sure that the conclusions we come to aren't clouded by irrational biases based on desires.

[Varenne Rodin]

Good post on the matter: http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/

Just for the record, I'm an atheist, but I don't like when someone says "there have been studies done," but then when someone asks what the studies are that person says "go check Google." It makes the former statement seem like a lazy attempt at authority, so just keep that in mind in the future.

Well, yeah, in general; but not after a person has claimed that there are studies. One would expect they'd know what studies they're referring to.

Right, there are "reams of stuff on every speculation," but studies requires more than just speculation, they require some kind of tangible data. I'll look through the site later, but I'll be very curious as to how they get around the conjunction fallacy (the mathematical argument I was referring to). A simple version would be this: Either we're living in reality, or we're living in a simulation inside reality. Since the former probability is contained inside the latter, it is automatically more likely. The latter has to suppose that not only is there reality, but that there is another intelligence species that reached a stage where they could create computer simulations and did and that we are the result of those choices. Expressed in language, perhaps that doesn't sound far-fetched, but you have to compound a lot of probabilities making it more and more unlikely with each necessary element you apply (the probability of an above-human intelligence arising, the probability of this intelligence creating reality-reproducing simulation technology, the probability of them deciding to do this, the probability that they don't wipe themselves out before all of that happens, etc.), which makes it far more complicated than just "we're in reality." I doubt we even know yet what such a simulation would entail, technology wise, or if there are even enough resources in our own reality to reproduce them.

Litnet needs a facepalm smiley.

I wasn't arguing that the universe is a simulation. If I had been, I might have felt less lazy about educating everyone on the theory. It was beside the point. I won't restate the point. You decided to remove context. Could I have provided links? Sure. Did I care to? Eh. Not really. Criticism accepted.