Atheism and the Afterlife

Michael OBrien

starshine1234 wrote: »

You are simply wrong on this. I suspect you have failed to note the subtletly of the construction.

The first two points are not intended to be taken as definitely true. They are also not unprovable.

That is the strength of the construction.
All of the points can be considered for reasonableness. If a genuine person genuinely does that, they are forced to reach the same conclusions as Nick did. Because the conclusions logically follow on from the premises. Similar to other mathemathical proofs.


Many professional scientists and others agree that this argument has merit.


Do you believe that either point 1 or point 2 is true?

If not, then point 3 is very likely to be true, based on unassailable logic.

If point 1 is true we are in trouble.
Point 2 is almost certainly false.



(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

Remind anyone of Lewis trilemma about jesus?
1. is false because it assumes mankind WANT to reach the posthuman stage (of simulation). You need to show that there are NO other alternatives than that. You either shift the goal posts of what 'posthuman' means so that eventually humans become something 'else' (which does not lead necessarily to 3) or you assume that posthuman has to match the preconceived goal put forward by the person making the claim.
Also it is possible that we can be simulations without ever having been human in the first place. Another species has created a "No Man Sky" sim and we are nothing but an algorithm variant. This could mean point 3 is independent of point 1.

The reasoning is a philosophical ploy, used by theists, politicians and other manipulators to get the preconceived conclusion they want.

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);

You have to be very careful here with what you mean by posthuman and simulation. The argument assumes a single simulation is a working model of the observable (to humankind) universe accurate to a subatomic level of detail. The technology, cost and resource here would require your posthuman to have capabilities similar to an omnipotent god. Even then for the argument to hold, you would require enough such simulations to make the probability of a non-simulated version insignificant. Its not exactly SIMS or World of Warcraft.

I have no doubt that humankind may well transcend its current incarnation at some point with the probability of artificial intelligence, and persistence that could lead to extreme longevity, but even then might never approach being able to create the above simulations.

You could also flip it in an infinite number of ways, so for example a cheaper simulation would be just one mind and all that it could perceive. Maybe none of us here on boards exist except as a figment of your constructed imagination, and that its all just you. If you don't think this is the case, maybe explain why not?

starshine1234

I am confident that the average boards.ie user has failed to understand the argument. Many of the objections raised have no merit, although in fairness some do. Many of the objections indicate that the objector doesn't understand the argument.

The simulation argument is Nick Bostrums argument, it is not mine. Therefore, criticism should be directed at Nick, not at me. I may have mis-described his argument. If so, I apologise to Nick.


I don't intend any insult by saying what I've said above so I'll explain how I've used logic to reach my conclusions.


Nick's argument is accepted as having significant merit by philosophers, scientists and mathematicians.
The average boards.ie user doesn't accept the argument, and says it has no merit.

There are several observations or conclusions we can draw from the above facts.

Either.
the average boards.ie user is actually a world class philosopher, mathematician or scientist.
OR
the average boards.ie user is wrong.


I know where I'd be putting my money.

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

Nick's argument is accepted as having significant merit by philosophers, scientists and mathematicians.

You keep leaving words out. Maybe "Nick's argument is accepted as having significant merit by some philosophers, scientists and mathematicians." It is similarly criticised and rejected by many. You also have to ask whether some or even many people believing something makes it true, because if this is the case, you've just become a Muslim

I know where I'd be putting my money.

I know a really nice guy from Nigeria who's actually a prince and offering great deals for investors such as yourself.

Pherekydes

starshine1234 wrote: »

I am confident that the average boards.ie user has failed to understand the argument.

Your categorical error is in assuming any average boardsies post in A&A.

Colour me skeptical that someone who believes that Islam should be banned also believes that we are all just part of a computer simulation.

I mean, why worry yourself about the nasty Jihadis? It's all just a computer program.

starshine1234

Pherekydes wrote: »

Your categorical error is in assuming any average boardsies post in A&A.

