Existence and evidence

[Sarpedon]

I will be gone at camp for all of next week but after I will return to this thread.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

…And all available (inconclusive) evidence points towards, at the very least, STEM + Mind. The alternative is “STEM + Beats me, we just got lucky”.

Oh, very well described! <laughing heartily!>

In response to that, the so-called “materialist” THEN goes to the (INFINITY INVOKING [aka “BS shoveling”) maneuver of, “But there are an INFINITE number of ‘universes’ of which SEVERAL are ‘tuned’ by chance to LOOK like they are ‘created by a mind’ to those within them who are ‘searching for a creator mind’ of their creation”.

How “materialist” is it to conjecture complete fantasy like that, based on nothing even remotely observable whatsoever?

That is why that kind of “materialist” is really a religious person, searching for religous-type “truths”. Instead of worshipping a CREATOR, an actual answer to a question, they worship a LACK of an answer, and the “structures”, idols, that need inventing to justify that “hole”.

WHY do they want to have physicality be “all there is” to the universe and it’s workings?

Because they want the option to, “http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=do+what+thou+wilt”]do what thou wilt, being the whole of the law”.

 

[Nullasalus]

In response to that, the so-called “materialist” THEN goes to the (INFINITY INVOKING [aka “BS shoveling”) maneuver of, “But there are an INFINITE number of ‘universes’ of which SEVERAL are ‘tuned’ by chance to LOOK like they are ‘created by a mind’ to those within them who are ‘searching for a creator mind’ of their creation”.

I’ve seen that kind of response before. For my money, even ‘infinite/large number of universes’ doesn’t do the job it has to for atheist materialists, because (As Paul Davies noted) all such a posit would do is move the fundamental question up another level to ‘Alright, but what’s behind this infinite number of universes?’ I have severe doubts about whether alternate universes (whether infinity or ‘just the two’) could ever be verified to exist, even if they certainly did - but as a thought exercise, I can work with the assumption of infinite universes… and back to deism/theism I still go. It still makes more sense to posit a supreme mind backing the multitude of universes than to assume ‘Well, these things just happen and no fundamental mind is involved’, because you’re still dealing with source-level tuning, creation, etc - and ‘mind’ still remains the one answer we know is a definite possibility, while ‘creation sans mind’ remains an unfounded additional speculation.

(This before recognizing that quite a lot of scientists think ‘infinite universes’ and other such things are complete conjecture, and a blurring of falsifiable science with unfalsifiable metaphysics.)

That is why that kind of “materialist” is really a religious person, searching for religous-type “truths”. Instead of worshipping a CREATOR, an actual answer to a question, they worship a LACK of an answer, and the “structures”, idols, that need inventing to justify that “hole”.

I wouldn’t want to generalize materialists or atheists, but I’d agree that a lot of times there’s something fishy going on with the arguments. I think many try to position themselves in a pseudo-agnostic role where they aggressively question any concept of God that bears a resemblance to Judeo-Christian, but don’t want to defend any alternatives. Because the alternative is effectively “primordial chaos” - a source of unplanned, brute force, who-knows-why laws that just so happen to give rise to minds that can give rise to creativity and purposefulness. It can do absolutely everything God-as-imagined can do, except have or be subject to a mind. Oh, and it should be the null hypothesis.

To loosely paraphrase Churchill, “God is the worst explanation for existence, except for all the alternatives.”
[/quote]

 

[ateista]

What a wonderful, stimulating post! Thank you for sharing your ideas.

You’re bringing in human consciousness arguments where they don’t need to be yet. And you’re making a mistake as to what happens when you realize the possibility of simulations.

In our universe, any simulation we make is (except for mental simulations, but let’s put those aside for now) going to be dependent on hardware. Sure, that’s a given. But we also know that the simulated worlds we make would not have to conform directly to the laws and realities of our own world - we could tweak fundamental values of physics or physical reality in sim-existence. We could even make it such that creating simulations in sim-existence is an impossible feat, even though we know that in P-existence it’s possible.

Obviously I misunderstood what you said before. So you speak of virtual reality (sim-worlds) which are present in some computer games (in a very rudimentary form), but bring it several steps further. Very good idea. There are only the simulated beings who do not even know that there is an “outside world”, though they may speculate about it.

What you say is very close to Stanislaw Lem’s wonderful short story: “Non Serviam”. Have you read it? If not, you would enjoy it very much. It appeared in the collection: “A Perfect Vacuum”. It is one of my favorite stories, and - incidentally - it made my atheism even stronger.

Indeed in those worlds the “laws of nature” can be suspended or modified. The “personoids” live and “breathe” in that totally artificial environment. But for them it is their P-existence.

Now, imagine we’re in a simulation. (Like any ‘fundamental nature of reality’ claim, it’s not falsifiable in a Popperian sense. But, for now, imagine.) Just as sim-existence would not = P-existence for those within the simulation, “our” P-existence would not necessarily = P-existence in the world of the programmer (PRG-existence). In fact, one could argue that chances are such that it certainly wouldn’t.

Like in the “Matrix”? Sure I can imagine that. Where we disagree that for the beings in the sim-existence it would be their P-existence. They could observe the laws governing their universe, and they would be bound by them.

That P-existence != PRG-existence indicates X-existence or close enough.

Yes, you are right. For the beings residing in that world it is like the X-existence. True, the “laws of nature” are totally different in the two layers of existence. But that is not relevant. The programmer is indeed “God” of the simulated world. He can change the parameters of this world, he can effect them from the outside.

Can the beings discover that? Not if the programmer made it impossible for them to discover it. The programmer pushes a few buttons on the console, and part of the simulated world changes or disappears. Indeed it is a magic or miracle for the beings inside that world.

X-existence is posited to be non-physical, but the only physical we know is that which is contained in P-existence, which we know can differ from sim-existence drastically. So reason favors PRG = not-P.

That does not follow. From this it only follows that the P-existence of the programmer is different from the P-existence on the simulated beings. The programmer is indeed extremely powerful compared to the beings inside the computer’s world. But it does not follow that the programmer is immaterial, or is not bound by the laws of nature, space, time, matter and energy in his world.

What does follow is that P-existence may have many layers to it, and the laws governing each layer may be different. But that is no surprise again, the laws governing the subatomic world are different from the laws of the macro-world. That does not make the macro world “immaterial”.

You can try to salvage materialism by arguing ‘Well, it would be not-P, but since P-existence is as fundamental as we know, PRG would have to be so close to P to count as P.’ But at that point, ‘physicalism’ loses all meaning. Everything is going to be physicalism. The immaterial is just one more flavor of physicalism.

