173 replies to this topic

[exapted]

Thanks exapted, I've been meaning to read that book for awhile, where that overman, poison makers quote came from. I'm a bit behind in my readings so haven't gotten around to it. I mentioned the left brain dominated education because it seems that if one wants, one can construct just as many hypothesis for the existence of a god, as for without one. It's a game of creativity, connecting reality with story telling and mythos formation. The omega point theory is also extremely cool, I've had a feeling awhile ago that this point existed. I've always constructed my own omega point, as life seems to be best surrounded by progress and mental exercises.

I got the name of the god hypothesis book wrong. Actually it is called God, The Failed Hypothesis. And Breaking The Spell is really interesting. There is a really interesting section on shamanism and hypnotism.

I will say that creativity can go both ways. My view is that if a theistic god can increase the number of possible universes (a higher order of infinity), then some random fluctuation like a Boltzmann brain could do exactly the same thing.

I am also an agnostic, but I have two ideas:
[1] I would bet there is no god, based on the limited information I have, and
[2] Christianity breeds weariness.

But I don't think everyone should be atheist. My point is that people need to deal with the above two ideas in an open manner. I don't think most religions are able to do so.

I'm agnostic myself, but the main reason I defend theism is because some of its teaching represent a culimination of the merger of health and religious thought. Much like the experiments being done on buddhist monks to see what they've been able to develop in terms of control over the brain. I think there can be a very positive relationship between science and religion, rather than allowing science to become the anti-thesis of religion and vice versa. I am reading a book called mega brain about mind machines for instance, and one of the neuroscientists mentioned how much he hated the new age quackery yet whenever he spoke of the prospects of the brain he couldn't help but feeling like he was one of them. The reason i mention this is because stigma affects funding as does whether something works or not. I'd prefer humanity explore as many avenues as possible, rather than creating a funnel.

Btw that observation as far as asian thought is rather interesting. Which areas did you visit that seemed to have a higher acceptance of monism rather than dualism (mind-body)?

I don't really have any criticism of your views. And I think as a thought experiment we should all suspend disbelief sometimes, as a creative process. God is a wonderful thought experiment.

And I lived in Hong Kong for some years and Guangdong for some months. Most of the people I asked were not mind body dualists. A few seemed to associate electrophysiology with the idea of an inner energy. There were also a significant number of Christians, but they were the minority.

[Shannon Vyff]

This is in fact a very interesting thread, I should come post some Unitarian Universalist thought (basically that would be extrapolating the wisdom of other religions, proposing acceptance and respect for Earth etc.) on Sunday, since here in England I have no UU church community like I had back in Austin for the past five years before I moved here two months ago

[Connor MacLeod]

Most atheists are Bayesian. You totally set up a straw-man.

This is the first time I've ever heard Bayesian used in this manner. There's already far too much confusion surrounding that term. What's wrong with the word agnostic?

[exapted]

Most atheists are Bayesian. You totally set up a straw-man.

This is the first time I've ever heard Bayesian used in this manner. There's already far too much confusion surrounding that term. What's wrong with the word agnostic?

I don't want to commit to the idea that metaphysical claims are particularly unknowable. I don't think science or logic has any particular purview, and I think we could know that there is no god, potentially. By Bayesian I mean that I make determinations based on probabilities. I try to think like a Bayesian updater. Maybe it is not accurate to say that most atheists are bayesians.

When I'm evaluating the god hypothesis, multiverse hypotheses, etc., I consider what my prior probabilities might be, and see whether the evidence raises or lowers my credence in those hypotheses.

Edited by exapted, 31 October 2009 - 07:08 AM.

[Connor MacLeod]

Most atheists are Bayesian. You totally set up a straw-man.

This is the first time I've ever heard Bayesian used in this manner. There's already far too much confusion surrounding that term. What's wrong with the word agnostic?

I don't want to commit to the idea that metaphysical claims are particularly unknowable. I don't think science or logic has any particular purview, and I think we could know that there is no god, potentially. By Bayesian I mean that I make determinations based on probabilities. I try to think like a Bayesian updater.

