281 replies to this topic

[Seeker79]

Arbitran, on 14 June 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

I also just realized: this is a case of proof by example. It's a logical fallacy. You're claiming that because we have one example of sentient creative beings, therefore we can extrapolate that all sentient creative beings will possess properties similar or identical to our own. However, you fail to realize, that because indeed we presently only have a single example of human-like intelligence, we cannot with any certainty ascribe any properties to other, speculated human-like intelligences; at least not by going so far as to claim 'inevitabilities'. I suspect your response will be: "It's plausible/probable." Really? By what measure have you deemed it to be particularly probable or plausible? Or is it, as I suspect, a totally arbitrary application of probability? You cannot simply assert that something is probable, let alone 'inevitable', without extremely robust evidence. In any case, it is an intriguing speculation.

Logical fallacy or no, the fact remaines that we are proof that it can happen once. As soon as we create a virtual universe then it opens up an infinitum of potential other universes.  is it possible that we are unique in our sentience and abilities? Sure. But like a lot of you I am a skeptic as well. I'll need some solid proof that we are the center of the universe and there is nothing alike or greater than we are. Thus is why I consider it probable. actual numbers of probability... Of course not. There's is nothing available to compare it to. If you are still stuck with empiricism then the probability that there is other or greater life than we have is zero, and the probability that humans exist is exactly 1. No intelligent thinker when looking at the facts of the universe believe this regardless of logical rehtorick or reductionist emphiricism.

A wide multiple perspective view of what we know about the universe and evolution, and no fear of where that may lead reveals some startling probabilities. The only limits are being stuck in reductionist and empirical thought, and potential limits of nature.

[Arbitran]

Seeker79, on 15 June 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

A universe that comes from nothing at all.

Yes but I'm also describing a potential future for us to. Not just ETs. Arbitrary? Sure. But still probable. Again more probable than the mythical nothing.

I still don't exactly know what you mean by "nothing". There is no scientific evidence of nothing at the moment. It's more philosophic than scientific.

[Arbitran]

Seeker79, on 15 June 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

Logical fallacy or no, the fact remaines that we are proof that it can happen once. As soon as we create a virtual universe then it opens up an infinitum of potential other universes.  is it possible that we are unique in our sentience and abilities? Sure. But like a lot of you I am a skeptic as well. I'll need some solid proof that we are the center of the universe and there is nothing alike or greater than we are. Thus is why I consider it probable. actual numbers of probability... Of course not. There's is nothing available to compare it to. If you are still stuck with empiricism then the probability that there is other or greater life than we have is zero, and the probability that humans exist is exactly 1. No intelligent thinker when looking at the facts of the universe believe this regardless of logical rehtorick or reductionist emphiricism.

A wide multiple perspective view of what we know about the universe and evolution, and no fear of where that may lead reveals some startling probabilities. The only limits are being stuck in reductionist and empirical thought, and potential limits of nature.

I certainly don't disagree with your proposal: I think it is very possible that our species will rise to the level of the gods, and we are just on the cusp of that possibility today. I simply noted that a probability cannot be affixed without adequate quantifiable comparison.

[ranrod]

Seeker79, on 15 June 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

Logical fallacy or no, the fact remaines that we are proof that it can happen once. As soon as we create a virtual universe then it opens up an infinitum of potential other universes.  is it possible that we are unique in our sentience and abilities? Sure. But like a lot of you I am a skeptic as well. I'll need some solid proof that we are the center of the universe and there is nothing alike or greater than we are. Thus is why I consider it probable. actual numbers of probability... Of course not. There's is nothing available to compare it to. If you are still stuck with empiricism then the probability that there is other or greater life than we have is zero, and the probability that humans exist is exactly 1. No intelligent thinker when looking at the facts of the universe believe this regardless of logical rehtorick or reductionist emphiricism.

A wide multiple perspective view of what we know about the universe and evolution, and no fear of where that may lead reveals some startling probabilities. The only limits are being stuck in reductionist and empirical thought, and potential limits of nature.

Do I have this right?
We exist - let's say yes to keep this simple.
Because we exist, and existence of beings like us is a possibility, we can extrapolate that it can happen again - Sure.
If we advance sufficiently, we could one day spawn new creations in virtual worlds - This may be a point of contention.  It might be that humans will never have that capability for a variety of reasons.  The rest in this chain of thought becomes a lot more speculative.
If we accept that one being creating virtual worlds is a possibility, why could we have been created in this "chain" by other beings that got to that point - At this point we're at the same speculation point that any religion is.  We can think of an infinite amount of equally probably scenarios for our existence.  Why is this special?  For example, when we dream we create a virtual world in our mind.  Why could we be figments on some greater being's dream?

