Zompist Bboard Again

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:42 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:12 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 11:43 am
It's incomprehensible to me because a cellular automaton is an idea in need of an implementation, whereas the universe is not an idea.

How so? One in our universe could create a universe simulator running on a computer, simulating a universe just like ours except necessarily on a far smaller scale.

1. The "God" theory is not intended to explain how this particular world was created. Rather, any possible world.
2. The design of the universe simulator is different from the machine that runs it.

For "God" to be a simplifying explanation, it must explain the creation of the machine that is capable of running the universe simulator. But the creation of this machine cannot be represented as any elementary process I understand.

Let's say you come up with cellular automata. These cellular automata don't do anything until you code it on some hardware. But the creation of this hardware is a complex process, not an elementary one.

The creation of the cellular automata might be a simple process if you assume that minds are simple (questionable), but the creation of the machine that executes the cellular automata remains complex under this assumption.

Possible solution: You could say that the machine executing the cellular automata is God's imagination (once again assuming that minds are simple rather than that humans evolved to imagine minds easily), but that would put the whole universe in the mind of God, turning it into an idea. This is Berkeley's idealism, Advaita Vedanta and possibly Yogacara Buddhism.

You are over-thinking this. Computers are perfectly plausible, as much of the world uses them every day today. Computer programs running cellular automata are also perfectly plausible, as shown by countless implementations of Conway's Game of Life. There is nothing saying that we could not be within a cellular automata program running on a computer on a great scale. In this scenario, all "God" is is a programmer or user in a universe in which ours is embedded. Of course, the reason to not believe this is that it cannot be disproven, that it is unfalsifiable, and that the burden of proof is on those making an assertion such as this one.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:22 pm You are over-thinking this. Computers are perfectly plausible, as much of the world uses them every day today. Computer programs running cellular automata are also perfectly plausible, as shown by countless implementations of Conway's Game of Life. There is nothing saying that we could not be within a cellular automata program running on a computer on a great scale. In this scenario, all "God" is is a programmer or user in a universe in which ours is embedded. Of course, the reason to not believe this is that it cannot be disproven, that it is unfalsifiable, and that the burden of proof is on those making an assertion such as this one.

Plausibility is not simplicity. Is the simplest process to construct a Turing-complete computer simpler than the alternative explanation of impersonal forces?

Back in the days of astronomical clocks, the Universe was compared to a kind of extraordinary clock, and God pictured as an extraordinary clockmakers.
Now that we use computer models to understand the universe, it's not so surprising that some will compare it to a computer simulation of some kind.

I suspect these are two instances of the same fallacy: mistaking our model of the world for the world itself.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:54 am Back in the days of astronomical clocks, the Universe was compared to a kind of extraordinary clock, and God pictured as an extraordinary clockmakers.
Now that we use computer models to understand the universe, it's not so surprising that some will compare it to a computer simulation of some kind.

I suspect these are two instances of the same fallacy: mistaking our model of the world for the world itself.

Of course, there is no reason why either of these models are true just as there is no reason why either of these models are false -- they are both plausible and both unfalsifiable. These sorts of things are why I am an agnostic atheist -- agnostic because I think there are potential god or gods that cannot be disproven, and atheist because I have seen no reason to believe any particular god or gods and because what god or gods that do not need evidence, like our divine programmer or watchmaker, are inherently unfalsifiable.

Xenophanes said that If cattle and horses had hands, or were able to draw with their feet and produce the works which men do, horses would draw the forms of gods like horses, and cattle like cattle. the ancient levantine god is "the good sheperd" and so on, so yeah, there's nothing weird in a modern computer god. I myself have said things like "I think i've offended the algorythm gods". it's probably one of the ways that the AIs will take over, if the AIs take over at all: why reinvent the wheel, when humans have thousands-of-years-old, well tested and proven methods of making themselves obedient to outside agents? money and religion are also especially good candidates because they're symbolic, and computers are great at "insert the correct symbol here" type problems.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:24 am

keenir wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:17 am the...universe?