No, this does not follow either. What follows is that the P-existence of the programmer is distinct and different from the P-existence of the artificial world inside the computer.

(This has been par for the course for materialism. Russell thought quantum mechanics discoveries undermined materialism, because suddenly the material was absolutely nothing like what previous materialists thought. Well, they just expanded the definition of materialism to include quantum discoveries. And when dark matter/energy was indicated to possibly be the majority constituent in our universe, well, they decided dark matter/dark energy was included under materialism as well.)

Why are you surprised? You say this as if it were somehow improper and dishonest.

Scientific concepts change and evolve as new discoveries are made. There is nothing intellectually dishonest in admitting that our previous concepts were erroneous or inadeqaute, and modify our understanding of reality as new discoveries are made. I think it is the only way to go. Having our concepts updated, modified or even discarded if they are found incorrect.

Let me stress this - it doesn’t matter if STEM is fundamental if mind is fundamental as well. STEM + Mind = Deism/theism. And all available (inconclusive) evidence points towards, at the very least, STEM + Mind. The alternative is “STEM + Beats me, we just got lucky”.

The error goes away when you realize that positioning ‘No God’ as the null hypothesis is a tremendous mistake.

Mind is a function or activity of matter (brain) as far as we can determine. The operation of the mind is akin to the operating system of the computer. Neither can exist apart from the underlying hardware. The “hardware” supplies the physical / chemical interactions of the neurons in the brain and the electronic interactions of the switches / circuits of the computer.

If you damage the brain or the computer hardware, the mind and the software of the program will “misbehave” or cease to operate at all - depending on the size and the extent of the damage.

Technically speaking the brain is a huge parallel-processing and finite computer, with a large (but finite) number of processing units (neurons).

 

[ateista]

I will be gone at camp for all of next week but after I will return to this thread.

Have a great time! Will be good to have you back. Don’t be surprised if the thread goes to ten pages during your absence…

 

[Nullasalus]

Obviously I misunderstood what you said before. So you speak of virtual reality (sim-worlds) which are present in some computer games (in a very rudimentary form), but bring it several steps further. Very good idea. There are only the simulated beings who do not even know that there is an “outside world”, though they may speculate about it.

I’m not the originator of the idea. Nick Bostrom has popularized a version of simulation theory which has in part inspired me, as has Charles Babbage’s takes on the matter. I go in a different direction with it, but it’s not purely my own.

Like in the “Matrix”? Sure I can imagine that. Where we disagree that for the beings in the sim-existence it would be their P-existence. They could observe the laws governing their universe, and they would be bound by them.

But calling PRG-existence “P-existence” means to make “P-existence” meaningless as a descriptor. You can just as easily say that X-existence is “God’s P-existence” at that point.

We’d have no idea what PRG-existence’s world laws are. Their laws could be mutable by themselves. Their laws could be one with themselves. They could be actually timeless. You’re making the mistake of trying to deduce PRG’s laws and situation from P’s, but we know from sim’s that that’s not at all a reliable indicator.

Yes, you are right. For the beings residing in that world it is like the X-existence. True, the “laws of nature” are totally different in the two layers of existence. But that is not relevant. The programmer is indeed “God” of the simulated world. He can change the parameters of this world, he can effect them from the outside.

It’s entirely relevant. We’re talking about the practicality and justification of assuming X-existence, and this thought experiment lends a whole lot of credence not only to logically grounding such a point, but pointing out its strength against alternatives.

Can the beings discover that? Not if the programmer made it impossible for them to discover it.

Based on what we know about ourselves as beings, there will always be an element of faith even if said programmer (or God) really and truly does exist - unless the programmer brute-force included certainty in our minds. Merely existing and actively making appearances / revealing self would not do the trick.

There is no way to attain scientific certainty at this level of fundamental question.

That does not follow. From this it only follows that the P-existence of the programmer is different from the P-existence on the simulated beings. The programmer is indeed extremely powerful compared to the beings inside the computer’s world. But it does not follow that the programmer is immaterial, or is not bound by the laws of nature, space, time, matter and energy in his world.

It can’t ever be decisively proven one way or the other. Science has its limits, and so does certainty in philosophy.

But the fact that PRG-existence can be, and likely is, vastly different from P-existence results adds more weight to the deist/theist column. It’s entirely justifiable to speculate about the basis of reality for PRG-existence, and to rationally understand that whatever it may be, the simple position the programmer occupies in relation to our P-existence means the factors that make up our P-existence (the laws, etc) are subject to a reality that is indifferent to our P-existence.

What does follow is that P-existence may have many layers to it, and the laws governing each layer may be different. But that is no surprise again, the laws governing the subatomic world are different from the laws of the macro-world. That does not make the macro world “immaterial”.

Depends on who you talk to, even among the physicists. There’s a reason the materialists by and large call themselves ‘physicalists’ nowadays - it’s because the discoveries of QM called into question whether materialism as conceived was utterly undermined.

No, this does not follow either. What follows is that the P-existence of the programmer is distinct and different from the P-existence of the artificial world inside the computer.

You’re saying the programmer, who exists in a reality superior to our own and which our P is subject to, has a P-existence. Sorry, but that’s rallying a whole lot of assumption right out of the gates, and threatens to reduce P to meaninglessness. ‘Whatever the existence the programmer inhabits, is P, even though P can mean just about everything including a world where our physics don’t apply and fundamental laws either are not present or are vastly different’.

From the perspective of the theist, PRG is FAPP X. You can reply that you can FAPP view PRG as P if you want, but since a whole lot of your argument rests on negating X’s viability as a considered reality for the theist, it puts you at a disadvantage.

Why are you surprised? You say this as if it were somehow improper and dishonest.

Scientific concepts change and …

I find it squirrely to say the least. I’m not talking about science here, but philosophers. Prior to QM, materialism depended on a conception of matter that was entirely macro-like. Obviously determinist, closed, ‘solid’. This changed, but materialism just chugged right along. ‘I’m a materialist, in that I’m going to call whatever actually exists material.’

I mostly get a kick out of guys like Dennett, who actually does call himself a materialist, pointing fingers at religious people for developing and expanding their concepts of God, when he’s guilty of one great fundamental ‘correction’ to say the least.

Mind is a function or activity of matter (brain) as far as we can determine.

That’s an oversimplification which leaves out some essential questions - are the operations entirely ‘macro-level’ or do they extend down into the quantum level? Are there emergent properties? Is consciousness itself reducible to the physical? Some philosophers (naturalists, even atheists as they are) don’t think it can be.

