= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Furcas comments on The Importance of Self-Doubt - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (726)
I don't think that's true; cousin_it had it right the first time. The complexity of Islam is the complexity of a reality that contains an omnipotent creator, his angels, Paradise, Hell, and so forth. Everything we've observed about the universe includes people believing in Islam, but not the beings and places that Islam says exist.
In other words, E contains Islam the religion, not Islam the reality.
The really big problem with such a reality is that it contains a fundamental, non-contingent mind (God's/Allah's, etc) - and we all know how much describing one of those takes - and the requirement that God is non-contingent means we can't use any simpler, underlying ideas like Darwinian evolution. Non-contingency, in theory selection terms, is a god killer: It forces God to incur a huge information penalty - unless the theist refuses even to play by these rules and thinks God is above all that - in which case they aren't even playing the theory selection game.
I don't see this. Why assume that the non-contingent, pre-existing God is particularly complex. Why not assume that the current complexity of God (if He actually is complex) developed over time as the universe evolved since the big bang. Or, just as good, assume that God became complex before He created this universe.
It is not as if we know enough about God to actually start writing down that presumptive long bit string. And, after all, we don't ask the big bang to explain the coastline of Great Britain.
If we do that, should we even call that "less complex earlier version of God" God? Would it deserve the title?
Sure, why not? I refer to the earlier, less complex version of Michael Jackson as "Michael Jackson".
Agreed. It's why I'm so annoyed when even smart atheists say that God was an ok hypothesis before evolution was discovered. God was always one of the worst possible hypotheses!
Or, put more directly: Unless the theist is deluding himself. :)
I'm confused. In the comments to my post you draw a distinction between an "event" and a "huge set of events", saying that complexity only applies to the former but not the latter. But Islam is also a "huge set of events" - it doesn't predict just one possible future, but a wide class of them (possibly even including our actual world, ask any Muslim!), so you can't make an argument against it based on complexity of description alone. Does this mean you tripped on the exact same mine I was trying to defuse with my post?
I'd be very interested in hearing a valid argument about the "right" prior we should assign to Islam being true - how "wide" the set of world-programs corresponding to it actually is - because I tried to solve this problem and failed.
The problem is that reality itself is apparently fundamentally non-contingent. Adding "mind" to all that doesn't seem so unreasonable.
Do you mean it doesn't seem so unreasonable to you, or to other people?
By reasonable, I mean the hypothesis is worth considering, if there were reasons to entertain it. That is, if someone suspected there was a mind behind reality, I don't think they should dismiss it out of hand as unreasonable because this mind must be non-contingent.
In fact, we should expect any explanation of our creation to be non-contingent, since physical reality appears to be so.
For example, if it's reasonable to consider the probability that we're in a simulation, then we're considering a non-contingent mind creating the simulation we're in.