You must be the life of the party...

Maybe it is not accurate to say that most atheists are bayesians.

Yeah, I don't think that is accurate. Most people, likely including the majority of atheists, don't even know what Bayes' rule is -- not to say that it is a particularly difficult concept.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 31 October 2009 - 07:59 AM.

[exapted]

Most atheists are Bayesian. You totally set up a straw-man.

This is the first time I've ever heard Bayesian used in this manner. There's already far too much confusion surrounding that term. What's wrong with the word agnostic?

I don't want to commit to the idea that metaphysical claims are particularly unknowable. I don't think science or logic has any particular purview, and I think we could know that there is no god, potentially. By Bayesian I mean that I make determinations based on probabilities. I try to think like a Bayesian updater.

You must be the life of the party...

Maybe it is not accurate to say that most atheists are bayesians.

Yeah, I don't think that is accurate. Most people, likely including the majority of atheists, don't even know what Bayes' rule is -- not to say that it is a particularly difficult concept.

I always thought the historical "clean sweep" that Nietzsche talked about was sort of bayesian. I always thought what most atheists meant by "agnostic" was that proving a proposition to be 100% true is sort of.... difficult.

Historical refutation as the definitive refutation.-- In former times, one sought to prove that there is no God - today one indicates how the belief that there is a God arose and how this belief acquired its weight and importance: a counter-proof that there is no God thereby becomes superfluous.- When in former times one had refuted the 'proofs of the existence of God' put forward, there always remained the doubt whether better proofs might not be adduced than those just refuted: in those days atheists did not know how to make a clean sweep.

from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 95, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

That seems bayesian to me.

But you're right agnostic is perhaps a more familiar term. Still, I feel that agnosticism implies that there is some sort of purview of science - that science does not encroach on religion - which I disagree with.

[exapted]

You must be the life of the party...

Yes when I am partying I occasionally get my prior probabilities right. That usually results in fun. LOL

[Cameron]

It's the "god of the gaps".

What's wrong with that?

Actually my point was that, in order to evaluate religious claims, we need a set of claims to evaluate in the first place. They have to be specific claims, and by that I mean claims that have consequences such that they are falsifiable or clearly philosophically relevant.

To be a believer and admit that your god is a "god of the gaps" is to suggest that your beliefs are defined according to whatever science hasn't figured out. If I have a prior probability for theism based on the idea that, hey, theism is a plausible idea, then I discover that my prior probability is inspired by "whatever science hasn't happened to figure out by now", that lowers my credence in the god hypothesis.

Also it just seems a poor strategy to let your beliefs be defined by "the gaps".

I'm a theist myself. There are reasons why I consider the existence of God(s) extremely likely*(even if there is no influence upon this world.). For example suppose we were to look in the infinite sequence of possible binary numbers*(As it can be proven that there is no greatest number, and the sequence is infinite.), in that sequence lies the various memory states X computer(say a pentium iv pc.) would generate simulating godlike ais of ever greater capacities along with their simulated universes(They would even appear later on, in correct sequence as parts of an even larger binary number.). That is conceivably all the states simply exist and the relationship between said states also simply exists(that is if one checks, they do correspond to sequences of a godlike-being+simulation on X computer.).

Now there is something that would actually cause me to greatly doubt the existence of god(s). If it was proven, beyond doubt, that no possible intelligent entity|mind can scale beyond a certain point of complexity|capacity. That would certainly put a limit on what sort of godlike beings could exist, and would almost be a proof against the existence of God. If it was proven that intelligent entities|minds can scale indefinitely in capacity, that would be evidence in favor of the possibility of God existing*(Of course it would only be suggestive of the possibility, not definitive.).

Edited by Cameron, 01 November 2009 - 06:18 AM.

[Connor MacLeod]

I always thought the historical "clean sweep" that Nietzsche talked about was sort of bayesian. I always thought what most atheists meant by "agnostic" was that proving a proposition to be 100% true is sort of.... difficult.