Or to put a fun spin on it: “Mind is the function of the brain, which is matter. Now, if we only understood what matter is and does/can do, we’d be getting somewhere!”

 

[SeekingCatholic]

I agree that the laws of nature “exist” in a possible world without intelligent entites - if there are laws of nature in a hypothetical world. The word “exist” means here that the physical regularities are there to be discovered (if there are regularities at all, which is far from being obvious!).

I use the word “concept” as a recognized regularity. One hydrogen atom plus another hydrogen atom would make two hydrogen atoms - as ontological entites. But the concept of “two” hydrogen atoms would not exist without some intelligent entity who can recognize the “abstraction” of “two”.

OK, well it always helps to define terms clearly. You’ve defined “concept”, a “recognized” regularity, tautologically, as non-existent without some intelligent entity capable of recognizing it. However, assuming a world with physical regularities but without intelligent entities, you then say that the laws of nature nevertheless exist. Are you saying the laws of nature have p-existence?

As I said in the opening post, some concepts refer to actual regularities of nature but others refer to totally imaginary entities. The first kind we formulate based upon discovering the regularities, the second kind we “make up”.

This is the reason that I consider the existence of “concepts” apart from the intelligent minds an incorrect proposition.

Only because you’ve defined concepts that way. I can just as well define concept to refer to the regularities of nature, which as you admit exist even without intelligent minds.

I wonder. I can posit a definition: “the smallest positive integer which cannot be stated using less than a 100 letters”. It is a clear mathematical definiton of a number. The trouble is that it contains less than 100 letters (82 letters, counting the spaces). It is a simple proposition, still meaningless.

And I can posit a statement: “This statement is false.” Or a series of statements: “The following statement is true. The previous statement is false.” These are, indeed, meaningless. Their truth value is not true or false - it is null. But to posit a hypothesis the hypothetical statement must have a true or false truth value. Now you said x-existence could be posited as a hypothesis. That implies “there is at least one entity who exists via x-existence” has a truth value of true or false, not null.

But we may have a miscommunication here: I meant that the word “existence” may not be meaningful when we start to speak of x-existence. So far we defined “existence” for physical ontological objects and for concepts - and they are quite different. How can the word “existence” be defined in a meaningful fashion for x-existence? That is the pertinent question.

I could just as well ask whether you really have a “meaningful” definition of “existence” for physical ontological objects.

We are all familiar with physical existence, let’s call it P-existence. It imples space, time, energy and matter. When we speak of physical existence, we talk about objects, composed of matter and energy, existing in some point in space. Physical objects can interact, they can exert “influence” on other objects.

But, as every physics major knows, an electron bound to a hydrogen atom does not “exist” at any particular “point” in space. In fact when you get right down to it you can’t prove existence of physical objects as ontological entities even at the macro-level - these may be mere human classifications. Just like the law of non-contradiction, the concept of existence must be assumed, axiomatically, for grand philosophical discussions about metaphysics to even get off the ground.

They may be genuinely random. The truth is that quantum physics is a very new science and I think we have barely scratched the surface of it.

Quantum physics has been around for about 100 years. And the best evidence we have to this point is that they are genuinely random. The possibility of local hidden variables has been disproven. Global hidden variables are possible (e.g. Bohm’s pilot wave theory), but it seems to me contrived.

The fact that you are not optimistic (I am) is unfortunately not a deciding factor. It happened time and again that previously unexplained and seemingly unexplainable events became clear and easy to explain as science progressed. Of course it is not true that prior successes will “ensure” further successes, but it looks highly probable that they will.

As I said, assigning likelihoods and priors is not always easy.

I don’t think that we can eliminate the first possibility just yet. After all that is the most likely one.

I didn’t eliminate it. However I disagree that it is the “most likely one” for two reasons. Why don’t you ask a few physicists and see whether they think determinism will ever return to physics. It’s not just an argument from incredulity. There is positive evidence supporitng the irreducible randomness of quantum events. More importantly, the likelihood of observing quantum events if they are caused by an immaterial entity or uncaused is one - it’s less than one if they are due to as yet unknown physical processes (which may not exist).

I would like to hear more.

Sure. Saying “God did it” is in itself just as unfalsifiable, and ad hoc as saying “it just happened uncaused”. The reason is that hypothesis can explain any data at all. It’s like fitting 10 points to a function with 10 parameters - you are guaranteed a perfect fit every time, but you get no information at all about whether your 10-parameter function is an accurate representation of reality. But if constraints are placed upon God’s (or some other immaterial entity’s) actions now you reduce the hypothesis space and you get more explanatory power.

There is one observation I would like to inject here. The hypothesis of a non-material entity effecting material existence has a serious stumbling block: at the “time and place” of intervention there is an “interface” between the two types of exisitence. At this point we can “catch” the non-material entity “red-handed”.

How so? All you still have are physical observations. How are you saying anything different than what I am saying, which is that the relevant evidence is seemingly uncaused physical events?

The reason for this is that a non-material entity causing a material change is either really “magic”, or the non-material entity must assume some material properties in order to cause a change - that is it must cease to be “fully” immaterial. After all we can agree that the only known non-material entites (concepts) are “inert”, they cannot effect a material change.

1. Why shouldn’t a non-material entity causing a material change be really “magic”, as we would understand the term (e.g. uncaused physical happenings?)
2. If the non-material entity assumed some material properties, how would we be expected to recognize that?

 

[Dranu]

ateista:

Mind is a function or activity of matter (brain) as far as we can determine. The operation of the mind is akin to the operating system of the computer.

Well that of course nullifies free will, something I thought you posited earlier in saying our actions are the start of separate causal chains. If we have no free will then our actions are determined from without (formation of the brain, how the brain functions according to the things that lead up to its formation and still effect it, etc.). In other words, there can be no breaking form the chain without a free will. You become a completely submissive slave to the primary causal chain with not even the ability to freely will to be outside of it, let alone actually be outside it.

More devastating is that this theory also destroys reason. If we posit a truth, that ‘truth’ does not have an objective foundation since it is dependent on whatever the causal chain has me thinking on the moment. There can be no real ‘measuring’ against a real standard since the standard would not be considered a real thing. furthermore, there would be no standard for truth that is anymore than the result of what I ate a few days ago, and the events that forced my brain to act a certain way. So in more than one way does it destroy reason (and there are even more than just these) In other words, if your hypothesis is true (note also the idea is not physical in itself, I cannot point to truth pieces sitting around), we have no reason to believe its true, just that we think that way because we are being forced to (we even have no reason to believe that for the same reasons ).