(and before you ask "well whats the universe running on?", bear in mind that, according to the models I'm familiar with, the universe is not and has not grown on or from anything that was not part of the universe - so the question needs no answer beyond "itself")

The argument presupposes that God made the universe. The universe is not an idea. An algorithm is not the same as the machine it is running on.

If my memory serves, computers didn't always have a clear division of hardware and software...it used to be (at least in the days of Babbage and perhaps ENIAC) that you built the programming into the machine.

My confusion is not related to God coming up with an algorithm. It is related to God "making" the machine the algorithm is running on.

I'm going to guess that, if I ask if you'd accept it if God didn't create the universe itself, you'd counter with "then why bother worshipping it?"

well...socialism didn't create the universe, yet you assign it a huge value.

keenir wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:29 pm What? Why does god/God have to be simple? I've seen lots of explanations for all sorts of things (such as syntax) which are complex.

Definition of explanation. Definition of God in theology.

??

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 3:04 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:22 pm You are over-thinking this. Computers are perfectly plausible, as much of the world uses them every day today. Computer programs running cellular automata are also perfectly plausible, as shown by countless implementations of Conway's Game of Life. There is nothing saying that we could not be within a cellular automata program running on a computer on a great scale. In this scenario, all "God" is is a programmer or user in a universe in which ours is embedded. Of course, the reason to not believe this is that it cannot be disproven, that it is unfalsifiable, and that the burden of proof is on those making an assertion such as this one.

Plausibility is not simplicity. Is the simplest process to construct a Turing-complete computer simpler than the alternative explanation of impersonal forces?

but, why does it have to be simple?

(on the other hand, compared to some gods, human brains are simple)

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:42 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:12 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 11:43 am
It's incomprehensible to me because a cellular automaton is an idea in need of an implementation, whereas the universe is not an idea.

How so? One in our universe could create a universe simulator running on a computer, simulating a universe just like ours except necessarily on a far smaller scale.

1. The "God" theory is not intended to explain how this particular world was created. Rather, any possible world.
2. The design of the universe simulator is different from the machine that runs it.

For "God" to be a simplifying explanation, it must explain the creation of the machine that is capable of running the universe simulator. But the creation of this machine cannot be represented as any elementary process I understand.

wait, why does God have to be a simplifying explanation?

Let's say you come up with cellular automata. These cellular automata don't do anything until you code it on some hardware. But the creation of this hardware is a complex process, not an elementary one.

for most people, yes. not for everyone. if I wanted to play SimLife or SimAnt, I don't build a computer or code a program - I use pre-existing materials...the ants (et al) can't tell the difference, and probably would attribute it all to me.

Possible solution: You could say that the machine executing the cellular automata is God's imagination (once again assuming that minds are simple rather than that humans evolved to imagine minds easily),

Both can be true, that minds are simple (certainly in comparison) and that humans are one species among many with the Theory Of Mind.

but that would put the whole universe in the mind of God, turning it into an idea.

...and the downside is...?

keenir wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 11:49 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 3:04 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:22 pm You are over-thinking this. Computers are perfectly plausible, as much of the world uses them every day today. Computer programs running cellular automata are also perfectly plausible, as shown by countless implementations of Conway's Game of Life. There is nothing saying that we could not be within a cellular automata program running on a computer on a great scale. In this scenario, all "God" is is a programmer or user in a universe in which ours is embedded. Of course, the reason to not believe this is that it cannot be disproven, that it is unfalsifiable, and that the burden of proof is on those making an assertion such as this one.

Plausibility is not simplicity. Is the simplest process to construct a Turing-complete computer simpler than the alternative explanation of impersonal forces?

but, why does it have to be simple?

(on the other hand, compared to some gods, human brains are simple)

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:42 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:12 pm
How so? One in our universe could create a universe simulator running on a computer, simulating a universe just like ours except necessarily on a far smaller scale.

1. The "God" theory is not intended to explain how this particular world was created. Rather, any possible world.
2. The design of the universe simulator is different from the machine that runs it.