Colour me skeptical that someone who believes that Islam should be banned also believes that we are all just part of a computer simulation.

I mean, why worry yourself about the nasty Jihadis? It's all just a computer program.

It is still the only reality we have.

For example, you could say, what's the point?, I have no free will anyway as the universe is deterministic so I may as well kill myself.

Having read approx 15 of the scholarly articles and responses to Nicks argument I feel I understand it quite well.

I don't recall you interacting with me before. What's the point or relevance of your Islam comment?

starshine1234

smacl wrote: »

. Maybe "Nick's argument is accepted as having significant merit by some philosophers, scientists and mathematicians." It is similarly criticised and rejected by many.

A person can disagree with an argument and still consider the argument to have significant merit.

Michael OBrien

starshine1234 wrote: »

I am confident that the average boards.ie user has failed to understand the argument. Many of the objections raised have no merit, although in fairness some do. Many of the objections indicate that the objector doesn't understand the argument.

The simulation argument is Nick Bostrums argument, it is not mine. Therefore, criticism should be directed at Nick, not at me. I may have mis-described his argument. If so, I apologise to Nick.


I don't intend any insult by saying what I've said above so I'll explain how I've used logic to reach my conclusions.


Nick's argument is accepted as having significant merit by philosophers, scientists and mathematicians.
The average boards.ie user doesn't accept the argument, and says it has no merit.

There are several observations or conclusions we can draw from the above facts.

Either.
the average boards.ie user is actually a world class philosopher, mathematician or scientist.
OR
the average boards.ie user is wrong.


I know where I'd be putting my money.

While I am not putting any criticism on you solely, you did bring it up and you support it. Any failure in your presentation to express it correctly ends with you.

There is a difference between accepting that an argument has merit and that it is true or likely true. You can have merit in saying the universe could be created 10 minutes ago with all the appearance of age and our memories. This is fully compatible with observed science and philosophically it is possible and has merit. It is not taken seriously as it is unprovable.

Also arguing that philosophers or scientists or playboys support an idea so that makes it valid is an argument from authority. A fallacy.

It is neither a consensus nor close to one.

starshine1234

I have argued my points well. I am confident that many posters here fail to understand the subtletly of the argument.

Many posters are raising criticisms that 'aren't even wrong'.

In other words, if someone says 'the argument fails because of yellow unicorns', there is little that I, or anyone else, can say in response, except that the objection is 'not even wrong'.



There is a reason why many scientists accept that the simulation argument has merit. It is because it does have merit, and I agree with them.

I accept the conclusion is startling but so what, that makes no difference to its truth value.



My final attempt, and this is also very strong.
What will boardsies say if humans create simulated, artificial worlds which contain simulated artificial creatues?
That could happen in the near or medium near future.

At that stage both points 1 and points 2 will have been proven to be false. Nick's conclusion would then have to be accepted.

I will remind people that the conclusion is not that we DEFINITELY live in a simulated world; rather the conclusion is that it is EXTREMELY LIKELY that we live in a simulated world.

I would appreciate if people could actually engage with this argument and show me where it is wrong, or where it may be wrong.



The three points again for convenience. (one of which must be true).
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.


One disclaimer.
Consciousness is very difficult or impossible to prove, even in other humans. Therefore, the simulation only has to contain simulation beings which can pass the turing test. If it walks like a duck...

Second disclaimer.
What does the Point 1 mean?
It doesn't mean humans who can fly or humans who can perform magic or telepathy. It simply means slightly more advanced humans than currently, who have access to artificial intelligence. Identical humans to today with access to artificial intelligence would be considered 'post human' for the purposes of the argument.

looksee

Where is Absolam when you need him?

However:

There is a reason why many scientists accept that the simulation argument has merit. It is because it does have merit, and I agree with them.

Isn't that a circular argument? That's a serious question, my head is a bit fried with these arguments.

The three points again for convenience. (one of which must be true).
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

Why does one of them have to be true? What happens if none of them is true?

starshine1234

The first point has no merit. The argument is not proven by the fact that many scientists consider it to be proven. The argument is considered to be proven on the basis that it is a mathematical type argument and it follows the rules of logic and maths.


