Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Build a Computer Model of God

bootstrappingindependence.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#51

Post by wbhart »

gnaritas wrote: post #48
wbhart wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how the existence of a first cause can be contingent?

As I already said, the notion of a first cause is absurd, it's an idea that has no basis in reality or evidence to support that such a thing is. Just because you can think a thought doesn't mean reality must reflect it. If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve the problem by inventing a god that doesn't. If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the universe…

Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing.

You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. That means you believe the existence of the universe is not contingent, which implies its existence is necessary. It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause.

I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning. By any definition of contingent that I know of, something with a beginning has contingent existence.

Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes). Good luck with that theory. You had better hope that a universe doesn't happen without a cause under your bed. Now you live in a universe where miracles can happen without any reason whatsoever. They just are.

It actually sounds like in your world anything can happen any time for no reason. This begins to look very different from the universe I appear to live in.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#52

Post by danteembermage »

Radim wrote: post #30
danteembermage wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really interesting to think about the theological implications of simulationism. If the world were really structured as described in the article (which is not the point he was making, I'm just having fun), then one has to wonder what the purpose of having simulated, self-contained intelligences would be. I like to think about the implications of a specific purpose and I have a favorite. Suppose one was trying to…

A different take on the same topic: Greg Egan, Crystal Nights: http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-egan/

Thank you, that was a fascinating read

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#53

Post by gnaritas »

wbhart wrote: post #51
gnaritas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I already said, the notion of a first cause is absurd, it's an idea that has no basis in reality or evidence to support that such a thing is. Just because you can think a thought doesn't mean reality must reflect it. If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve the problem by inventing a god that doesn't. If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the universe…

Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. That means you believe the existence of the universe is not contingent, which implies its existence is necessary. It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause. I find a logical contradiction in…

> Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing.

No, I don't and I just told you that. The question is invalid; the Universe didn't come from anything. Even the visible universe, which we know was born from the big bang, no one believes came from nothing; Big bang theory says it came from an infinitely dense energy and the bang converted some of that into matter. No where does the theory state it all came from nothing.

> You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing.

No, I did not. The rest of your rebuttal fails because you've setup a straw man to knock down while ignoring what I actually said; I expected as much.

> It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause.

I did no such thing.

> I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning.

False. We know there was a big bang; we explicitly do not know that it was the beginning, or the only big bang, or that the visible universe it applies to is the only one, or that big bangs aren't cyclical. We just don't know.

> Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes).

No, I believe there are answers we don't yet have. You are the one that believes things happen without a cause (e.g. gods), the universe at least is known to exist undeniably.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#54

Post by wbhart »

gnaritas wrote: post #53
wbhart wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. That means you believe the existence of the universe is not contingent, which implies its existence is necessary. It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause. I find a logical contradiction in…

> Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. No, I don't and I just told you that. The question is invalid; the Universe didn't come from anything. Even the visible universe, which we know was born from the big bang, no one believes came from nothing; Big bang theory says it came from an infinitely dense energy and the bang converted some of that into matter. No where does the theory state it…

I'm sorry, I'm completely lost. So now you are trying to tell me the universe may not have been the beginning, but that it did not come from anything.

You are aware of the scientific issues with the cyclical universe model I take it? There are issues with entropy, fine tuning, the fact that information cannot leave our universe through the event horizon of black holes (singularities), that universes of the size of our own are almost infinitely less probable than much smaller universes, that our universe does not look to be headed for a "big crunch", etc.

You also say, "You are the one that believes things happen without a cause". So now are you trying to tell me that you believe things cannot happen without a cause and that I am the only one asserting that?

If so, then do you not see that an infinite number of prior causes (e.g. your cyclical universe theory) leads to an actual infinity of prior events and that we never get to this point because there are an infinite number of events that must precede it? (This is but one of many absurdities implied by such a presupposition.)

The only escape from your argument is to suppose that there is a first cause which is uncaused, outside of the physical universe whose existence is necessary but which is sufficient to explain the existence of the universe.