For "God" to be a simplifying explanation, it must explain the creation of the machine that is capable of running the universe simulator. But the creation of this machine cannot be represented as any elementary process I understand.

wait, why does God have to be a simplifying explanation?

Have you tried studying or Googling either the Abrahamic tradition, the philosophical tradition, or the modern philosophy of science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/

Traditionally, "God" was a theory explaining a number of conceptual problems like the infinite regress of movement*. All such explanations have to be simple. This principle was later formulated as Occam's razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor More complex hypotheses are automatically penalized by Bayes' theorem: https://cognition.princeton.edu/sites/g ... _razor.pdf

The intuition is that if an explanation is more complex than the phenomena, then it does no useful work in summarizing them for purposes like prediction.

Nowadays, there is a widespread perception that science is complex. This perception is wrong. Science is radically simple, much simpler than the world. All those complex symbols serve only one purpose: to construct claims that are much simpler than anything humans wish to say in everyday life. Simplicity is the only way that science can be useful.

You think Relativity is complex? Check out what Einstein said in 1933: “It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.”

* This is no longer persuasive because common sense ideas like "movement" are no longer considered to be fundamental, i.e. simple enough.

keenir wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 11:49 pm

Let's say you come up with cellular automata. These cellular automata don't do anything until you code it on some hardware. But the creation of this hardware is a complex process, not an elementary one.

for most people, yes. not for everyone. if I wanted to play SimLife or SimAnt, I don't build a computer or code a program - I use pre-existing materials...the ants (et al) can't tell the difference, and probably would attribute it all to me.

The monotheistic God makes everything from scratch. See, for example, the bible.

Look, I'm open to non-traditional ideas about God. What gets my goat is that you and Travis B. don't seem to understand why people used to think "God" solves an intellectual problem!

keenir wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 11:49 pm

Possible solution: You could say that the machine executing the cellular automata is God's imagination (once again assuming that minds are simple rather than that humans evolved to imagine minds easily),

Both can be true, that minds are simple (certainly in comparison) and that humans are one species among many with the Theory Of Mind.

Theoretical simplicity is different from imaginary simplicity. Quantum theory is much simpler than anything humans can easily imagine.

keenir wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 11:49 pm

but that would put the whole universe in the mind of God, turning it into an idea.

...and the downside is...?

Conflict with intuitions AKA Bayesian priors. Most people don't believe the universe is an idea. I don't.

Why don't we think so? We have notions about how minds behave, and note that the universe does not behave in analogous ways. For example, the world seems to be explainable through the rigid interaction of fundamental particles, whereas minds work in more impressionistic ways.

If you think I'm misrepresenting the intellectual tradition, you are wrong about that. A mainstream theologian, probably al-Ghazali, said his Occasionalism was precisely intended to deny that the world can be reduced to materialistic explanations. These are the kinds on conclusions you get when you make mind fundamental over matter.

In my judgement, materialism leads to comprehensible science, whereas mentalism has so far led only to conspiracy theories.

(snip)

rotting bones wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 2:22 am

keenir wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 11:49 pm Plausibility is not simplicity. Is the simplest process to construct a Turing-complete computer simpler than the alternative explanation of impersonal forces?

but, why does it have to be simple?

(on the other hand, compared to some gods, human brains are simple)

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:42 pm1. The "God" theory is not intended to explain how this particular world was created. Rather, any possible world.

then why did you cite the bible as evidence of how a god behaves? thats a very specific world...or thats what i used to think.

2. The design of the universe simulator is different from the machine that runs it.

you're back to presuming there is a difference between software and hardware; i already addressed that.

For "God" to be a simplifying explanation, it must explain the creation of the machine that is capable of running the universe simulator. But the creation of this machine cannot be represented as any elementary process I understand.

I already addressed the issue of software and hardware.