Second point.
The reason one of the three points is very likely to be true is because if there are a large number of simulated worlds, which contain a very large number of 'conscious' beings, then it is perfectly correct to say that if a 'conscious' being is chosen at random that that conscious being is very likely to exist in a simulation.

In other words, if there are huge numbers of artificial worlds, and only one real world, then it is very likely that a world chosen at random would be an artificial world.
We are in a world chosen at random.

looksee

starshine1234 wrote: »

In other words, if there are huge numbers of artificial worlds, and only one real world, then it is very likely that a world chosen at random would be an artificial world.
We are in a world chosen at random.

But if there are not huge (or even small) numbers of artificial worlds and only one real world then it is certain that a world chosen at random would be the real one. Why would 'if there are' take precedence over 'if there are not', especially given that we have no evidence that there are artificial worlds?

If this is a pure maths discussion disguised as religion it might be better to take it to the maths forum.

starshine1234

looksee wrote: »

But if there are not huge (or even small) numbers of artificial worlds and only one real world then it is certain that a world chosen at random would be the real one. Why would 'if there are' take precedence over 'if there are not', especially given that we have no evidence that there are artificial worlds?

If this is a pure maths discussion disguised as religion it might be better to take it to the maths forum.

I'm not intending to be insulting by saying this but that is either incoherent or simply wrong. Or perhaps, 'not even wrong'.

In any event, I don't follow your argument.

What would you say if humans created artificial worlds populated by artificial creatures?
Do you say that is impossible?

If you don't say that's impossible then you concede the point that artificial creatues can exist.

If artificial creatues can exist then you must concede the possibility that you may be one yourself.



If there are 100 trillion artificial creatues, and only 10 billion 'real' humans, then it's 10,000 to 1 that a creature chosen at random would be real.
Do you like those odds?

Pherekydes

starshine1234 wrote: »

I'm not intending to be insulting by saying this but that is either incoherent or simply wrong. Or perhaps, 'not even wrong'.

Funny. We hear these types of arguments from defenders of religions on a regular basis.

"It's a [funny] statistical argument and you're too stupid/unintelligent to understand it."

According to your argument, there's a 1 in 300 million chance that I'm not one of my own sperm.

Or there's an astronomically small chance that I'm not just a bacterium.

Because like there's more of them.

starshine1234

Of course I never said anything like

"It's a [funny] statistical argument and you're too stupid/unintelligent to understand it."

Very unfair to suggest I did.

Pherekydes

starshine1234 wrote: »

Of course I never said anything like

"It's a [funny] statistical argument and you're too stupid/unintelligent to understand it."

Very unfair to suggest I did.

No, as I said, it's a type of argument frequently seen from defenders of religion.

But, yet...

starshine1234 wrote: »

You are simply wrong on this. I suspect you have failed to note the subtletly of the construction.

starshine1234 wrote: »

I am confident that the average boards.ie user has failed to understand the argument.

starshine1234 wrote: »

I have argued my points well. I am confident that many posters here fail to understand the subtletly of the argument.

Many posters are raising criticisms that 'aren't even wrong'.

starshine1234 wrote: »

I'm not intending to be insulting by saying this but that is either incoherent or simply wrong. Or perhaps, 'not even wrong'.

starshine1234

I stand by all of those comments.

It's not fair to quotemine many posts to try to present a picture that I'm some sort of argumentative weirdo.

I would never say 'you are too stupid to understand..'

Please address the points I have made if you wish to. At the moment you are clearly attacking the messenger and you haven't made a single point against my thesis or arguments.

looksee

Well I will readily admit that by some standards I am too stupid to understand the argument. On the whole I am grateful for this particular lack of understanding.

starshine1234

That is unlikely to be true.

If humans create artificial life in machines then artifical life is possible.

If artificial life is possible then you or I could be artificial.