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Well that of course nullifies free will, something I thought you posited earlier in saying our actions are the start of separate causal chains. If we have no free will then our actions are determined from without (formation of the brain, how the brain functions according to the things that lead up to its formation and still effect it, etc.). In other words, there can be no breaking form the chain without a free will. You become a completely submissive slave to the primary causal chain with not even the ability to freely will to be outside of it, let alone actually be outside it.

More devastating is that this theory also destroys reason. If we posit a truth, that ‘truth’ does not have an objective foundation since it is dependent on whatever the causal chain has me thinking on the moment. There can be no real ‘measuring’ against a real standard since the standard would not be considered a real thing. furthermore, there would be no standard for truth that is anymore than the result of what I ate a few days ago, and the events that forced my brain to act a certain way. So in more than one way does it destroy reason (and there are even more than just these) In other words, if your hypothesis is true (note also the idea is not physical in itself, I cannot point to truth pieces sitting around), we have no reason to believe its true, just that we think that way because we are being forced to (we even have no reason to believe that for the same reasons ).

This is not compatible with libertarian free will, but it is consonant with compatibilist free will (soft determinism).

 

[ateista]

But calling PRG-existence “P-existence” means to make “P-existence” meaningless as a descriptor. You can just as easily say that X-existence is “God’s P-existence” at that point.

Yes, that is my conclusion. But that does not make it meaningless.

Let’s ponder what you say: It seems possible to build “brains in a vat”. Because that is what the sim-worlds are. I agree.

A totally artifical envirnment, where the sensory (name removed by moderator)uts for its inhabitants are provided via the electroninc impulses in the computer. The world itself is based upon the mathematical decisions made by the programmer (or programmers). The programmers are “Gods” to this world. They created it, they can monitor it, they can change it. They are omnipotent. (They are not omnisicent, but let’s not get there. The usual understanding of omniscience is nonsensical - just like the naive concept of omnipotence - being able to do “everything”.)

Now the beings in this world cannot know all that. For them the world is physical and real. We, on the outside know that they are “fooled”. But for them it looks real.

Where is the difference? We also may be just brains in a vat. For us the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut may be the same: the impulses which reach us may be just electronic impulses which we “interpret” as light, sound, heat, touch, taste etc.

Whether we are “real” of just artificial beings in a dusty lab is not knowable. It is not something we can find out - in principle.

So far I agree. Where I am lost is: “why does this scenario make it ‘likely’ that the deistic / theistic positon is correct”?

On the very contrary. It makes the concept of “immaterial existence” - less likely. We, the programmers are not immaterial. We exist in our time, even if this time is independent of the time inside the sim-world. The beings inside the sim-world can build their own “sim-world” - compared to which they are “gods”. And so on… In the other direction the “beings” who created our “sim-world” are also just brains in the vats… and so on.

There is nothing to support such a hypothesis. It is a fun mental exercise. And the conclusion is not an “immaterial” existence.

(BTW, sorry for being late with the respose. We are preparing our house for sale, and that is quite a full time “job”.)

 

[ateista]

OK, well it always helps to define terms clearly. You’ve defined “concept”, a “recognized” regularity, tautologically, as non-existent without some intelligent entity capable of recognizing it. However, assuming a world with physical regularities but without intelligent entities, you then say that the laws of nature nevertheless exist. Are you saying the laws of nature have p-existence?

Let me ask you this: does “walking” have p-existence? It is the activity of the p-existing “legs”. The laws of nature are the physical interactions of physical particles. But the interaction itself is just as “physical” as “walking”.

Electricity is the exchange of electrons. The strong and weak nucleonic forces are exchanges of mezon-type particles. Gravity is supposed to be of even smaller particles (gravitons).

Matter cannot be separated from energy. Movement cannot be separated matter / energy. Whether we call “movement” or “activity” a p-existing “thing” is something we can explore.

Only because you’ve defined concepts that way. I can just as well define concept to refer to the regularities of nature, which as you admit exist even without intelligent minds.

Yes, you could. Why should you? In my eyes the distinction is valuable. It is clearer.

And I can posit a statement: “This statement is false.” Or a series of statements: “The following statement is true. The previous statement is false.” These are, indeed, meaningless. Their truth value is not true or false - it is null. But to posit a hypothesis the hypothetical statement must have a true or false truth value. Now you said x-existence could be posited as a hypothesis. That implies “there is at least one entity who exists via x-existence” has a truth value of true or false, not null.

Yes.

I could just as well ask whether you really have a “meaningful” definition of “existence” for physical ontological objects.

Yes, you can do that. My answer is that we directly experience the physical reality through our senses.

We could postulate that all that is just a “dream”, the external reality is just an “illusion”, in other words, one could be a solipsist. Of course if one would really do that, then one should refrain from entering into any interaction with one’s own “illusionary world”.

Since we don’t do that, we implictly accept the reality of physical existence.

But, as every physics major knows, an electron bound to a hydrogen atom does not “exist” at any particular “point” in space. In fact when you get right down to it you can’t prove existence of physical objects as ontological entities even at the macro-level - these may be mere human classifications. Just like the law of non-contradiction, the concept of existence must be assumed, axiomatically, for grand philosophical discussions about metaphysics to even get off the ground.

Ok. We are familiar with our own existence. We do not subscribe to solipsism, therefore we accept external reality. We experience matter, energy, space and time through our senses.

Your posts are excellent questions about the properties or attributes of physical existence. They do not question physical existence per se. Whether physical existence is intrinsically random or not - it so far it seems to be random on the quantum level.

I do not see why should you equate / compare randomness (uncaused behavior) with “being caused by an x-existing entity” - if you do it, of course. Maybe I misunderstood your position.

The possibility of non-matter, non-energy, non-spatial and timeless existence is the problem we are trying to explore - with the added question: “can such existence interact with our physical existence and yet be unaffected by it?”.

Did you read Nullasalus’ posts and my replies to them? I really like his ideas, too, just as I like yours.

Will continue later…

 

[ateista]

Well that of course nullifies free will, something I thought you posited earlier in saying our actions are the start of separate causal chains…

No it does not. First, we do not “know” if free will exists or not. We either accept it axiomatically, or reject it. It cannot be proven or falsified.

Second, I did not say that the mind is the equivalent of the computer’s operating system, just that they are similar. The currently existing operating systems try to avoid the simulation of free will - in a computer it is called a bug. (Another question may arise here: where does “simulation end and reality begin?”. I think it should be explored in a different thread. )

I believe (and you may disagree) that the free will is an inherent property of a system which exceeds a certain level of complexity.

