= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on 2014 Survey Results - 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 (279)
I think one logical correlation following from the Simulation Argument is underappreciated in the correlations.
I spotted this in the uncorrelated data already:
P Supernatural: 6.68 + 20.271 (0, 0, 1) [1386]
P God: 8.26 + 21.088 (0, 0.01, 3) [1376]
P Simulation 24.31 + 28.2 (1, 10, 50) [1320]
Shouldn't evidence for simulations - and apparently the median belief is 10% for simulation - be evidence for Supernatural influences, for which there is 0% median belief (not even 0.01). After all a simulation implies a simulator and thus a more complex 'outer world' doing the simulation and thus disabling occams razor style arguments against gods.
Admittedly there is a small correlation:
Interestingly this is on the same order as
but there is no correlation listed between P Aliens/P God. Thus my initial hypothesis that aliens running the simulation of gods being the argument behind the 0.11 correlation is invalid.
Note that I mentioned simulation as weak argument for theism earlier.
A simulation is still a naturalistic non-supernatural thing, and it would just mean we see less of the universe than we thought we do. The question was, after all:
See my answer to hairyfigment. Does that help?
I think you're looking at it backward. You are trying to understand what the implications of a survey response are. This is the explanation.
Your philosophical objection to the logic behind the explanation doesn't make it not the explanation.