If there are huge numbers of artifical beings, and a much smaller number of 'real' beings, then it stands to reason that a creature chosen at random would be overwhelmingly likely to be artificial.

Therefore, you or I would be overwhelmingly likely to be artificial.

Nick Bostrum's argument is a much stronger version of that.

looksee

starshine1234 wrote: »

That is unlikely to be true.

If humans create artificial life in machines then artifical life is possible.

hmm, ok

If artificial life is possible then you or I could be artificial.

Not unless you have invented time travel as well

If there are huge numbers of artifical beings, and a much smaller number of 'real' beings, then it stands to reason that a creature chosen at random would be overwhelmingly likely to be artificial.

There are too many 'if's in this argument, and you have just done a leap from 'artificial life' to 'artificial beings'.

Therefore, you or I would be overwhelmingly likely to be artificial.

No, see above.

Nick Bostrum's argument is a much stronger version of that.

It would really need to be.

starshine1234

Your second point contains an error. Therefore, all subsequent points can't be relied upon.

I had said
If artificial life is possible then you or I could be artificial.

Your reply.
Not unless you have invented time travel as well

That reply is not valid.

My point is that artificial life is possible. If that is correct then it does follow, completely logically and unassailably, that you or I could be artificial.

Time travel is not required.
I didn't say that humans had created either you or I. If artificial life is possible, then you or I, being life, could be artificial.

My point is entirely correct.
Your conclusion is false.

My language may appear stark but I am merely presenting my argument. I don't intend to be insulting or dismissive.

unfortunately

I agree with the sentiment that people are raising objections which show that they don't grasp the argument (references to time travel).

The argument is essentially that if you think it's likely that in the future we will have the ability to run countless highly advanced simulations of our history, then it's probable that we are in one of the countless simulations rather than the "real" reality (because there are exceedingly many more simulated realities)

If you think that technology is impossible, or that we wouldn't run innumerable simulations then you've got nothing to worry about.

starshine1234

looksee wrote: »

There are too many 'if's in this argument, and you have just done a leap from 'artificial life' to 'artificial beings'.

I consider that 'artificial life' and 'artificial beings' are synonymous. My intention was that they would be understood to be the same thing.

Why would you think they are different?

smacl

unfortunately wrote: »

The argument is essentially that if you think it's likely that in the future we will have the ability to run countless highly advanced simulations of our history, then it's probable that we are in one of the countless simulations rather than the "real" reality (because there are exceedingly many more simulated realities)

But as has been pointed out, the same argument can be used to justify any piece of fantasy you care to imagine on the basis you have infinity as the denominator on one side of an equation. For example we are equally as likely to have been created by God or be living in the Farnsworth parabox. The fact is there are an infinite number of such fantasy propositions that must be true because they could possibly be true, that all directly contradict one another, means we now have infinity as a factor on both numerator and denominator sides of or equation.

Those holding this proposition true are doing so on the basis it has a probability of the order 1/∞ , but on inspection it is actually ∞/∞ which is undefined.

To those who suggest some of us don't grasp the argument, I would suggest they don't grasp the mathematics.

looksee

I am only mistaken if I accede that we are engaged in a philosophical discussion using arguments that have mostly been debunked, and omitting empirical evidence. I have not agreed to this and if you wish to use the musings of ancient Greeks to prove your points I suggest you go and do it in Philosophy.

seamus

unfortunately wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment that people are raising objections which show that they don't grasp the argument (references to time travel).

The argument is essentially that if you think it's likely that in the future we will have the ability to run countless highly advanced simulations of our history, then it's probable that we are in one of the countless simulations rather than the "real" reality (because there are exceedingly many more simulated realities)

If you think that technology is impossible, or that we wouldn't run innumerable simulations then you've got nothing to worry about.

I guess the issue is the pushing the theory as anything more than philosophical musings. That it holds some level of scientific backing.

