= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ata comments on Theists are wrong; is theism? - 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 (533)
I think Ben from TakeOnIt put it well:
There's definitely something deeply appealing about theistic language. That's what makes it so dangerous.
That advice makes sense for general audiences. Your average Christian might read a version of the Simulation argument written with theistic language as an endorsement of their beliefs. But I really doubt posters here would.
Frank Tipler actually produced a simulation argument as an endorsement of Christian belief. Along with some interesting cosmology making it possible for this universe to simulate itself! (It's easy when the accessible quantity of computronium tends to infinity as the age of the universe approaches its limit.) In Tipler's theory, God may not exist yet, but a kind of Singularity will create Him.
Of course, the average Christian has not yet heard of Tipler, nor would said Christian accept the endorsement. But it is out there.
One issue I've never understood about Tipler is how he got from theism to Christianity using the Omega Point argument. It seems very similar to the SMBC cartoon Eliezer already linked to. Tipler's argument is a plausibility argument for maybe, something, sort of like a deity if you squint at it. Somehow that then gives rise to Christianity with the theology along with it.
How does he get from there to Christianity in particular?
If you are assuming infinite computronium you may as well go ahead and assume simulation of all of the conceivable religions!
I suppose that leaves you in a position of Pascal's Gang Mugging.
That's basically Hindu theology in a nutshell. Or more accurately, Pascal's Gang Maybe Mugging Maybe Hugging.
If you assume a Tegmark multiverse — that all definable entities actually exist — then it seems to follow that:
All malicious deprivation — some mind recognizing another mind's definable possible pleasure, and taking steps to deny that mind's pleasure — implies the actual existence of the pleasure it is intended to deprive;
All benevolent relief — some mind recognizing another mind's definable possible suffering, and taking steps to alleviate that suffering — implies the actual existence of the suffering it is intended to relieve.
It does not follow from the fact that I am motivated to prevent certain kinds of suffering/pleasure, that said suffering/pleasure is "definable" in the sense I think you mean it here. That is, my brain is sufficiently screwy that it's possible for me to want to prevent something that isn't actually logically possible in the first place.
Since religions are human inventions, I would guess that any comprehensive simulation program already produces all conceivable religions.
But I'm guessing that you meant to talk about the simulation of all conceivable gods. That is another matter entirely. Even with unlimited computronium, you can only simulate possible gods - gods not entailing any logical contradictions. There may not be any such gods.
This doesn't affect Tipler's argument though. Tipler does not postulate God as simulated. Tipler postulates God as the simulator.
I'm not sure. I only read the first book - "Physics of Immortality". But I would suppose that he doesn't actually try to prove the truth of Christianity - he might be satisfied to simply make Christian doctrine seem less weird and impossible.
It's worth pointing out that we now know that the universe's expansion is accelerating, which would rule out the omega point even if it were plausible before.
IIRC, Tipler had that covered. A universe of infinite duration allows us to use eons of future time to simulate a single second of time in the current era. Something like the hotel with infinitely many rooms.
But please don't ask me to actually defend Tipler's mumbo-jumbo.
I don't think it can be defended any more. I picked it up a few weeks ago, read a few chapters, and thought, do I want to read any more given that he requires the universe to be closed? Dark energy would seem to forbid a Big Crunch and render even the early parts of his model moot.
Sweet! Wikipedia's image for Physical Cosmology, including your Dark Energy link, is the cosmic microwave background map from the WMAP mission. That was the first mission I worked with NASA. My job, as junior-underling attitude control engineer, was to come up with some way to salvage the medium cost, medium-risk mission if a certain part failed, and to help babysit the spacecraft during the least fun midnight-to-noon shift. Still, it feels good to have been a tiny part of something that has made a difference in how we understand our universe.
Disclaimer: My unofficial opinions, not NASA's. Blah, blah, blah.
I think you duplicated my post.
So I did. Context in Recent Comments unfortunately only reaches so far.
Here's a direct comparison of the two that I made.