= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on The Sin of Underconfidence - 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 (176)
If God's existence is the prior, I don't think you include that he is also an "omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being, [...]". Those are things you deduce about him after. The way I've thought about it is let X =whatever the explanation is to the creation conundrum. We will call X "God". X exists trivially (by definition), can we then infer properties about X that would justify calling it God? In other words, does the solution to creation have to be something omniscient and benevolent? (This is the part which is highly unlikely.)
You certainly should not call X "God", nor should you suppose that X has the property "existence" which is exactly that which is to be rendered non-confusing.
I just read your posts about the futility of arguing "by definition". I suspect that somewhere there is where my error lies.
More precisely, could you clarify whether I "shouldn't" do those things because they are "not allowed" or because they wouldn't be effective?
You shouldn't because even though when you speak the word "God" you simply intend "placeholder for whatever eventually solves the creation conundrum," it will be heard as meaning "that being to which I was taught to pray when I was a child" -- whether you like it or not, your listener will attach the fully-formed God-concept to your use of the word.
Got it. if X is the placeholder for whatever eventually solves the creation conundrum, there's no reason to call it anything else, much less something misleading.
precisely =)
In fact even naming it X is a bit of a stretch, because "the creation conundrum" is being assumed here, but my own limited understanding of physics suggests this "conundrum" itself is a mistake. What a "cause" really is, is something like: the information about past states of the universe embedded in the form of the present state. But the initial state doesn't have embedded information, so it doesn't really have either a past or a cause. As far as prime movers go, the big bang seems to be it, sufficient in itself.
Yes, I agree with you: there is no real conundrum. In the past, we've solved many "conundrums" (for example, Zeno's paradox and the Liar's Paradox). By induction, I believe that any conundrum is just a problem (often a math problem) that hasn't been solved yet.
While I would say that the solution to Zeno's paradox "exists", I think this is just a semantic mistake I made; a solution exists in a different way than a theist argues that God exists. (This is just something I need to work on.)
Regarding the physics: I understand how a state may not causally depend upon the one proceeding (for example, if the state is randomly generated). I don't understand (can't wrap my head around) if that means it wasn't caused... it still was generated, by some mechanism.
You shouldn't do something not directly because it's not allowed, but for the reason it's not allowed.
This comment is condescending and specious.
That comment was meta. It isn't condescending, as it's not about you.
It's about me because you imply that I don't already know what you're saying, and I could benefit from this wise advice.
If someone speaks the obvious, then it's just noise, no new information, and so the speaker should be castigated for destructive stupidity. Someone or I.