Historical refutation as the definitive refutation.-- In former times, one sought to prove that there is no God - today one indicates how the belief that there is a God arose and how this belief acquired its weight and importance: a counter-proof that there is no God thereby becomes superfluous.- When in former times one had refuted the 'proofs of the existence of God' put forward, there always remained the doubt whether better proofs might not be adduced than those just refuted: in those days atheists did not know how to make a clean sweep.

from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 95, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

That seems bayesian to me.

The "clean sweep", at least what I can glean from the passage you provided, doesn't appear to me to have anything to do with Bayesian reasoning.

[Connor MacLeod]

It's the "god of the gaps".

What's wrong with that?

Actually my point was that, in order to evaluate religious claims, we need a set of claims to evaluate in the first place. They have to be specific claims, and by that I mean claims that have consequences such that they are falsifiable or clearly philosophically relevant.

To be a believer and admit that your god is a "god of the gaps" is to suggest that your beliefs are defined according to whatever science hasn't figured out. If I have a prior probability for theism based on the idea that, hey, theism is a plausible idea, then I discover that my prior probability is inspired by "whatever science hasn't happened to figure out by now", that lowers my credence in the god hypothesis.

Also it just seems a poor strategy to let your beliefs be defined by "the gaps".

I'm a theist myself. There are reasons why I consider the existence of God(s) extremely likely*(even if there is no influence upon this world.). For example suppose we were to look in the infinite sequence of possible binary numbers*(As it can be proven that there is no greatest number, and the sequence is infinite.), in that sequence lies the various memory states X computer(say a pentium iv pc.) would generate simulating godlike ais of ever greater capacities along with their simulated universes(They would even appear later on, in correct sequence as parts of an even larger binary number.). That is conceivably all the states simply exist and the relationship between said states also simply exists(that is if one checks, they do correspond to sequences of a godlike-being+simulation on X computer.).

Now there is something that would actually cause me to greatly doubt the existence of god(s). If it was proven, beyond doubt, that no possible intelligent entity|mind can scale beyond a certain point of complexity|capacity. That would certainly put a limit on what sort of godlike beings could exist, and would almost be a proof against the existence of God. If it was proven that intelligent entities|minds can scale indefinitely in capacity, that would be evidence in favor of the possibility of God existing*(Of course it would only be suggestive of the possibility, not definitive.).

I believe in God because we're friends.

[exapted]

I always thought the historical "clean sweep" that Nietzsche talked about was sort of bayesian. I always thought what most atheists meant by "agnostic" was that proving a proposition to be 100% true is sort of.... difficult.

Historical refutation as the definitive refutation.-- In former times, one sought to prove that there is no God - today one indicates how the belief that there is a God arose and how this belief acquired its weight and importance: a counter-proof that there is no God thereby becomes superfluous.- When in former times one had refuted the 'proofs of the existence of God' put forward, there always remained the doubt whether better proofs might not be adduced than those just refuted: in those days atheists did not know how to make a clean sweep.

from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 95, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

That seems bayesian to me.

The "clean sweep", at least what I can glean from the passage you provided, doesn't appear to me to have anything to do with Bayesian reasoning.

To me the "clean sweep" says: Start with your prior probability for the god hypothesis, then go get some data to update your probability assignment for the god hypothesis proposition. If the god proposition is true, then the genealogy of religion should reveal a divine or empirically supported logical origin of theism. The "clean sweep" is when we have evidence that explains theism as an idea entirely inspired by history in a way that is not divine and not resulting from empirically warranted logic.

What's left is the fine tuning of the universe, but that should only increase your credence in the god hypothesis if you already had a non-negligible prior probability for the god hypothesis. But if you agree with the "clean sweep" idea you might assign the god hypothesis a negligible prior probability.

But I'll agree that perhaps the "clean sweep" could also be viewed as an application of Occam's Razor. However I'm not sure if atheism is simpler than the god hypothesis, that's hard to say.

Edited by exapted, 01 November 2009 - 07:58 AM.

[exapted]

It's the "god of the gaps".

What's wrong with that?