It's a bit like the discussion of the Drake equation, particularly when talking about the Fermi paradox. The equation appears to be scientific and well constructed, but the variables are all functionally unprovable quantities. Every value output by Drake's equation is "correct" and rational, if the numbers used as input are correct.

Likewise, the "output" of this theory is "correct" and "rational" if and only if the conditional inputs are also correct.

As the inputs are unprovable speculation, then the output is just a thought experiment.

looksee

starshine1234 wrote: »

I consider that 'artificial life' and 'artificial beings' are synonymous. My intention was that they would be understood to be the same thing.

Why would you think they are different?

Artificial life could be an amoeba, a being has to be more complex than that. Whether or not I am a simulation, I am pretty sure I am not an amoeba.

And all this is irrelevant anyway, even if we accept that we could be simulations it does not go any way towards demonstrating an afterlife. Afterlive - you know, after life has finished, not in an alternate life.

nozzferrahhtoo

seamus wrote: »

As the inputs are unprovable speculation, then the output is just a thought experiment.

Indeed and subjectively this is very powerful.

When you postulate an unsubstantiated X people will look at it and realize it lacks credibility.

If however you present X as being supported by equally unsubstantiated Y and Z........ and merely ask the listener to consider X in the light of Y and Z being true......... then objectively nothing has changed in what you are presenting..... X remains entirely unsubstantiated in any way........ but subjectively to many people X now becomes decidedly more credible.

Sometimes to the point that they become emotionally invested in X being treated with the credibility they feel it is due.

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

Artificial life could be an amoeba, a being has to be more complex than that.

Why? If anything, surely it's the other way around? All a "being" has do to is, well, just be. Anything that exists is a "being". An amoeba is certainly a being.

looksee wrote: »

And all this is irrelevant anyway, even if we accept that we could be simulations it does not go any way towards demonstrating an afterlife. Afterlive - you know, after life has finished, not in an alternate life.

If we think "afterlife" means "after all life" then, whatever an afterlife it, it isn't any kind of life, since that would be a contradiction in terms.

But that isn't what "afterlife" normally means. It normally refers to a life after the present life.

If we're simulations, then an afterlife (in the sense of a life after the present life) is certainly possible. The operator just runs the simulation a second time. Viola! An afterlife!

Hotblack Desiato

starshine1234 wrote: »

An afterlife is entirley possible, entirely consistent with science and mathemathics, and entirely rational to believe in.

It is completely irrational to believe in something which has absolutely no evidence for it just because it is possible.

Any non-falsifiable argument is possible to be true. Religions (at least, the ones which survive and evolve successfully over time) are very carefully constructed to be entirely non-falsifiable.

The maths and science here is so strong that it basically requires you to believe in it.

Maths and science cannot require you to "believe" in anything unsupported by evidence. We hit a problem with the English language here as it uses the same word in two different senses. "Belief" in an observable phenomenon described by physical laws isn't the same as belief in a god. Or a belief in an unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific hypothesis.

And even if true (but how could we ever know?) anything outside our observable universe is wholly irrelevant to us. Same as the "infinite number of universes in the next dimension" idea. So what if it is true.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For the simulation argument to support the idea of an after life..... there would have to be some method by which the simulation survives without the simulator. So anyone using the Simulation Argument as evidence for an after life is STILL at square one in the same way as anyone not using the Simulation Argument..... for essentially all the same reasons.

This.

starshine1234 wrote: »

Nick's argument is accepted as having significant merit by philosophers, scientists and mathematicians.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

This is no better than saying that some scientists, philosophers and mathematicians believe in god and they are smart guys, so god must be true.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is completely irrational to believe in something which has absolutely no evidence for it just because it is possible.

In fairness, I don't think Starshine has suggested that we should believe in it merely because it is possible. He just make the more limited claim that, since it is possible, the belief is not irrational.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Any non-falsifiable argument is possible to be true. Religions (at least, the ones which survive and evolve successfully over time) are very carefully constructed to be entirely non-falsifiable.