 

[Nullasalus]

Let’s ponder what you say: It seems possible to build “brains in a vat”. Because that is what the sim-worlds are. I agree.

Not what I’m saying, and sim-worlds are not brains-in-a-vat. You’re confusing two different thought experiments.

Where I am lost is: “why does this scenario make it ‘likely’ that the deistic / theistic positon is correct”?

Because

1. We’re certain that design exists. It’s inextricably linked to our mental reality.
2. We recognize that design (and thus a designer), through the simulation example, is entirely capable of explaining our reality as a whole.
3. ‘Fundamentally unguided stuff that just happen to have the right laws and material to give rise to our universe’, meanwhile, is merely postulated to exist. We have direct and certain evidence of design by our subjective life, but no equivalent evidence for such primal chaos - nor could we ever.

Therefore, the favor falls in the direction of deism/theism. It doesn’t prove theism/deism to be true. But it does make it the most reasonable conclusion compared to atheism, or even agnosticism.

On the very contrary. It makes the concept of “immaterial existence” - less likely. We, the programmers are not immaterial. We exist in our time, even if this time is independent of the time inside the sim-world. The beings inside the sim-world can build their own “sim-world” - compared to which they are “gods”. And so on… In the other direction the “beings” who created our “sim-world” are also just brains in the vats… and so on.

Sorry, but no. We can create a sim-world where sim-sim-worlds are not possible. We can create sim-worlds that operate according to physics and laws that are utterly foreign to us. We can infer nothing about the physical properties (or lack thereof) in PRG-world, just as a denizen of sim-world could not reasonably deduce any present/lacking physical properties of P-world based on the properties of sim-world. We could create a sim-world where gravity did not exist - sim-citizen deducing that P-world therefore had no gravity would be making an obvious mistake. PRG-existence could well and truly be X-existence.

But you know what? For fun, I could even grant that PRG-existence may have, in however loose a fashion, something analogous to P-existence. For the theist/deist, it doesn’t really matter. As you said, from the perspective of P-existence, PRG-existence is X-existence. The designer in PRG is not bound by P - he’s “outside” of that. It illustrates a situation acceptable to the theist/deist, unacceptable for the atheist. (Hence, why I said that even if STEM was fundamental, STEM -mind is what the atheist needs. STEM + mind as fundamental means the atheist loses.)

Yes, you can never be certain PRG is the ‘absolute reality’. But you’re never going to be certain of anything with regards to such a philosophical question. Faith will always come into play. Just, the theist/deist is in a much better basic position compared to the atheist. The atheist needs a proposed philosophical construct of fundamentality that has essentially all the creative powers of God and none of the mental properties.

There is nothing to support such a hypothesis. It is a fun mental exercise. And the conclusion is not an “immaterial” existence.

There’s plenty to support such a hypothesis. Simulations exist - we can mess around with them as we please, both in the form of computer simulations as well as mental simulations. Design exists as an utter certainty - ‘unguided chance that just broke in a lucky way for humans’ is the stuff of pure philosophical speculation. And the bar you’re trying to set for “immaterial” is irrelevant - you’re admitting to the validity of a PRG world while insisting that, despite being completely unable to be aware of PRG world’s physics or lack thereof, it simply -must- be P or P-like. My response is to point out that your conclusion doesn’t follow, and even if it did, it’d hardly matter.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Let me ask you this: does “walking” have p-existence? It is the activity of the p-existing “legs”. The laws of nature are the physical interactions of physical particles. But the interaction itself is just as “physical” as “walking”.

I guess what I’m really trying to ask here is how in your framework “c-existence” isn’t really just a subset of p-existence, if p-existence is a necessary condition for c-existence. I would argue the reverse; namely, the laws of nature do not only describe actual physical interactions, but also potential physical interactions between only hypothetically existing particles. Thus, it would seem to be that p-existence is actually a subset of c-existence.

Ok. We are familiar with our own existence. We do not subscribe to solipsism, therefore we accept external reality. We experience matter, energy, space and time through our senses.

Your posts are excellent questions about the properties or attributes of physical existence. They do not question physical existence per se.

No, not per se. However my point is that it isn’t easy (in fact, it’s impossible) to sort out objective ontological existence of various entities from mere human classifications.

Whether physical existence is intrinsically random or not - it so far it seems to be random on the quantum level.

I do not see why should you equate / compare randomness (uncaused behavior) with “being caused by an x-existing entity” - if you do it, of course. Maybe I misunderstood your position.

But you don’t know whether it’s in reality uncaused or caused by an x-existing entity. Neither do I, which is why Bayesian methodologies need to be brought into the mix.

The possibility of non-matter, non-energy, non-spatial and timeless existence is the problem we are trying to explore - with the added question: “can such existence interact with our physical existence and yet be unaffected by it?”.

Yes, and you asked for what kind of evidence could be shown in favor of such a type of existence. My answer is that that kind of evidence would be apparently (physically) uncaused physical events. That increases the posterior probability of its existence compared with the prior, based on the background assumption that all physical events have a physical cause. Admittedly I do not see the point of your last question - whether or not such an existence is affected by interaction with our physical existence is irrelevant to the question of whether such existence actually is the case or not.

There are only three possibilities for physical events. 1) They have a physical cause, describable by physical laws; 2) They are caused by an x-entity; 3) They are uncaused.

Now for events describable by 1) we reject x-entity causation or lack of causation by Occam’s Razor. Why should the x-entity or complete randomness generate the precise events predictable by the laws. The hypothesis space is clearly much, much larger.

But there are events not describable by 1). That does not mean we can say without doubt they do not have a physical cause, at least not up and until we have an absolutely complete description of the physical laws. However the likelihood of the observed data, based on our background knowledge (the physical laws we now know) is now much less than one. This decreases the posterior probability of 1) and therefore increases the posterior probabilities of 2) and 3).

So how to compare 2) and 3)? As I said, positing “God (or some other x-entity) did it” has as much explanatory power as saying “it just happened uncaused”; namely, zero. However, if constraints are placed on the nature of the x-entity, then it becomes possible to shrink the hypothesis space for 2) and generate a higher posterior probability for 2).

 

[Dranu]

I. Ateista

No it does not. First, we do not “know” if free will exists or not. We either accept it axiomatically, or reject it. It cannot be proven or falsified.