[Seeker79]

ranrod, on 15 June 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

Do I have this right?
We exist - let's say yes to keep this simple.
Because we exist, and existence of beings like us is a possibility, we can extrapolate that it can happen again - Sure.
If we advance sufficiently, we could one day spawn new creations in virtual worlds - This may be a point of contention.  It might be that humans will never have that capability for a variety of reasons.  The rest in this chain of thought becomes a lot more speculative.
If we accept that one being creating virtual worlds is a possibility, why could we have been created in this "chain" by other beings that got to that point - At this point we're at the same speculation point that any religion is.  We can think of an infinite amount of equally probably scenarios for our existence.  Why is this special?  For example, when we dream we create a virtual world in our mind.  Why could we be figments on some greater being's dream?

Well of course we are speculating. But not the same as religions. We could be part of a greater beings conciousness. ( which I happen to believe). But we have concrete things right here right now that tell us we soon may be capable of creating artificial universes with artificial life. In truth all it would take is the right amount of programming then let evolution take over. Ask just about any scientist and they will tell you they think it is possible in our life times. Once it happens this chain of creation and the probability that we are subject to it aswell jumps tremendously. Speculative? Sure. But not irrationally so. And no potential for FSBM.

We also have concrete knowledge that concous thought has taking over guiding evolution. We most likely will master genetics and incorporate technology into our existence. It's already happening. What will become of us as we engneer ourselves and build our capabilities to the limits of nature. What will we look like 10,000 years from now under moores law? A million? A billion? ( I just had a side conversation with my wife. She works for intel. She just told me some of the things intel is investing in..... Holy crap it is already happening ----Moore ( moore's law) was one of he founders of intel.)

Speculation? Sure? But no more speculation than we speculate the existence of ETs. I for one think it's a certainty that ETs exist somewhere. Don't need proof just need numbers. I also think its a certainty that god reproduces itself over and over again and maintaines a Gia like thread of concous through us all.

Anyway. I will maintain that atheism is not a religion but a close second. The axiom of materialism is prooven wrong, no gods is just as probable as gods ( as we have been discussing), they try to convert, they organize, they market, and they dogmitise. What can I say. I see a belief system trying to perpetuate itself and claiming righteousness. If it looks like a duck.........

[Seeker79]

Arbitran, on 15 June 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

I certainly don't disagree with your proposal: I think it is very possible that our species will rise to the level of the gods, and we are just on the cusp of that possibility today. I simply noted that a probability cannot be affixed without adequate quantifiable comparison.

No not in numbers. But it can in concept. Remember numbers do not reflect reality, they only approximate it. The number 1 is number, but in reality that 1 is much more ambiguous when we ask---- 1 what?

[Seeker79]

Arbitran, on 15 June 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

I still don't exactly know what you mean by "nothing". There is no scientific evidence of nothing at the moment. It's more philosophic than scientific.

Yeah well.... Like an atheist that's why I consider it a fairy tale. Nothing literally does not exist. It can't otherwise it would not be nothing anymore.

[ranrod]

Seeker79, on 15 June 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

We also have concrete knowledge that concous thought has taking over guiding evolution. We most likely will master genetics and incorporate technology into our existence. It's already happening. What will become of us as we engneer ourselves and build our capabilities to the limits of nature. What will we look like 10,000 years from now under moores law? A million? A billion? ( I just had a side conversation with my wife. She works for intel. She just told me some of the things intel is investing in..... Holy crap it is already happening ----Moore ( moore's law) was one of he founders of intel.)

I work with technology.  Moore's law is not going to be sustainable for much longer.  I think it's failed a few times already, but I haven't looked it up to verify.  I'd say 10 years or less.  There's a big misconception about it.  I talked to a friend about 10 years ago and he said, "computers are going to be so powerful in 10 years, you're going to be able to stick your hands inside monitors and sculpt something with your hands on a virtual world".  The problem with that now falsified statement is that how fast and small we can make processors doesn't necessarily leak into other areas.  Just smaller faster devices.  We can't figure anything out today that we couldn't then.  We can just do the same stuff faster.  Even if Moor's law holds longer than I expect, IMO we won't know what to do with it.