I think it's a bit tendention to say that they are "carefully constructed to be entirely non-falsifiable". They make claims about entities which are not empirically observable but, then, so does Euclidean geometry. So does ethics. So do lots of fields of enquiry. Would we say that all those fields of enquiry are "carefully constructed" to be non-falsifiable?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think Starshine has suggested that we should believe in it merely because it is possible. He just make the more limited claim that, since it is possible, the belief is not irrational.

It is irrational in that there are a potentially infinite number of equally possible totally unsupported yet directly contradictory scenarios that we could imagine. As such any single such scenario is infinitely improbable so there is no rational reason to believe in that scenario over any other scenario without additional supporting evidence to do so.

It is a bit like conflicting religions believing their God is the one true God and those with other beliefs are wrong. While one such belief system might possibly be right, without strong supporting evidence, probability strongly suggests they are all wrong.

starshine1234

Well, you better tell all the professional scientists, mathematicians and philosophers that they have missed something very obvious. They'll be distraught I'm sure.

robindch

starshine1234 wrote: »

I am confident that the average boards.ie user has failed to understand the argument.

If your audience does not accept some argument you've put forward, you might wish to consider that instead of declaring the audience at fault, a better approach might involve you considering that you've failed to explain it properly, or that the argument has little or no merit or utility.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

It is irrational in that there are a potentially infinite number of equally possible totally unsupported yet directly contradictory scenarios that we could imagine. As such any single such scenario is infinitely improbable so there is no rational reason to believe in that scenario over any other scenario without additional supporting evidence to do so.

It is a bit like conflicting religions believing their God is the one true God and those with other beliefs are wrong. While one such belief system might possibly be right, without strong supporting evidence, probability strongly suggests they are all wrong.

You're assuming that no belief is rational, unless supported by evidence.

But that can't be right. There's no evidence that, for example, a woman has a right to choose with respect to abortion, but many people believe passionately that she does. Are their beliefs irrational?

Similarly, there's no evidence that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. (There's a logical proof, but it's a proof by deduction from axioms which are themselves asserted without evidence.)

In the field of natural science, yes, we look for evidence. But, the, natural science deals with the examination of that which is empirically observable. I don't think you can take the techniques of natural science and assume that they are universally valid for all fields of enquiry. There's no reason why there should be.

It would be irrational to believe in something for no reason at all. But I don't think you can say that it would be irrational to believe in something without evidence, unless the "something" was in principle capable of being evidenced. If it isn't, then the claim that it's irrational to believe in it without evidence is, ironically, itself an irrational claim.

starshine1234

robindch wrote: »

If your audience does not accept some argument you've put forward, you might wish to consider that instead of declaring the audience at fault, you might wish to consider that you've failed to explain it properly, or that the argument has little or no merit or use.

Perhaps, but not definitely.

Perhaps the audience is dishonest, or obtuse, or, sorry to have to say this, lacking in the necessary intellect.

The argument is correct and conforms to all the rules of maths and logic.

Maths by its nature is abstract. That is not a criticism of maths.

robindch

starshine1234 wrote: »

An afterlife is entirley possible, entirely consistent with science and mathemathics, and entirely rational to believe in. A few years ago I would have thought the exact opposite. The maths and science here is so strong that it basically requires you to believe in it.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is completely irrational to believe in something which has absolutely no evidence for it just because it is possible.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think Starshine has suggested that we should believe in it merely because it is possible. He just make the more limited claim that, since it is possible, the belief is not irrational.

Nope. Starshine claimed not only that an afterlife is possible but also, that the "maths and science" required you to believe that it exists. As regards the first claim, Hotblack has correctly pointed out that accepting the existence of something simply because it is possible is not rational - that's the point of Russel's teapot argument. Hotblack has not addressed the second claim, though I'd be fascinated to see how "maths and science" require one to believe that an afterlife exists and I'm hoping that this doesn't involve wheeling out and dusting down Gödel's ontological proof.

magicbastarder

coming late into this debate, but just wanted to confirm what people mean by the word 'possible'; is it used in a 'human understanding/knowledge' sense or 'physical law' sense?

i.e. if one were to ask if time travel is possible, possible could mean:
a) yes, the laws of physics allow it, so it can be done.
b) we don't know, so it's *possible* that the laws of physics allow it.

i.e. the latter choice means that human understanding deems it 'possible', but physics says no.

starshine1234

Is disbelief in the theory of evolution rational?