I am not talking about a proof of free will, though I have seen a discussion saying that its rejection (even in non-materialistic systems) destroys reason. I want to focus on what happens when one speaks of materialism and its compatibility with free will and reason. Let me present a minor argument and you refute what you disagree with:

Definition: An active action/movement. That is, it is not passive, it is not the direct result of other causes, but rather finds its cause in itself. (most motivation, on the other hand, for humans, are often about by other causes than directly the will, but the ‘choosing’ is what I am talking about.)

1.) In all of reality, no other forces are involved than matter/energy.

2.) No other beings effects reality, so all movement and complexity is rather just the movement of material resulting in the movement of other matter (like dominoes falling for instance). This is passive action (at least it must be for any complexity above the atomic level)

3.) The brain is what moves the entire concept of ‘human’

4.) The brain is not separate from material, it is rather made up of it (from #1)

5.) All the actions of the brain cannot be said to be found in itself as a whole thing (the brain is not really a true thing in itself, it is just a composition of multiple bits of reality, i.e. matter, from #1). * —Side Note: Only the matter that makes it up move, and that is not controlled by the brain, but rather the brain is controlled by it. Yes, we may say when the brain does X, Y will later happen in the state of the brain, but we must know that the first cause and any later actions of matter outside the brain moving on it governs all ‘internal’ actions (which are not internal in a proper sense of the word anyhow) thereafter. *

6.) From #5 + #2, the brain is passive, and is not a real thing but rather is a concept that refers to a certain movement of matter (just now, very interconnected and complex), and not some other ‘thing’ that overarches the bundle of matter (since there are no real things outside matter).

7.) From #6, #3, and Definition, a human cannot have free will.

I think the more damaging issue, though, is the problem with reason being destroyed by it.

I believe (and you may disagree) that the free will is an inherent property of a system which exceeds a certain level of complexity.

Of course I disagree . No matter how complex I make a dominoes line, at no point does it cross some mystical threshold into free will. No, a computer does not have free will, it merely reacts (passively moves) in complex chain reactions. A computer only is able to calculate math, because it is forced to by us. It is forced into reacting a certain way when certain circuits light up in certain patterns.

Perhaps you think to object in that what I am talking about is a person typing into a computer and the equations being calculated, and perhaps, I am not thinking about more complex computers which when given a certain (name removed by moderator)ut will calculate a reaction that the person giving the (name removed by moderator)ut might not have guessed. Well I am thinking of that as well. Even in those situations, the computer does not actively choose the output it gives, rather its systems (which it also has no choice over) react in a completely determined way based on the program etc. Not knowing the output only comes from the person’s ignorance of the computer’s programming. Either ignorance of what the original programmer put in, ignorance of what the ‘equations’ of the programming will inevitably lead to over its operation (common I should think, as we often do not know the result of something as simple as a math equation we plug into a calculator), or ignorance that a piece of code wasn’t written in the way they thought (error of programmer, or a malfunction of hardware).

II. SeekingCatholic

SeekingCatholic:

This is not compatible with libertarian free will, but it is consonant with compatibilist free will (soft determinism).

What do you mean by ‘compatibilist free will’? Is there still room for actual freedom? I have heard various renderings of compatibilism, and all seem to fail at having a ‘free’ will or fail at being rational. However, I have not studied the issue of compatibilism much, so perhaps I am wrong?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Let’s ponder … : It seems possible to build “brains in a vat”. Because that is what the sim-worlds are. I agree.

A totally artifical envirnment, where the sensory (name removed by moderator)uts for its inhabitants are provided via the electroninc impulses in the computer. The world itself is based upon the mathematical decisions made by the programmer (or programmers). The programmers are “Gods” to this world. They created it, they can monitor it, they can change it. They are omnipotent. (They are not omnisicent, but let’s not get there. The usual understanding of omniscience is nonsensical - just like the naive concept of omnipotence - being able to do “everything”.)

Omniscience is a subsidiary characteristic of omnipotence. Since the god of the sim can “stop time”, and “step” time forward or backward in any increment, and change any variable within the sim, the only “unknowable” activity in the sim for the god is that which he allows to happen by a grant of free will to entities in the sim.

The god of the sim can (eventually to him and instantaneously to the sims) KNOW every and any little detail within the sim.

Now the beings in this world cannot know all that. For them the world is physical and real. We, on the outside know that they are “fooled”. But for them it looks real.

They are not fooled. They are sims. Their “world laws” limit what they can sense, but not what the god can tell them.

When the god tells them about his (the god’s) existence it is so utterly disconnected to what their “senses” tell them that it seems completely immaterial.

The sims are perfectly free to deny the information that the god tells them because it has nothing to do with their “normal existence”.

Where is the difference? We also may be just brains in a vat. For us the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut may be the same: the impulses which reach us may be just electronic impulses which we “interpret” as light, sound, heat, touch, taste etc.

Well, are we just brains in a vat, or not?

Your stance is consistently that we are in fact only brains in a vat. Why do you not flatly state that “we” (humans) are simply brains in a vat?

Whether we are “real” of just artificial beings in a dusty lab is not knowable. It is not something we can find out - in principle.

What we CAN find out on our own is that the universe (the sim) is ONE THING which has consistent laws and in which we are as we are, which points at, but can’t prove, that there is an overall order and DESIGN (meaning “representative of some systematic thing”) which is designed by “something” that is capable of designing.

What we MUST be told is who the designer is, and why the design is as it is.

So far I agree. Where I am lost is: “why does this scenario make it ‘likely’ that the deistic / theistic positon is correct”?

It (a purposefully designed universe) is LIKELY because entropic order creation requires firm underlying “rules” to “coalesce around”, and those “rules” are so delicate that the likelyhood of their being arbitrary is tiny compared to their being “purposefully set”.

To the “early human mind”, this meant simply that it’s amazing that we’ve been allowed to exist as the puny things that we are within such an awesome terrifyingly beautiful and overwhelmingly overpowering place as this “world”.

We KNOW that we should have been ground up by the world in our “infancy”, and should be utterly grateful that we are allowed to exist at all.

This points to “something” benevolent. What is this benevolent thing?

On the very contrary. It makes the concept of “immaterial existence” - less likely. We, the programmers are not immaterial.

We are ENTIRELY immaterial to the sims! Our “materialness” is the very definition of the sims immateriality, because it is “NOT THEIR MATERIAL”, which is what “immaterial” means.

Immaterial does not mean “nonexistent”. It merely means “not like our material”.

We exist in our time, even if this time is independent of the time inside the sim-world. The beings inside the sim-world can build their own “sim-world” - compared to which they are “gods”. And so on… In the other direction the “beings” who created our “sim-world” are also just brains in the vats… and so on.

