tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post3977967563269403115..comments2024-03-25T11:49:21.281-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: A Philosophical Critique of the Big Bang Theory, in Four MinutesEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-91019142953700195062016-12-16T18:34:22.918-08:002016-12-16T18:34:22.918-08:00If we're in a sim, does that change the meanin...If we're in a sim, does that change the meaning of our lives or stuff like existentialism?<br />Are we just entertainment for the Gods? Or can we bracket that junk out, and carpe diem?howie bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-24857232535424220792016-12-13T10:07:52.655-08:002016-12-13T10:07:52.655-08:00Eric - Faith is most definitely a matter for ratio...Eric - Faith is most definitely a matter for rational consideration. Quoting Swedenborg - "Now it is permitted to enter with the understanding into the mysteries of faith." For example, a person's faith should be consistent and coherent. That does not mean that rational consideration will lead you to faith, since faith is a matter of conviction, which engages the will and the heart, but it can certainly be discussed rationally, as Augustine, Aquinas and many others have demonstrated.George Gantzhttp://www.swedenborgcenterconcord.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-29820458172678593252016-12-13T07:43:36.289-08:002016-12-13T07:43:36.289-08:00Thanks, everyone -- sorry for the slow replies!
H...Thanks, everyone -- sorry for the slow replies!<br /><br />Howard: Less an assumption than a possibility to consider.<br /><br />George: Yes, but I'm not sure "faith" is the right word? One concern I have with that word in this context is that it seems to remove these considerations from the domain of rational evaluation, whereas I think they can be rationally evaluated even if not decisively settled.<br /><br />Ergun: Agreed. It partly depends on how liberally "computer" is defined, but I agree that digital computers as we recognize them now might be left behind in the future as we have left behind clockwork.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-33896171237248879332016-12-13T04:58:25.690-08:002016-12-13T04:58:25.690-08:00why "computer " simulation? computers ar...why "computer " simulation? computers are a transient phenomena. even 100-1000 yrs in the future it is likely that noone will know what they areAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02802125202662656190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-23917244172048426812016-12-07T11:21:00.203-08:002016-12-07T11:21:00.203-08:00And, how is every little thing cosmically signific...And, how is every little thing cosmically significant from within a sim!howard bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-15482360074058630172016-12-07T11:07:35.228-08:002016-12-07T11:07:35.228-08:00Eric - Well said! Let's have some conversatio...Eric - Well said! Let's have some conversation on the framework assumptions. In a recent presentation/essay, I suggested 21st century science seems to have a consensual framework as follows:<br />1. the regularities we observe in the physical world are reliable, consistent and enduring<br />2. these regularities are rational and comprehensible<br />3. mathematics is the language by which we can best explore and describe these regularities <br />4. the world is fundamentally random - there is no purposeful intentionality or agency involved in its functioning.<br />5. the world is causally determined, from small to large, from past to future -- reductionism is methodologically exclusive<br />6. the physical world is all there is - there are no non-physical causes, no miracles and, to some, no mystery.<br /><br />I have no real problem with the first three (except some observed phenomena like QP appear to violate Aristotle's principal of the excluded middle so may be irrational). I think the last three are wrongheaded and close off valid lines of inquiry - like the one you postulate (violates #4)! Not that I give the Simulation Hypothesis much credence - although I liked the Matrix movies. <br /><br />What are these framework assumptions? Some might call them metaphysics. I call them "implicit tenets of faith," and the ones I listed above are for the framework I call the "empirical standard of knowing". While framework assumptions usually have some basis in one's experience, they cannot be proved. They also are not strictly falsifiable - counterfactuals, in one way or another, can be explained away while holding fast to one's belief. In this regard, the Simulation Hypothesis and Creationism are quite similar --- if you really want to believe, you will find a way to explain any counterfactuals, e.g. Those fossils were put there by God to test our faith!<br /><br />For a link to a prepublication version of the essay: http://swedenborgcenterconcord.org/the-empirical-standard-of-knowing-faith-misplaced/George Gantzhttp://swedenborgcenterconcord.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-3921623255187917252016-12-07T08:57:52.070-08:002016-12-07T08:57:52.070-08:00Don't you assume the originator of the compute...Don't you assume the originator of the computer sim lives in a world like ours?<br />We don't really KNOW, but maybe their world is so radically different from ours that they don't have computers. Maybe they have even different laws of physics altogether.<br />Maybe they have angels and dis embodied soulshowardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-76981624481617229122016-12-07T07:00:42.021-08:002016-12-07T07:00:42.021-08:00Thanks for the comments, folks.
Unknown: Yes, I s...Thanks for the comments, folks.<br /><br />Unknown: Yes, I see some connection here to the fine-tuning argument.<br /><br />Anon: You have high expectations of what it's reasonable to aspire to achieve in four minutes for a popular audience! I would resist your suggestion that Simulation is necessarily a skeptical scenario (see Chalmers on this, for example) or the suggestion that it is as unjustifiably groundless as the Cartesian demon scenario (see Bostrom on that). I guess one other thing I will say in my defense is that the idea for these comments came directly out of discussion with Mobasher and the moderator (also a physicist), both of whom seemed to think that you're either doing hard science (H/He ratios) or "faith". I'm not sure whether you agree with them, but the main point of the comment is to push back against that idea, by suggesting that even far-out possibilities can be approached in a rational way.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-54539773170888301532016-12-06T23:19:58.913-08:002016-12-06T23:19:58.913-08:00How is this an interesting or illuminating discuss...How is this an interesting or illuminating discussion of the big bang? It is trivial to imagine alternative, skeptical scenerios like these. And it is also a commonplace that the sciences make "framework assumptions." Nothing seems to be added to the conceptual questions about physics and cosmology by repeating a variation of Cartesian demons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-82985791750727531872016-12-06T15:01:12.847-08:002016-12-06T15:01:12.847-08:00Thanks for keeping philosophy exciting...
..discov...Thanks for keeping philosophy exciting...<br />..discovering 'H/He ratios' could be like "m/Q ratios" (Mass to charge ratio), then Mobasher's framework would be attracted to grounding at the beginning of a universe...subjecting 'someone' and anything about our universe to return to place in its definitive existence...<br /><br />re: Ontology is the origin of "information science ontology"...Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02580641063222662041noreply@blogger.com