Actually my point was that, in order to evaluate religious claims, we need a set of claims to evaluate in the first place. They have to be specific claims, and by that I mean claims that have consequences such that they are falsifiable or clearly philosophically relevant.

To be a believer and admit that your god is a "god of the gaps" is to suggest that your beliefs are defined according to whatever science hasn't figured out. If I have a prior probability for theism based on the idea that, hey, theism is a plausible idea, then I discover that my prior probability is inspired by "whatever science hasn't happened to figure out by now", that lowers my credence in the god hypothesis.

Also it just seems a poor strategy to let your beliefs be defined by "the gaps".

I'm a theist myself. There are reasons why I consider the existence of God(s) extremely likely*(even if there is no influence upon this world.). For example suppose we were to look in the infinite sequence of possible binary numbers*(As it can be proven that there is no greatest number, and the sequence is infinite.), in that sequence lies the various memory states X computer(say a pentium iv pc.) would generate simulating godlike ais of ever greater capacities along with their simulated universes(They would even appear later on, in correct sequence as parts of an even larger binary number.). That is conceivably all the states simply exist and the relationship between said states also simply exists(that is if one checks, they do correspond to sequences of a godlike-being+simulation on X computer.).

Couldn't the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and/or inflation theory explain how our world is "computed"? I understand that the complexity of our world cries out for further explanation, but I am not sure why a creator-mind would explain it best.

Here is something I posted once on another forum which doesn't really reach any conclusions but perhaps it will be thought provoking (or not?). It neither agrees nor disagrees with what you are saying. It is my attempt at anthropic reasoning:
Something that would fit our definition of intelligence is at least more likely to have the same view of the purpose of intelligence as us than anything that would not fit our definition of intelligence. This is not a fallacy but is a sort of "self-fulfilling prophecy".

There is likely to be convergence to one general theory of how intelligence operates in the world by most species that are able to understand and analyze the concepts of intelligence, because our definitions of intelligence seem to have purpose pre-defined within them. This is functional and not myopic but it *should* be acknowledged if we seek truth.

The evolution of intelligence and thus an order of rank of intelligence should be conditioned on some definition(s) of the overall purpose of intelligence. This leads people to believe that our kind of complexity is the general kind of that which is possible.

Now there is something that would actually cause me to greatly doubt the existence of god(s). If it was proven, beyond doubt, that no possible intelligent entity|mind can scale beyond a certain point of complexity|capacity. That would certainly put a limit on what sort of godlike beings could exist, and would almost be a proof against the existence of God. If it was proven that intelligent entities|minds can scale indefinitely in capacity, that would be evidence in favor of the possibility of God existing*(Of course it would only be suggestive of the possibility, not definitive.).

What do you think of Omega-point theory? I would like to believe in Omega-point theory. I learned about it in the third part of the Technocalypse series.

[exapted]

This is in fact a very interesting thread, I should come post some Unitarian Universalist thought (basically that would be extrapolating the wisdom of other religions, proposing acceptance and respect for Earth etc.) on Sunday, since here in England I have no UU church community like I had back in Austin for the past five years before I moved here two months ago

It's Sunday

[Cameron]

Couldn't the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and/or inflation theory explain how our world is "computed"? I understand that the complexity of our world cries out for further explanation, but I am not sure why a creator-mind would explain it best.

I actually don't think a creator is necessary, I believe the world can actually exist without one. But I also think that if it is even possible for a godlike being to exist, it exists(Even if it had nothing to do with this universe.).

As for many-worlds, it is a possible interpretation, but I'm more fond of the idea that the 'probabilities' are an illusion. I take it that, past, present, future are likely all alike in nature, and block-time|universe is likely. Since things that lie in the past do not seem subject to probabilities any more, they're seemingly set in stone(for example, the measurement of the decay of an atom, either it happened or it did not at time X in the past.), the only way this is not the case in the present|future is if these are somehow qualitatively different(And since the order in which some events occur can validly differ between observers due to relativity, there seems to be no strict past to future universal present, which seems a requirement for a qualitative differences to exist.). If there are no qualitative differences, then like the past both present and future are seemingly also set in stone.

