Agnostic.com

17 3

Do you believe we could have a creator?

Could our entire observable existence be an intentional creation by something outside?
To believe something I need some kind of evidence not just a strong likelihood. So to say I'm still agnostic on this idea.

There is a thought experiment called the simulation argument that I find compelling to acknowledge the possibility of a creator of a sort.
The argument goes one of these three must be true.

We will not be able to create simulations of realities in the future.

We will all have a strong reason not to create simulations in the future.

We are far more likely to be in a simulation than not.

AnthonyLipke 3 Oct 29
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

17 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

no

argo Level 4 Nov 12, 2017
0

Absolutely not, and although no one can say for certain, it is highly improbable mathematically speaking.

0

I cannot even imagine a universe that required a creator.

2

At this point, I leave it up to the physicists to work out.

2

"Do you believe we could have a creator?"

Of course not.

"Could our entire observable existence be an intentional creation by something outside?"

I kind of doubt it because even if we were living in a computer simulation that would beg the question: how did the simulator get there then? It's always been there? - Then why can't the universe always have existed? - Because it just can't? - Then how can the simulator break that rule then? Whatever way you look at it you are forced to resort to 'Special Pleading' to maintain such a claim.

"To believe something I need some kind of evidence not just a strong likelihood. So to say I'm still agnostic on this idea."

Yes & that evidence need to be pretty strong too not just a 'Maybe..' or 'What if...'

"There is a thought experiment called the simulation argument that I find compelling to acknowledge the possibility of a creator of a sort."

Yes but it's not very compelling.

"The argument goes one of these three must be true.

We will not be able to create simulations of realities in the future.

We will all have a strong reason not to create simulations in the future.

We are far more likely to be in a simulation than not."

But on what grounds can a claim like 'We are far more likely to be in a simulation than not.' based? - It might be true because it seems plausible? Is that it? - How can we even know that a simulation would create any conscious minds capable of experiences like our own? Maybe they can but to assume they can is a HUGE assumption & that's assuming that such a super computer is even possible to build one day & we don't even know that. I read somewhere recently that even a super duper quantum computer could not generate a particular kind of random sequence of numbers (I forget the details) but in reality nature produces them all the while so we cannot be inside any sort of simulation. If I'm going to believe any extra ordinary claim I'm going to need a pretty extra ordinary reason to do so. I'd rather not kid myself I can know something when actually I have no good reason to do so. Often times 'I don't know' is the very best & most honest answer available to us.

Paul Level 5 Oct 30, 2017

So if we can simulate and there isn't a strong reason not to the evidence of the simulations that we do run is that we would run many. I couldn't tell my subjective experience is simulation or not. The odds would presume the higher the likely number the more likely I am a sim.

You bring up a good point about the quality of the sim. Do they need subjective experience? I think this effects the odds but some simulations would likely have subjectively aware agents it's how many should be expected.

As to whether a simulated person can be aware. This seems like a normal case of the problem of other minds. Can we convince one another that we are real minds and not illusions or philosophical zombies? I'm going to assume you're a person based on the evidence of your concerns.

'So if we can simulate and there isn't a strong reason not to the evidence of the simulations that we do run is that we would run many.'

Maybe so what?

'I couldn't tell my subjective experience is simulation or not.'

How can you know if simulations can create any consciousness?

'The odds would presume the higher the likely number the more likely I am a sim.'

How did you calculate the odds & what exactly are those odds then?

'You bring up a good point about the quality of the sim.'

Thank you.

'Do they need subjective experience?'

Yes if we have it absolutely.

'I think this effects the odds but some simulations would likely have subjectively aware agents it's how many should be expected.'

How did you assess your conclusion here?

'As to whether a simulated person can be aware. This seems like a normal case of the problem of other minds.'

No because there's no good reason to assume other people don't have minds just like me but there's very good reason to doubt a simulated person would.

'Can we convince one another that we are real minds and not illusions or philosophical zombies?'

I'd need a good reason to come to such a conclusion is correct but there is none.

'I'm going to assume you're a person based on the evidence of your concerns.'

Sure but what compelling reason do you have to assume otherwise? There is none is there?

[simulation-argument.com] The paper includes math though that isn't how I evaluated it.

To assume there is something special about human consciousness is normally dualism. Why can't a machine be made conscious if we create it with the same necessary properties what ever they are? Until it's done it may be shifting the burden but once done I expect special pleading to remain.