Have you tried studying or Googling either the Abrahamic tradition, the philosophical tradition, or the modern philosophy of science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
.

yes, I have googled the Abrahamic tradition...which tradition did you get as a result, because its probably not the same tradition I got.

also...
"the philisophical tradition"?? as my sister used to ask people, whose tradition, kemosabe? theres more than one philosophy, in or out of science.

The intuition is that if an explanation is more complex than the phenomena, then it does no useful work in summarizing them for purposes like prediction.

Nowadays, there is a widespread perception that science is complex. This perception is wrong. Science is radically simple, much simpler than the world. All those complex symbols serve only one purpose: to construct claims that are much simpler than anything humans wish to say in everyday life. Simplicity is the only way that science can be useful.

I can understand a need to make a theory or summary simplified...but not an explanation, unless one is asked to simplify for their audience. which is making me picture Carl Sagan writing one of those _I can read_ books.

You think Relativity is complex? Check out what Einstein said in 1933: “It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.”

and thats him summarizing Relativity?

bear in mind that thats the same man who said he'd have no problem accepting the presidency of Israel, because its a simple job, nothing to do but stand on a soapbox and give his opinions.

as Sun Tzu once observed, theory rarely survives contact with reality (or as someone else said, "man plans, god laughs")

for most people, yes. not for everyone. if I wanted to play SimLife or SimAnt, I don't build a computer or code a program - I use pre-existing materials...the ants (et al) can't tell the difference, and probably would attribute it all to me.

The monotheistic God makes everything from scratch. See, for example, the bible.

if you believe humans wrote the Bible, why do you have a hard time believing that humans would attribute things to a god or gods, whether or not the deity claimed responsibility?

Look, I'm open to non-traditional ideas about God. What gets my goat is that you and Travis B. don't seem to understand why people used to think "God" solves an intellectual problem!

"used to" or "still do" ? those are two very different things.

keenir wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 11:49 pm
Both can be true, that minds are simple (certainly in comparison) and that humans are one species among many with the Theory Of Mind.

Theoretical simplicity is different from imaginary simplicity. Quantum theory is much simpler than anything humans can easily imagine.

o.O
I don't know..."one object in two places, bound at a distance to another object in still another place" doesn't sound terribly less complicated than, say, how many divine women Kali is part of, or the Abrahamic triune godhead.

keenir wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 11:49 pm

...and the downside is...?

Conflict with intuitions AKA Bayesian priors. Most people don't believe the universe is an idea. I don't.

Why don't we think so? We have notions about how minds behave, and note that the universe does not behave in analogous ways. For example, the world seems to be explainable through the rigid interaction of fundamental particles, whereas minds work in more impressionistic ways.

impressionistic?
not sure what that means.

after all, we know that if five people have the same part of their brain removed, they will all react in pretty much the same way...just as, when five lakes warm up, the ice on them behaves in pretty much the same way on all of them - the details will differ, such as where the ice begins melting.

In my judgement, materialism leads to comprehensible science, whereas mentalism has so far led only to conspiracy theories.

Excellent point...after all, materialists can't make conspiracy theories.

keenir wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 10:56 am

TomHChappell wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 9:46 am You don’t know me. I came to that conclusion because of repeated and significant failures on God’s part.

I apologize; you did not come to mind, either as an example of the above, or as any other category's membership.

@keenir, thanks for the apology; but, tbh, you don’t owe me one!
I guess my remark “sounded” offended? I wasn’t offended, I just thought you might appreciate another datapoint!

TomHChappell wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 5:35 am

keenir wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 10:56 am

TomHChappell wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 9:46 am You don’t know me. I came to that conclusion because of repeated and significant failures on God’s part.

I apologize; you did not come to mind, either as an example of the above, or as any other category's membership.

@keenir, thanks for the apology; but, tbh, you don’t owe me one!
I guess my remark “sounded” offended?

one thing I've learned over the course of my long life, is that its always better to over-apologize.

even with the inevitable...
"stop apologizing!"
me: "sorry"

I wasn’t offended, I just thought you might appreciate another datapoint!

more data is always good. Just be careful when you add additional Lore.
(I believe the proper expression is sorry not sorry)