YOU are proposing that we are “brains in vats”.

We are proposing that your “infinity” (infinitude of “matrixes”) is not a part of REAL reality, and that “persons” are NOT “brains in vats”, but rather “knottings of knottings” of the “ultimate real matter” which is the “substrate” of God’s being composing both His “mind” and THE reality, which we experience as God sees fit for us to experience.

The reason that their is no god above God is because there is only room for ONE uncaused cause in a “universal place” (the REAL universe composed of both the physical universe and “God’s space”), otherwise another infinitude is introduced which invalidates this “solution” AS a solution.

Reality contains NO INFINITUDES! If you see an apparent infinitude you are seeing a reason why God is God, and you aren’t.

There is nothing to support such a hypothesis. It is a fun mental exercise. And the conclusion is not an “immaterial” existence.

So, are you proposing that we AREN’T brains in vats?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

The possibility of non-matter, non-energy, non-spatial and timeless existence is the problem we are trying to explore - with the added question: “can such existence interact with our physical existence and yet be unaffected by it?”.

Our energy is a “derivational” form of REAL energy.

Matter, spatialness, and timeness are all characteristics of ENERGY, and energy is a “knotting” of the REAL “existential substrate”.

What you call “non-material non-energetic non-spatial non-timebound existence”, meaning (to you) “(the nonexistent) God’s brain and finger”, we call the basic material (the actual underlying substrate of our derivational matter/energy) which is the substance which God’s mind manipulates.

There is one “existent” thing. It is “moved” by the unmoved mover. It’s movements are our reality, which we perceive as we are allowed to perceive it.

Since there is only one thing which exists, there is no other existence which interacts with “our” existence to be either affected or not.

 

[ateista]

Not what I’m saying, and sim-worlds are not brains-in-a-vat. You’re confusing two different thought experiments.

I fail to see the difference.

My understanding is that in a sufficiently large computer there is a “virtual” environment, with artificial beings. These beings are not “predetermined”, just like we are not. Their environment supplies their sensory information, just like we get ours. They cannot find out that they live in a “cyst” in our world. They can surmise our existence, but have no way to verify it.

Is this a correct representation of your thought experiment?

Because

1. We’re certain that design exists. It’s inextricably linked to our mental reality.
2. We recognize that design (and thus a designer), through the simulation example, is entirely capable of explaining our reality as a whole.
3. ‘Fundamentally unguided stuff that just happen to have the right laws and material to give rise to our universe’, meanwhile, is merely postulated to exist. We have direct and certain evidence of design by our subjective life, but no equivalent evidence for such primal chaos - nor could we ever.

Therefore, the favor falls in the direction of deism/theism. It doesn’t prove theism/deism to be true. But it does make it the most reasonable conclusion compared to atheism, or even agnosticism.

1. Yes, we know that “design” exists.
2. Not exactly. Yes, our world “could be” designed. But the existence of a “sim-world” does not make it necessary that it “must be” designed.

Even if a world is a sim-world, it can never “look” designed, because it would be a dead give-away to its inhabitants. Indeed it only exhibits order, and order is not the same as design.

What do you mean by “primal chaos”? There is no chaos, only properties of the physical universe.

Sorry, but no. We can create a sim-world where sim-sim-worlds are not possible.

Yes, we could. But we could do them otherwise, where “sim-sim-worlds” are possible. We should not restrict the parameters of this thought experiment, just so we can “force” a desired result.

And that is very important. If our world is a sim-world, then why cannot be the programmer also live in a sim-world of his own? There is no theoretical reason to assume that our world is a sim-world (with the hypothetical God as the programmer), where we can create sim-worlds, but there the possibility stops. This thought-experiment is only useful, if we allow for all the possibilities - and let the chips fall where they may. Why should the number 2 be so special?

The logical outcome is that there might be a huge number of sim-worlds, where each one is imbedded in the previous one. Now does it end somewhere? It must, otherwise we have an infite regression.

So we can postulate that there is one natural world, undesigned. Why should that world be not ours? Nothing indicates the contrary. Why should the “top-level” world be immaterial?

We can create sim-worlds that operate according to physics and laws that are utterly foreign to us. We can infer nothing about the physical properties (or lack thereof) in PRG-world, just as a denizen of sim-world could not reasonably deduce any present/lacking physical properties of P-world based on the properties of sim-world. We could create a sim-world where gravity did not exist - sim-citizen deducing that P-world therefore had no gravity would be making an obvious mistake. PRG-existence could well and truly be X-existence.

Not in the sense that it is “immaterial, spaceless and timeless - and yet active”. Its space, time and material attributes may be very different from ours, but some kind of matter, space and time are necessary for “action”.

But you know what? For fun, I could even grant that PRG-existence may have, in however loose a fashion, something analogous to P-existence. For the theist/deist, it doesn’t really matter. As you said, from the perspective of P-existence, PRG-existence is X-existence. The designer in PRG is not bound by P - he’s “outside” of that. It illustrates a situation acceptable to the theist/deist, unacceptable for the atheist.

Actually, not “unacceptable”, rather unbelieved. And it should matter for the deist / theist. If there are constraints on the programmer - by the reality of his existence, then it is not X-existence.

Also, from the thought-experiment it does not follow that the human programmers who create the sim-world have X-existence. It may be incomprehensible to the inhabitants of the sim-world, but that is all. The programmers are also material, they are constrained. That is not X-existence.

Yes, you can never be certain PRG is the ‘absolute reality’. But you’re never going to be certain of anything with regards to such a philosophical question. Faith will always come into play.

Not “faith” rather some basic axioms and principles.

Just, the theist/deist is in a much better basic position compared to the atheist. The atheist needs a proposed philosophical construct of fundamentality that has essentially all the creative powers of God and none of the mental properties.

Only if this world is a sim-world. And not just a sim-world, but the programmer of this sim-world does not dwell in a sim-world.

There’s plenty to support such a hypothesis. Simulations exist - we can mess around with them as we please, both in the form of computer simulations as well as mental simulations. Design exists as an utter certainty - ‘unguided chance that just broke in a lucky way for humans’ is the stuff of pure philosophical speculation. And the bar you’re trying to set for “immaterial” is irrelevant - you’re admitting to the validity of a PRG world while insisting that, despite being completely unable to be aware of PRG world’s physics or lack thereof, it simply -must- be P or P-like. My response is to point out that your conclusion doesn’t follow, and even if it did, it’d hardly matter.

The immaterial, and timeless matter. Without it you have a material “God”, subject to limitations.

