From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 21:34:18 MDT
--- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> wrote:
> > (Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@yahoo.com>):
> >
> > However, I'd like to point out some misperceived conclusions. For
> > example, I'd agree that the odds that we live in a simulation are
> > undetermined. I went on to point out that given such a situation,
> > the only proper stance for a scientific individual at this point
> > in time is to be agnostic, NOT atheistic. Atheism is as much a
> > leap of faith in such a state of undetermined reality as
> > religiosity. It is NO LESS a
> > leap of faith as well. If the argument that we live in a simulation
> > holds true, then atheism is a completely improper stance and
> > religiosity should be the norm, since the existence of a simulation
> > implies some meta-entity creating and/or operating the simulation.
> >
> > Now, I can entirely forsee that based on this logic, individuals
> > determined to hold fast to their atheistic faith will try to
> > undermine the simulation argument, while the religious will try
> > to support it.
> > IMHO this should and can be a real debate that the religious can
> > take part in equally, and should cast aside lots of the silly
> > aspects of mainstream creationism that depend on obsolete science.
>
> This contention has two problems, as it clearly must by the fact
> that I have a great admiration for the simulation argument and yet
> remain an atheist. First of all, to equate religious notions of
> God with notions of wholly non-supernatural beings that might be
> running a simulation is to totally ignore centuries of theology.
> We're bombarded again and again with hundreds of ideas about God;
> the fact that /one/ of those ideas (i.e. "creator") might be true
> says nothing about the rest. That's the "package deal" fallacy.
I make no assumptions about package deals. I do make a proposition
that, given Clarke's Law, and given the much greater degree of
technological advancement necessary to effect a simulation such as our
present reality over our own capabilities at present, that we are
presently unqualified to judge what such entities can and cannot do
within their simulation.
Saying a system operator is not a 'god' is a cop out for an individual
afraid to accept the implications of a proposition. What is one of the
most common sysop passwords? God. Having such a degree of control over
a simulated world, and advancement ahead of it, confers godhood.
So you don't like the implications of the term due to cultural baggage.
So what. Get over it.
>
> Second, the old "atheism is a faith too" canard has been debunked
> so many times by those more capable than I that I hardly feel up
> to the task, but I'll try, just for the record: As a rational being
> I cannot totally reject any possibility for all time under all
> possible circumstances. All knowledge is tentative, and must change
> with new evidence. But that doesn't mean I can't base decisions on
> what I consider to be my current working model of the universe, based
> on the best knowledge I have so far. This working hypothesis is my
> "world view", if you will. It differs from "faith" in that I
> explicity understand it to be tentative even though I may bet my life
> on it every day. I have no choice, after all: it is necessary to
> have /some/ world view to base one's actions upon or else one is
> impotent.
I'd have to contest this assumption. I would say it is entirely
unnecessary to have a world view vis a vis religion vs. atheism yet to
be able to remain quite potent in ones freedom of action and thought.
> So my current world view includes things like the laws of
> physics, math, evolution, and the absence of anything resembling
> historical theistic descriptions of God. But I am not "agnostic"
> about God any more than I am "agnostic" about physics, just because
> I can't offer complete, final, unassailable proof of either one.
This is a false exclusion. If the simulation argument holds, then it is
entirely possible to accept the laws of physics, math, evolution yet to
also accept the possibility *as an undetermined probability at
present*, and as a reality of one can demonstrate being within a
simulation.
The presence of paranormal phenomena could, in fact, be considered
evidence that one is in a simulation, if such phenomena are observable
and outside the bounds of the laws of physics. Not saying they exist in
this universe, but pointing to what they might be useful for.
For example, if ever psi phenomena can be demonstrated, then this might
be evidence of 'hacking the sim'. This is the whole point of the
dialogue in the Oracle's apartment.
> Simple honesty demands that I describe what I believe in simple
> terms: I believe that atoms exist, and that God doesn't. Just because
> I can't prove the non-existence of God any more than I can prove
> the non-existence of Santa Claus, that doesn't mean I have to hold
> some wishy-washy ineffective stance that Santa Claus /might/ exist
> as part of my present world view. That's just a waste of effort.
Ah, but can you point to an atom? Are they directly observable? No, you
must infer they exist based on indirect observation, using tools to
mediate the experience (and if this were a sim, such tools should
function the same way, whether or not atoms really exist or are just
individually simulated whenever you use an electron microscope.)
The Slashdot discussion pointed this out, that a sim doesn't need even
to simulate every atom all the time, since macroscale phenomena are all
we are able to observe directly. Atomic scale and subatomic phenomena
are only observed via mediation technologies.
How, then, in a sim, is a bible any different from a supercollider? The
supercollider may behave more reliably, is all.
> I'd
> rather simply conclude for now that there's no Santa Claus, and live
> my life under that assumption until something forces me to reexamine
> it. Calling that "agnosticism" is a cop-out. If you asked me whether,
> really, deep down, as part of my present being, whether I thought
> there was a Santa Claus, I wouldn't answer "maybe", I'd answer "no".
> That's what I think, right now. Same for God. Today, I am an atheist.
> That's not taking a leap of faith or making a dogmatic commitment;
> it's simple honesty.
Only if you refuse to accept the simulation argument taxonomy of
possible universes and instead adhere to strict materialism. It is self
dishonesty, at least for anyone claiming to be a scientist.
There is a difference between thinking there is more likely than not no
God, and claiming to know that there is no God. One is agnosticism and
the other is atheism.
Claiming knowledge in the absence of evidence is the very definition of faith.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 21:45:25 MDT