As for computation, I don't think we need to know how it is computed, it is hypothetically possible that just like it can be seen that 'All memory states of Any Conceivable Simulation' run on any 'X computer' simply exist, some form of 'X computer' also simply exists in an abstract manner.

What do you think of Omega-point theory? I would like to believe in Omega-point theory. I learned about it in the third part of the Technocalypse series.

I think it is a possibility, but the current accelerating expansion suggests against it[ Though, as some have said, if IT eventually stops and reverses it would be something in favor of this idea.]. I too like the idea, though its correctness is still an open question. There are many conceivable alternatives, that without further evidence, cannot be dismissed(I'm particularly fond of platonic ideas.).

[exapted]

As for many-worlds, it is a possible interpretation, but I'm more fond of the idea that the 'probabilities' are an illusion. I take it that, past, present, future are likely all alike in nature, and block-time|universe is likely. Since things that lie in the past do not seem subject to probabilities any more, they're seemingly set in stone(for example, the measurement of the decay of an atom, either it happened or it did not at time X in the past.), the only way this is not the case in the present|future is if these are somehow qualitatively different(And since the order in which some events occur can validly differ between observers due to relativity, there seems to be no strict past to future universal present, which seems a requirement for a qualitative differences to exist.). If there are no qualitative differences, then like the past both present and future are seemingly also set in stone.

I am interested in your idea about probability. Could you maybe elaborate a bit further? I did post a thread which sort of touches on that issue, at least a little bit (http://www.imminst.o...ion-t33030.html - I am not expecting that you would read it all, but it questions the rationality of using probability theory to infer stuff "outside of our universe". If you read it you'll see that I'm confused on the issue.).

Edited by exapted, 01 November 2009 - 10:45 PM.

[mentatpsi]

I believe he's essentially saying probabilities are an illusion. Which technically is true, probabilities are only a means of analyzing possible outcomes. If the universe is deterministic then of course there is only one possible outcome of an event, probability is mainly a means by which to simplify numerous factors into outcomes and their respective occurrence rates. This is kind of a central aspect of statistics.

[Cameron]

As for many-worlds, it is a possible interpretation, but I'm more fond of the idea that the 'probabilities' are an illusion. I take it that, past, present, future are likely all alike in nature, and block-time|universe is likely. Since things that lie in the past do not seem subject to probabilities any more, they're seemingly set in stone(for example, the measurement of the decay of an atom, either it happened or it did not at time X in the past.), the only way this is not the case in the present|future is if these are somehow qualitatively different(And since the order in which some events occur can validly differ between observers due to relativity, there seems to be no strict past to future universal present, which seems a requirement for a qualitative differences to exist.). If there are no qualitative differences, then like the past both present and future are seemingly also set in stone.

I am interested in your idea about probability. Could you maybe elaborate a bit further? I did post a thread which sort of touches on that issue, at least a little bit (http://www.imminst.o...ion-t33030.html - I am not expecting that you would read it all, but it questions the rationality of using probability theory to infer stuff "outside of our universe". If you read it you'll see that I'm confused on the issue.).

If the universe is truly deterministic, probabilities between 0% to 100% become only a way for people with incomplete information to assess the situation(They also serve to describe things, and the assumptions based upon such analysis can be shown to be generally valid.). The outcomes of a coin toss a minute ago is 100% either heads or tails(assuming it did not land on its edge, which would be a third outcome.), the other possibilities are 0%. We can say that it truly had a 50% probability if we can show that the present is qualitatively different from the past and that past moment was once in the present. If the present is fixed like the past, thus not qualitatively different, everything is set in stone and absolute.( Things like the relativity of simultaneity, that is there is no universal present suggest this may be so... as sets of events can validly be assigned different chronological order by various observers.).