 

[Nullasalus]

I fail to see the difference.

There’s a number. But for my purposes, the difference is that a brain-in-a-vat originally only affirmed the single mind, while a simulation addresses the nature of reality without denying it as an illusion.

1. Yes, we know that “design” exists.

1. Not exactly. Yes, our world “could be” designed. But the existence of a “sim-world” does not make it necessary that it “must be” designed.

Never said it did. But since we know design exists, and we know design can explain our world, we have no need to start postulating other less justifiable entities to explain our world like “infinity and/or chaos that just happened to be formed the right way”.

Even if a world is a sim-world, it can never “look” designed, because it would be a dead give-away to its inhabitants. Indeed it only exhibits order, and order is not the same as design.

Of course it can “look” designed. Even Dawkins admits to the appearance of design in our world. Plenty of other scientists, even atheists, cop to as much. And there’s certainly no reason that a sim-world can’t “look” designed - a simulation isn’t automatically concerned with fooling its inhabitants.

What do you mean by “primal chaos”? There is no chaos, only properties of the physical universe.

‘Totally undirected STEM that just happens to have attributes capable of spontaneously producing life, intelligence, and order.’

Yes, we could. But we could do them otherwise, where “sim-sim-worlds” are possible. We should not restrict the parameters of this thought experiment, just so we can “force” a desired result.

Never forced a thing - I’m saying what’s entirely possible with what we know about design, and certainly design in our world. As I said repeatedly, this doesn’t ‘prove’ anything. It just shows that theism/deism is intellectually the more satisfying option to go with as opposed to atheism when it comes to existence questions.

So we can postulate that there is one natural world, undesigned. Why should that world be not ours? Nothing indicates the contrary. Why should the “top-level” world be immaterial?

You’re asking me if it could be, but I’m not denying that it couldn’t be. The world “could have” begun only five minutes ago. I’m saying which is the easier explanation to go with. “Sure, we know that design can be responsible for all we see, including subjective experience and nowadays even simulation evidence. And sure, we have no idea that chaos could be responsible for all we see, and we have no comparable evidence of it. But, I can imagine it all being undesigned!” Sure, you can imagine it. It’s just far less parsimonious.

Not in the sense that it is “immaterial, spaceless and timeless - and yet active”. Its space, time and material attributes may be very different from ours, but some kind of matter, space and time are necessary for “action”.

All you can do is assert this groundlessly, or by appealing to P. But appealing to P to explain PRG is hopeless - you’ve already ceded it can be utterly unlike what we know, certainly unlike P. If you plan on defeating the theist/deist claim by arguing that whoever would be in the position of deity just has to have some kind of material limitations, you’re sunk. It’s like ceding that it’s reasonable God exists, but certainly He gets tired now and then.

Actually, not “unacceptable”, rather unbelieved. And it should matter for the deist / theist. If there are constraints on the programmer - by the reality of his existence, then it is not X-existence.

For the theist/deist, it’s enough to have a simulation and a designer with regards to the universe. There’s a reason I said theist/deist - because this thought experiment doesn’t bring us anywhere near where we need to be for doctrinal specifics. Maybe the mormons are right, and God has eternally pre-existed alongside matter. Maybe other christians are right, and God created the universe ex nihilo (even our own simulations can come close to such a description.) Maybe panentheist belief is right, and God is both the simulation and something else beyond it.

But again, the thought grounds the conversation right on theist/deist home territory. Atheists can argue, they can consider, they can discover. But the atheist is in an awkward situation.

Also, from the thought-experiment it does not follow that the human programmers who create the sim-world have X-existence. It may be incomprehensible to the inhabitants of the sim-world, but that is all. The programmers are also material, they are constrained. That is not X-existence.

You said it was damn close to X-existence before - now you’re changing your mind on this. Yes, I said outright - we don’t have X-existence (or at least not a pure X-existence.) But sim-existence can be coded in such a way as to be utterly unlike P-existence. And our ‘constraints’ are hardly applicable to sim-existence. In there, there are no constraints. Aside from, perhaps, logical ones. No making a circle a triangle.

And as I said, even if I granted PRG was not perfectly X, it doesn’t matter. The fact remains that PRG may well BE X, or something effectively close to it.

Not “faith” rather some basic axioms and principles.

Always faith. Forever faith. That which can never be decisively proven, even if it’s true, requires faith.

Only if this world is a sim-world. And not just a sim-world, but the programmer of this sim-world does not dwell in a sim-world.

No, the reality of the situation doesn’t even come into play here. It’s a question of where reason is most easily employed. Otherwise you’d be saying ‘The theist only has justification to believe in God if God exists.’ Nonsense.

The immaterial, and timeless matter. Without it you have a material “God”, subject to limitations.

Immaterial and timeless can matter, to the theist. But it doesn’t matter to the atheist if you end up with an actual God and an altered doctrine. You’re groundlessly asserting that PRG is not only akin to P, but that the programmer in PRG is limited by physical rules you can’t possibly know. PRG could be timeless. PRG could be eternal and FAPP immaterial. It also could not be, but again, it’s a question of justification of considering God in this context.

Besides - even the most orthodox Christian God has always been considered subject to some limitations - logical, or essential, etc. There are a variety of conceptions of God, three of which I already listed, more of which could be listed. The design argument just illustrates the justification theists/deists have to discuss possibilities with mind as fundamental. And the justification is better than the alternative.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

1. Not exactly. Yes, our world “could be” designed. But the existence of a “sim-world” does not make it necessary that it “must be” designed.

If we create a sim-world, it MUST be designed.

How would a sim-world come into existence within our world?

Even if a world is a sim-world, it can never “look” designed, because it would be a dead give-away to its inhabitants. Indeed it only exhibits order, and order is not the same as design.

There is never any “dead give-away” to an inhabitant of a sim-world that it’s world is designed. The world of the sim is “THE world”, to the sim, and only by being given specific instructions that “order is indicative of a designing power (hand)” would they even consider the possibility.

What do you mean by “primal chaos”? There is no chaos, only properties of the physical universe.

I agree with you here. What the atheist proposes, though, is either that there was never a beginning to “world order”, or that order erupted uncaused from some “pre-order” CHAOS.

If one accepts that true “primal chaos” has nothing to do with reality, then one is left with there never having been no order to the whole of the universe.

This means that the universe has existed as an ordered “thing” for an infinite time. Once the idea of “infinity” is tied to the idea of (a proposed) “reality” (the universe), the idea of “infinity” invalidates (that) “reality” as a “solution” to the question of existence of (that) “reality”.