Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[MonkeyHead]

One might not be able to disprove the existence of any hypothetical omnipotent deities in general, but it is becoming more and more trivial to show that the models of gods presented to us by the faith based postulation of religion (and also the many and varied claims associated with them) are highly flawed.

[TD1]

The scientists are physical. The germs are physical. They may interact.

How can the INHERENTLY, not VISUALLY, different interact?

[wierd]

You play video games, dont you?

[TD1]

Who doesn't? But not...hehe...religiously. I'm more prone to reading. I only really play DF, Minecraft and Civ V.

Not entirely certain how your statement is applicable as an argument. You imply that the scientist and germ are so different, that by my logic they should not be able to interact. But they are not so different. I am talking about 0 interacting with 1, you about two biotic, physical things interacting.

[Bohandas]

Your character in a game is often even referred to as an "avatar" put two and two together, will you?

[wierd]

You, the player, manipulate a purely artificial world, supported on the higher-level interaction of electrons and protons as they are arranged inside microchips inside a computer, and as arranged by high level logical algorithms, from your physical chair, with your physical hands.

The artificial world inside the game is not just visually different, it is logically different. And yet, you can manipulate it.

[TD1]

Oh. Heh. I thought the

You play video games, dont you?

thing was a statement, not a genuine question. Like "you take cannabis, don't you?" in response to a question. Not that the implication is quite the same, heh.

You, the player, manipulate a purely artificial world, supported on the higher-level interaction of electrons and protons as they are arranged inside microchips inside a computer, and as arranged by high level logical algorithms, from your physical chair, with your physical hands.

The artificial world inside the game is not just visually different, it is logically different. And yet, you can manipulate it.

But at our base value, we are both the same. The artifical world isn't truly a world, just a construct of my imagination and my thought process. I may think there is something deeper than a screen with pretty lights arrayed on it, but there isn't. Me interacting with the game is just a more complicated way of saying I can push over a domino. It is physical versus physical. There is no artificial world, only my perception of one. There is no other world for me to be outside.

To be outside the universe, God would have to be utterly, completely different from ANYTHING, whereas me interacting with a game is the interaction of like with like. Matter with matter. What is it to say non matter can interact with matter? Different things can interact with different things within our world, because they are all made up of the same stuff. The minerals used to make the metals in the computer may be used to form part of me.

I could go on, but I think I'm getting convoluted enough as I am

[wierd]

No, The world presented by the game is SIMILAR to ours, for OUR convenience. Examine an item in DF. Toady puts a tremendous amount of effort into his simulation, but does the game let you examine atoms?  No? Then atoms do not exist in the DF simulated worldspace. The worldspace is still orderly-- It has its own laws and rules that simply dont have analogues in our worldspace-- things like Slade and Adamantine--  It resembles our universe superficially, so that we can interact with it meaningfully.

If we increase the complexity many orders of magnitude, such that the simulated environment is fully capable of producing and sustaining virtual intelligence, the virtual intelligences operating inside that game world environment would be none the wiser about atoms, electrons, or any of that shit. To them, WE are supernatural.

[Bohandas]

Those things said, ultimately the simulated consciousness is functionally the same as a brain-in-a-jar. "Ceci n'est pas une pipe".

[wierd]

Excepting that a full simulation need not be active!  We perceive active simulation, that does not mean we are actively simulated.

In much the same way that we can predict all outcomes of X+2Y, for any given values of X and Y, without having to compute all possible values, (by knowing the rules)-- A hypothetical god could know our minds perfectly as if they were nonintelligent. In fact, our self-perception of intelligent agency would be a lie-- Just sufficiently complex that we ourselves cannot predict our own actions.  Hooray. We just realized the existential version of the halting problem.

In short, depending on the rules that govern this hypothetical god's extrauniversal domain, this god may be able to compute the exact conditions needed for our universe, and not need to simulate at all-- or may have a directed brute force algorithm that simulates only what is needed to arrive at the desired conclusion.

Either way, our intelligences look unintelligent to this agency.
 We arent brains in boxes. We are math problems.

[Bohandas]

Excepting that a full simulation need not be active!  We perceive active simulation, that does not mean we are actively simulated.

In much the same way that we can predict all outcomes of X+2Y, for any given values of X and Y, without having to compute all possible values, (by knowing the rules)-- A hypothetical god could know our minds perfectly as if they were nonintelligent. In fact, our self-perception of intelligent agency would be a lie-- Just sufficiently complex that we ourselves cannot predict our own actions.

Disagree with the bolded part. There's a big difference between just plain will ("agency") and free-will specifically

[wierd]

True, that is very much the distinction between something like IBM's Watson, and true scifi AI.

Watson has agency-- but does not have free will.

[scrdest]

does the game let you examine atoms?  No?

Yet.

But that aside, you're just arguing for a solipsism with a fancy bow on it. HOW CAN MIRRORS BE REAL is not a terribly interesting argument. It's undisprovable in the same way flipping the table and smashing the opponent's head in with a stool is a winning chess strategy. You cannot disprove it because you cannot reason within such a system.

[Bohandas]

True, that is very much the distinction between something like IBM's Watson, and true scifi AI.

Watson has agency-- but does not have free will.

Nothing has "free will" just "will"

[wierd]

does the game let you examine atoms?  No?

Yet.

But that aside, you're just arguing for a solipsism with a fancy bow on it. HOW CAN MIRRORS BE REAL is not a terribly interesting argument. It's undisprovable in the same way flipping the table and smashing the opponent's head in with a stool is a winning chess strategy. You cannot disprove it because you cannot reason within such a system.

Did you miss the part where I said I was a hard agnostic?  Seriously--  This exact argument ^ is what I am referring to when I say that knowledge of a supernatural entity cannot be known, and that the very question of its existence is meaningless in practical matters, and can be simply ignored!

The possibility that such an entity exists cannot be disproven. It also cannot be proven. As such, it is an undefined outcome to the question of the existence of an interested god manipulating our universe. Because the solution space cannot be completely conserved, BOTH sides of the argument are equally illogical.

Sorry I had to beat you to death with the fantastical to get you to see it, but I did not see another way.