Things like radioactive decay are said to be random, and if one connected a measuring apparatus within a period of time it would measure or it would not measure something. Yet once the experiment is over we conclude that the event is no longer subject to change[ during that previous period of time] as that period now lies in the past(Either an atom decayed and it was measured or it was not.). The idea that the past is still subject to change would seem to introduce logical contradictions[ grandfather paradoxes and the like could actually seemingly take place independent of time travel], so as said it is assumed by some that the present moment is non-deterministic but somehow it transitions qualitatively into a deterministic past moment. This qualitative difference is necessary, for probabilities, and would seem to require a universal present for it to be possible, as such seems to not exist the possible existence of this difference itself is thrown into question.

[mentatpsi]

There's a tear in your idea though, one cannot go back in time and falsify or admit the theory. It's based on determinism, in other words... lets say coin toss 1 = heads, while coin toss 2 = tails. If coin toss 2 were to be at the same moment [defined by allignment of universes (same causalities)], in a parallel universe exactly like ours with a parallel being exactly like the tosser, then it too would have the same outcome with coin toss 1. In other words, coin toss 1 = coin toss 2 if circumstances are exactly the same (wind speed - nominal, hand motions, etc).

Can one prove this? Probably not, it's a game of logic, it's a game of showing how much we adhere to a logical determinsitic universe. It's out of faith, for we can only play with a moment once, after that... its essence is gone. Plus we only know what we observe, for instance as a program talking about multiple dimensions once said, we can consider the example of a fly landing on a water lily. The fly is not aware of the reasons for the water movement caused by the swimming of the fish, it only feels the vibrations. Same is true for humans, if we truly are limited in certain aspects, aspects which cannot be overcome with technology, then we're going to have to admit we can only see part of the picture. But much like a fire illuminates darkness, we hope that with science and the growing trends in technology we can illuminate the universe. Let us hope. The reason i mention this is because i think we need to promote out of norm thinking, spice things up a bit. Bam.

[Cameron]

There's a tear in your idea though, one cannot go back in time and falsify or admit the theory. It's based on determinism, in other words... lets say coin toss 1 = heads, while coin toss 2 = tails. If coin toss 2 were to be at the same moment [defined by allignment of universes (same causalities)], in a parallel universe exactly like ours with a parallel being exactly like the tosser, then it too would have the same outcome with coin toss 1. In other words, coin toss 1 = coin toss 2 if circumstances are exactly the same (wind speed - nominal, hand motions, etc).

Can one prove this? Probably not, it's a game of logic, it's a game of showing how much we adhere to a logical determinsitic universe. It's out of faith, for we can only play with a moment once, after that... its essence is gone. Plus we only know what we observe, for instance as a program talking about multiple dimensions once said, we can consider the example of a fly landing on a water lily. The fly is not aware of the reasons for the water movement caused by the swimming of the fish, it only feels the vibrations. Same is true for humans, if we truly are limited in certain aspects, aspects which cannot be overcome with technology, then we're going to have to admit we can only see part of the picture. But much like a fire illuminates darkness, we hope that with science and the growing trends in technology we can illuminate the universe. Let us hope. The reason i mention this is because i think we need to promote out of norm thinking, spice things up a bit. Bam.

The thing is that while we cannot go back and see if a different outcome was possible, the 'present' is assumed to be a result of said past. For example the result of the toin coss, say heads, could be used to kill or not kill a living being*(In the Schrodinger cat scenario, using another random thing-atom decay, it is assumed that after the experiment the cat came out alive or dead. ). Suppose the living being is dead in the 'present'. This only follows, if the past coin toss scenario was heads, or an error happened somewhere... but suppose the coin is gigantic and it has a cavity only on one side, and it falls on a person lying on the ground. The person lives if the coin lands with the cavity-side down, he dies if the other side falls on him(because the coin weighs enough to crush him completely.). Clearly the 'present' moment only logically follows from one of these outcomes, that is with respect to the 'present' the past has to be fixed for logical consistency of causally connected events.

[edit: Suppose the past could still change somehow, and say a 'grandpa' died at 5 instead of 80, before he could have any kids. We have to assume that all that follows is changed, and a split into a parallel universe with no grand kids had to take place... as this event would lead to a logical contradiction should a present with grand kids follow from that. But how could any event split things, given the following.]

