David_Gerard comments on [Link] Scott Adam's "God's Debris" - Less Wrong

-7 [deleted] 14 September 2012 08:22PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (15)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: badger 14 September 2012 09:08:37PM *  3 points [-]

I read this book seven years ago, and I have vague memory that Adams was purposefully controversial rather than truth-seeking and, while maybe not out-and-out wrong, relies on misleading connotations to make his point. Based on my memory alone, I would downvote this. I'm curious well this memory holds up, so I'm holding off judgment for the moment while I skim it.

ETA: Wow, that was absolutely horrible. Meant as "serious philosophy" or not, that really failed. Perhaps for someone with no exposure to philosophy, it might useful to nudge them towards getting them to "think." Seems about as likely to be actively harmful, though. Adams is on the edge of clearing up some confusions, but then falls into worse ones himself.

Some gems:

The fact that we exist is proof that God is motivated to act in some way. And since only the challenge of self-destruction could interest an omnipotent God, it stands to reason that we [...]. We are God’s debris.

Probability forces the coin toss to be exactly fifty-fifty at some point, assuming you keep flipping forever. Likewise, probability forced us to exist exactly as we are. Only the timing was in question.

Rationality can’t explain our obsession with the Internet. The need to build the Internet comes from something inside us, something programmed, something we can’t resist.

God’s dust disappears on one beat and reappears on the next in a new position based on probability. If a bit of God-dust disappears near a large mass, say a planet, then probability will cause it to pop back into existence nearer to the planet on the next beat. Probability is highest when you are near massive objects. Or to put it another way, mass is the physical expression of probability.

The problem with skeptics is that they are right too often...

Light can be thought of as zones of probability that surround all things. A star, by virtue of its density, has high probability that two of its God-dust particles will pop into existence in the same location, forcing one of them to adjust, creating a new and frantic probability. That activity, the constant adjusting of location and probability, is what we perceive as energy.

“Probability is the expression of God’s will. It is in your best interest to obey probability.” “How do I obey probability?” “God’s reassembly requires people—living, healthy people,” he said. “When you buckle your seat belt, you increase your chances of living. That is obeying probability. If you get drunk and drive without a seat belt, you are fighting probability.”

Comment author: David_Gerard 14 September 2012 09:22:06PM 2 points [-]

It's a home-made philosophy and cosmology. It may be "thought-provoking", but by the end I was annoyed at having wasted my time on it and I predict others here would be too.

Comment author: allandong 15 September 2012 12:32:09AM 0 points [-]

I'm honestly sorry that you feel that way and for your lost time.