I'd like to read that random number thing.

I can introduce you to an interesting chat bot if you're interested. I'm not saying it would pass the Turring test but it's better than many I've seen in the past.

In the skeptical sense of Descartes there is no reason to assume any sense data is true. While I hope the odds appear to you that I'm human I could be a machine or a sufficiently lucky number of monkeys banging on keyboards.

2

Yes, but it's more likely I'll win the lottery even though I don't buy tickets.

2

That's voodoo science. My only creators are my mom and dad- there's no simulation. Simulations don't feel pain, joy, pleasure, and don't evaluate facts for themselves.

You might be interested that the Saudi Arabaians granted citizenship to an android. I believe AI evaluates facts fine the other parts are harder to tell at this point.

'You might be interested that the Saudi Arabaians granted citizenship to an android.'

So what? The question is WHY?

'I believe AI evaluates facts fine the other parts are harder to tell at this point.'

But why do you believe that exactly?

Don't we have enough fake people in this world?

1

It could.
It also could have sprang into existence an hour ago, complete with our memories of last week. Both are possible, and neither is especially testable.
If it was created by an intelligent being, then that being either was created by another or appeared without a creator.
At some point, there must have been an intelligent being not created as the experiment of another intelligent species.
Since there must at some point be a spontaneous intelligence, I like to think our flawed species evolved without requiring a creator.

Allan Level 5 Oct 30, 2017

It's got its good points and bad points.

2

I'm here, I exist, I love my cat. Enough already, I may just need some human contact. I'm simple really and may just need real contact with a living person.

We exist because we're here. Simple. I'm an atheist and that's not going to change, I need a real person to talk to.

After looking at other comments most are nonsense. We are on our own, no help from a mythical being, nonsense. Accept that we're here on our own and go from there. We can do it. I just want to meet another person that doesn't need superstitious support from a non entity.

We mostly make our own realty. Mostly fluid at best. Need to talk to a simple straightforward person to get my bearings.

The only creator is our evolutionary past, nothing magic at all. We exist. We create part of our reality, besides that, the expanse is limitless.

One last point. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any god(s) at all. It's nonsense. Sorry, I've looked for over 40 years and, no, no deities.

Perfect. BTW- I'm a real person.

3

My only creators are my Mom and Dad.

you took the words right out of my simulated mouth.

3

We do have a creator: The Universe and the physical laws which govern it. Life is a predictable consequence of the interactions of the atoms, elements and molecules that comprise the stardust from which all life emanates given the right conditions. This may beg the question as to the creation of the Universe itself for which there are several theories but within the context of the closed system that is the Universe there is no mystery as to the creation of life anymore than there is a question as to the formation of stars, solar systems and galaxies.

Well there is the question "Where is everybody?" We are still arguing on if we've found life on mars last I heard. I think it seems likely we should find other life and we've only looked a little. Still I don't think we fully know how inevitable we just know it's possible since we're here to observe it.

Thank you.

2

No reason any of those need to be true.

Can you expand on that? Like what scenario are you picturing?

4

No. A creator is essentially the same as a god.

2

Other than our parents?... No.

5

I don't understand the thought experiment, just because someone said one of those choices must be true, that doesn't make it so.

I'm an empirical evidence fan myself. 🙂

There could be evidence but unfortunately it's potentially not even wrong.

Are you interested in walking through the argument?

Sure, why not.

Do you think in the future we will be able to create good enough simulations?
I'll go ahead and say the most common reason I've heard that we won't get there just through better video games is that we manage to destroy ourselves.

Do you think there is a reason we will act strongly enough though technically possible we will stop people from making simulations? I think this would take a pretty severe authority to stop simulating. It's possible to see strategic and economic uses for simulations. If they can be made their is a lot of incentive.

What do you think the likely or desirable outcome is so far?

I can only reply to all those questions with I don't know.
You don't know either.
Asking what is likely in the future is conjecture at best.

5

I see no reason to think that a creator is necessary or to believe that one exists.

8

Not only are gods created in the image of humans, but even the idea of a creator, a first cause is something out of our own human need for answering unanswered questions. It is a concept that has been invented by humans and nothing more. You (the collective you) made it up.

You reminded me of some of Lawrence Krauss' videos I watched before my audiobook phase. I've just added hi book A universe from nothing to my wish list.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:2492
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.