The other previously mentioned thing was, the evidence suggestive of the nonexistence of the universal present. IF it is true that a series of events can validly be ordered differently in sequence by two observers(Say one says event A first B second C third, while the other can say C followed by B then A... it is even possible for the 3 events to happen simultaneously for one observer, if I'm not mistaken)... we can see that there is no definitive|absolute past-present-future sequence, if we have a jumble of valid possible alternate sequences by various observers, it becomes interesting how one could disentangle this and allow for any event to split into equal possible outcomes. Suppose 3 events lie in simultaneity for one observer, if one assumes this observer experiences a 'present', the 3 events lie in his 'present', for another only one of the 3 lies in his 'present', the other two being one in the past, the other in the future, a third observer could experience the sequence in reverse. Clearly if one of the events in the sequence of one observer could split things, say event B, how is it possible that there is another observer for whom the preceding A and following C events can be simultaneous.[ This is obviously involving spatially separated events. But as long as there is any kind of event that seemingly cannot cause a split, it seems splitting goes out the window...]

edited expanded for clarity.

Edited by Cameron, 02 November 2009 - 11:50 PM.

[exapted]

There's a tear in your idea though, one cannot go back in time and falsify or admit the theory. It's based on determinism, in other words... lets say coin toss 1 = heads, while coin toss 2 = tails. If coin toss 2 were to be at the same moment [defined by allignment of universes (same causalities)], in a parallel universe exactly like ours with a parallel being exactly like the tosser, then it too would have the same outcome with coin toss 1. In other words, coin toss 1 = coin toss 2 if circumstances are exactly the same (wind speed - nominal, hand motions, etc).

Can one prove this? Probably not, it's a game of logic, it's a game of showing how much we adhere to a logical determinsitic universe. It's out of faith, for we can only play with a moment once, after that... its essence is gone. Plus we only know what we observe, for instance as a program talking about multiple dimensions once said, we can consider the example of a fly landing on a water lily. The fly is not aware of the reasons for the water movement caused by the swimming of the fish, it only feels the vibrations. Same is true for humans, if we truly are limited in certain aspects, aspects which cannot be overcome with technology, then we're going to have to admit we can only see part of the picture. But much like a fire illuminates darkness, we hope that with science and the growing trends in technology we can illuminate the universe. Let us hope. The reason i mention this is because i think we need to promote out of norm thinking, spice things up a bit. Bam.

The thing is that while we cannot go back and see if a different outcome was possible, the 'present' is assumed to be a result of said past. For example the result of the toin coss, say heads, could be used to kill or not kill a living being*(In the Schrodinger cat scenario, using another random thing-atom decay, it is assumed that after the experiment the cat came out alive or dead. ). Suppose the living being is dead in the 'present'. This only follows, if the past coin toss scenario was heads, or an error happened somewhere... but suppose the coin is gigantic and it has a cavity only on one side, and it falls on a person lying on the ground. The person lives if the coin lands with the cavity-side down, he dies if the other side falls on him(because the coin weighs enough to crush him completely.). Clearly the 'present' moment only logically follows from one of these outcomes, that is with respect to the 'present' the past has to be fixed for logical consistency of causally connected events.

The other previously mentioned thing was, the evidence suggestive of the nonexistence of the universal present. IF it is true that a series of events can validly be ordered differently in sequence by two observers(Say one says event A first B second C third, while the other can say C followed by B then A... it is even possible for the 3 events to happen simultaneously for one observer, if I'm not mistaken)... we can see that there is no definitive|absolute past-present-future sequence, if we have a jumble of valid possible alternate sequences by various observers, it becomes interesting how one could disentangle this and allow for any event to split into equal possible outcomes. Suppose 3 events lie in simultaneity for one observer, if one assumes this observer experiences a 'present', the 3 events lie in his 'present', for another only one of the 3 lies in his 'present', the other two being one in the past, the other in the future, a third observer could experience the sequence in reverse.

What you are saying is supported by evidence in quantum mechanics. Simultaneity is a nominal label (an "illusion") and not a real explanation of our points of view.