If you do not accept that, then your position seems to be that our universe does not have a reason for its existence (a cause) and that it does not need one (you seem to have claimed that, regardless, quite apart from my deduction from your claims). I claim only that things which do not have a beginning need no cause. And I claim that it logically follows that such things are changeless. If not, you have to accept the existence of an actual infinity, something which leads to a multitude of mathematical contradictions (look up Hilbert's Hotel).

You can't argue with a deductive argument by saying that it is wrong but we just haven't figured out any workable alternative yet but that we are working on it. You have to either refute the premises or demonstrate a self contradiction in the argument. Without that, the argument stands.

You are welcome to your opinion that you are suspicious of the premises.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#55

Post by gnaritas »

wbhart wrote: post #54
gnaritas wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. No, I don't and I just told you that. The question is invalid; the Universe didn't come from anything. Even the visible universe, which we know was born from the big bang, no one believes came from nothing; Big bang theory says it came from an infinitely dense energy and the bang converted some of that into matter. No where does the theory state it…

I'm sorry, I'm completely lost. So now you are trying to tell me the universe may not have been the beginning, but that it did not come from anything. You are aware of the scientific issues with the cyclical universe model I take it? There are issues with entropy, fine tuning, the fact that information cannot leave our universe through the event horizon of black holes (singularities), that universes of the size of ou…

You haven't made a deductive argument yet. In fact you've made no argument at all. If you think you have, please do point it out, as I've seen nothing but a series of questions trying to pin down what I think and not a one making an actual argument as to what you think and why it must be. Other than your original statement which was an assertion, not an argument for why it must be true.

Your tactic appears to be an attempt to bait me into making an argument that you can dismantle without actually making your own case hoping that I don't notice you haven't actually made your case. I'm not biting. I don't need to explain the presence of the universe to say that claiming gods did it isn't logical nor do I need to provide a counter argument. If you believe gods did it, you must make that case; you haven't.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#56

Post by jamesrcole »

padobson wrote: post #5

What I admire most about the author is the honest search for Truth. It is a rare individual that can approach this problem while relinquishing their biases. I can't count myself among their ranks. It seems the majority of people, believers and non-believers alike, tend to come to a decision about God after about an afternoon of thinking about it, at most. And really, what philosophical question posed to us could be m…

Why do you think it's an important question? (I'm not being rhetorical)

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#57

Post by __HN_USER_ID_7 »

acuozzo wrote: post #33
jgrahamc wrote: post #8

"Like most people, questions about the existence of God and all things spiritual plague me frequently. I want to believe in such things, especially when it comes to continuity of my consciousness. I don’t like the idea of disappearing when I die." One way to address this is to deal with these thoughts rather than entering a philosophical rat hole of trying to simulate our existence and find an analogy to the computer…

> If God exists then God has powers that make Him imperceptible; if God doesn't exist then He's imperceptible. You can't tell the difference. This is the omnipotence paradox[1]. I often help friends and relatives understand why my religion (or lack thereof, actually) is `Tooth Fairy Agnosticism' by asking them whether or not God can create a stone that He can't lift. > Better to live a life of good deeds and actions…

The "Omnipotence paradox" and its many variations are not a real paradox:

These all reduce down to "Greater Than Infinity" line of thinking. Clearly the actual premise is flawed, thus creating the so called "Paradox".

An Example (The Well Story):

A child finds a man near an old well. He observes the old man throwing stones down the well.

The child asks the old man how long it will take the stones to reach the bottom of the well. He Replies "It will take 4 blinks of an eye".

The next day the child finds the same old man at another well. He asks the same question. However this well is unlike the other, it is a bottom less well.

The child asks "How long will it take for the stones to reach the bottom of this well?"

The old man replies "child, this is a bottomless well. It is not that it will never reach the bottom. IT HAS NO bottom! Your question is wrong because your understanding of the well is wrong".

Post reply on HN