I would suggest that it's not.

The simulation argument is equivelent to the theory of evolution in that the scientific concenus is that it is correctly formed and valid.

You are not arguing with me here, you are arguing with scientific concenus.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're assuming that no belief is rational, unless supported by evidence.

No I'm not. I'm simply saying that where you have a large number of conflicting beliefs, they can't all be true. As this number gets very large, assuming all the beliefs are equally valid, the probability of any one belief being true, and thus all the others being false, is minuscule.

The fact that there is a single possibility of something being true where there are also an infinite number of possibilities that would render it false make it infinitely improbable.

robindch

starshine1234 wrote: »

Perhaps, but not definitely.

Perhaps the audience is dishonest, or obtuse, or, sorry to have to say this, lacking in the necessary intellect.

Indeed, the dishonesty or stupidity of the audience might indeed lead them to say that your arguments have no merit.

However, not only would it be unhelpful to suggest this, as well as being contra the forum charter, I would also suggest that in the light of the weak arguments you've put forward so far, you're on safe grounds to ignore the possibility.

Try putting forward a good argument instead of insulting the audience.

starshine1234

You are simply declaring the argument to be weak by dictat.

That is not fair.

Why have you failed to address or refute a single point I've made, in respect of the argument itself, rather than in respect of the manner in which I present it?

looksee

You are not arguing with me here, you are arguing with scientific concenus.

No, we are arguing with your limited understanding of scientific consensus.

starshine1234

from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

Moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high,” he said.


Mind blown!


Perhaps people should take this up with professional scientists.

looksee

starshine1234 wrote: »

from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

Moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high,” he said.


Mind blown!


Perhaps people should take this up with professional scientists.

Maybe you should read the rest of the article. There was not even a consensus in that article, much less amongst the entire body of scientific thought.

magicbastarder

neil degrasse tyson's opinion is a guess, rather than a scientific conclusion, i assume?

starshine1234

More misunderstandings.

The scientific consensus is not that we are living in a simulated universe.

Rather, the scientific consensus is that the simulation argument itself, as outlined by Nick Bostrum, conforms to all of the rules of maths and logic and that therefore, it is a credible and correct scientific theory.

Disbelief in the argument is not rational.

looksee

So why did you quote the Scientific American article and specifically comment on the argument that we are living in a simulated universe?

seamus

starshine1234 wrote: »

Rather, the scientific consensus is that the simulation argument itself, as outlined by Nick Bostrum, conforms to all of the rules of maths and logic and that therefore, it is a credible and correct scientific theory.

Disbelief in the argument is not rational.

If your aunt was a man she'd be your uncle.

That conforms to all of the rules of maths and logic and therefore it is a credible and correct theory.

However, that doesn't mean it's rational to believe that your aunt is your uncle.

It's a clever trick I'll grant you, but just like the Drake equation, believing a particular output of the equation to be correct is irrational.
Your inputs are unprovable therefore your output is unprovable. Therefore believing in the correctness of the output is irrational.

starshine1234

Seamus, you've made a logical error.

You say.
that doesn't mean it's rational to believe that your aunt is your uncle.
That's an error. Nobody made that claim, or an equivelent claim.


The correct claim is that its NOT rational to DISbelieve in the conclusion, IF all of the premises are true, AND the argument correctly conforms to all the rules of logic and maths.

That claim is definitely true of the simulation argument.

Using your example, it's not rational to disbelieve that your aunt may be your uncle, if she had balls.


edited to add.
I'll clear up one point. In logic, not all premises need be true. A premise which doesn't claim to be true doesn't need to be true.
Fairly obvious I suppose...