I think it highlights the problem of induction. Why do we assume that patterns continue? Because we posit things/unities, and we take the intentional stance with respect to those things.

Deconstructing our definitions of things means to turn nominal definitions into real explanations. And the process continues.

I guess I would wonder if your idea is an exhaustive synthesis of some actually possible 3rd person point of view.

Edited by exapted, 02 November 2009 - 11:44 PM.

[Presence]

...
2.) Not a SHRED of evidence: An omnipresent god would have to leave his mark somewhere, if not EVERYWHERE! Show me his footprint! Show me a miracle! Show me an event that violates the laws of physics! There is more evidence for the Easter Bunny than there is for an omni* god.

...

Aren't laws of physics miracle enough in themselves?

[exapted]

Aren't laws of physics miracle enough in themselves?

Not of the type that would necessitate that a mind-god physically produced them. There are much better explanations. Inductive patterns are not surprising (almost by definition).

Edited by exapted, 11 November 2009 - 07:26 PM.

[Teixeira]

It's the "god of the gaps".

What's wrong with that?

Actually my point was that, in order to evaluate religious claims, we need a set of claims to evaluate in the first place. They have to be specific claims, and by that I mean claims that have consequences such that they are falsifiable or clearly philosophically relevant.

To be a believer and admit that your god is a "god of the gaps" is to suggest that your beliefs are defined according to whatever science hasn't figured out. If I have a prior probability for theism based on the idea that, hey, theism is a plausible idea, then I discover that my prior probability is inspired by "whatever science hasn't happened to figure out by now", that lowers my credence in the god hypothesis.

Also it just seems a poor strategy to let your beliefs be defined by "the gaps".

I'm a theist myself. There are reasons why I consider the existence of God(s) extremely likely*(even if there is no influence upon this world.). For example suppose we were to look in the infinite sequence of possible binary numbers*(As it can be proven that there is no greatest number, and the sequence is infinite.), in that sequence lies the various memory states X computer(say a pentium iv pc.) would generate simulating godlike ais of ever greater capacities along with their simulated universes(They would even appear later on, in correct sequence as parts of an even larger binary number.). That is conceivably all the states simply exist and the relationship between said states also simply exists(that is if one checks, they do correspond to sequences of a godlike-being+simulation on X computer.).

Couldn't the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and/or inflation theory explain how our world is "computed"? I understand that the complexity of our world cries out for further explanation, but I am not sure why a creator-mind would explain it best.

Here is something I posted once on another forum which doesn't really reach any conclusions but perhaps it will be thought provoking (or not?). It neither agrees nor disagrees with what you are saying. It is my attempt at anthropic reasoning:
Something that would fit our definition of intelligence is at least more likely to have the same view of the purpose of intelligence as us than anything that would not fit our definition of intelligence. This is not a fallacy but is a sort of "self-fulfilling prophecy".

There is likely to be convergence to one general theory of how intelligence operates in the world by most species that are able to understand and analyze the concepts of intelligence, because our definitions of intelligence seem to have purpose pre-defined within them. This is functional and not myopic but it *should* be acknowledged if we seek truth.

The evolution of intelligence and thus an order of rank of intelligence should be conditioned on some definition(s) of the overall purpose of intelligence. This leads people to believe that our kind of complexity is the general kind of that which is possible.

Now there is something that would actually cause me to greatly doubt the existence of god(s). If it was proven, beyond doubt, that no possible intelligent entity|mind can scale beyond a certain point of complexity|capacity. That would certainly put a limit on what sort of godlike beings could exist, and would almost be a proof against the existence of God. If it was proven that intelligent entities|minds can scale indefinitely in capacity, that would be evidence in favor of the possibility of God existing*(Of course it would only be suggestive of the possibility, not definitive.).

What do you think of Omega-point theory? I would like to believe in Omega-point theory. I learned about it in the third part of the Technocalypse series.

You can see also Teillard de Chardin and Frank Tipler (The physics of immortality)

[Infilliono]

I hate to break it to ya, but I've always been God and shall alwars remain God. Thank you very much.