= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Brillyant comments on Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016 - 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 (212)
Yeah. Okay. Is there any consensus about what caused the big bang? Like, how it happened?
It seems to me abiogenesis is super tricky but conceivable. The "beginning" of everything is a bit more conceptually problematic.
Positing a hyper-powerful creative entity seems not that epistemologically reckless when the more "scientific" alternative is "something happened".
How about epistemicologically useless? What caused your hyper-powerful creative entity? You haven't accomplished anything, you've just added another black box to your collection.
Can you explain how a simulated universe, for instance, is more useful than deism? Doesn't it also simply move the question of ultimate origins back a step?
Right, which is why I don't postulate a simulated universe as the explanation for existence.