About inventing things that helps us surpass our limits:  Even if we mesh with technology like the Borg and do some genetics engineering on ourselves to make ourselves superior, there might still be a limit to our progress that we cannot surpass.  Is it possible for the product of this universe to figure everything out from within?  Some things are impossible to determine when you're inside, but super easy if you're outside: like Flatland.

IMO, making a simulation as complex as our universe is beyond the foreseeable future.  I think it's still on-par with a religious belief.  Though for me it's incredibly more interesting than conventional religions.

IMO, If you don't believe in the supernatural, but believe that we will one day be able to build a virtual universe with intelligent beings, and perhaps we ourselves are in one, you would be both an atheist and a believer at the same time.  Those atheists would be part of a religion.

[Tiggs]

Seeker79, on 15 June 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

No not in numbers. But it can in concept. Remember numbers do not reflect reality, they only approximate it. The number 1 is number, but in reality that 1 is much more ambiguous when we ask---- 1 what?

1 anything-you-happen-to-be-counting. Numbers don't have units of measurement.

[Tiggs]

eight bits, on 14 June 2012 - 05:09 AM, said:

Anyway, capability and intentions. If Dover had been lost, the Dover public schools would still have taught evolution by natural selection, and only volunteers would have been exposed to God's word in addition to, not instead of, science. The scope for mischief-making by DI had already been made pretty narrow by earlier court decisions.

P.E, Johnson may have thought he was advancing "the wedge" of some new era of public godliness, and the after-action reports sing of heroic deeds against mighty foes. But the truth, IMO, is that Dover was mopping-up. Necessary work, to be sure, but the war had been won. A lot of wars have a long tail of hold-out insurgency, but it doesn't mean that the outcome gets reversed.

I disagree. I think the war is far from over or that it will probably ever cease. Just as Creationism has morphed, so will ID, and we'll be off around roughly the same loop with a different name, again.

I also have much less faith than you that we're not going to have a sympathetically stacked supreme court at some point in the not-so-distant future.

[Seeker79]

ranrod, on 15 June 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

I work with technology.  Moore's law is not going to be sustainable for much longer.  I think it's failed a few times already, but I haven't looked it up to verify.  I'd say 10 years or less.  There's a big misconception about it.  I talked to a friend about 10 years ago and he said, "computers are going to be so powerful in 10 years, you're going to be able to stick your hands inside monitors and sculpt something with your hands on a virtual world".  The problem with that now falsified statement is that how fast and small we can make processors doesn't necessarily leak into other areas.  Just smaller faster devices.  We can't figure anything out today that we couldn't then.  We can just do the same stuff faster.  Even if Moor's law holds longer than I expect, IMO we won't know what to do with it.

About inventing things that helps us surpass our limits:  Even if we mesh with technology like the Borg and do some genetics engineering on ourselves to make ourselves superior, there might still be a limit to our progress that we cannot surpass.  Is it possible for the product of this universe to figure everything out from within?  Some things are impossible to determine when you're inside, but super easy if you're outside: like Flatland.

IMO, making a simulation as complex as our universe is beyond the foreseeable future.  I think it's still on-par with a religious belief.  Though for me it's incredibly more interesting than conventional religions.

IMO, If you don't believe in the supernatural, but believe that we will one day be able to build a virtual universe with intelligent beings, and perhaps we ourselves are in one, you would be both an atheist and a believer at the same time.  Those atheists would be part of a religion.

Every time Somone says something can't be done.... We figure it out...by the way there are things that print in three dimensions and it would not be hard to build the models through VR. I think a lot of things we imagine just are not as practicle as we originally imagined. We could all have quade copter cars, but there are obvious issues with that that nobody thought of when imagining the world of the jetsons.

The point being that technology also evolves with what is actually practical with the needs of man.

We will see what kind of limits there are. Moores law may or may not have an end soon. Who knows what other avenues computing can take.  I have seen simulations the mimic galaxy collisions, people, and societies, markets etc etc. I don't think we are that far off at all.

I do believe in what some call the super natural ( but i dont believe in the supernatural. ( can that be understood). The most logical model for me is what we have been discusding. I just think it probably happened many universes ago. I'm  just not completely blind. I have to
...I don't have a choice. My beliefs are not decisions they are just what I believe, based on thinking things through, not allowing to much bias, and personal interactions. and I'm not going to hide from myself.

It's been fun.

I hope you all can see why people like me ( agnostic theists) can easily consider atheism very much like a religion. There are some atheists that I would consider not being like religouse..... But I would probably call them true agnostics. If they are not willing to admit its a coin flip, then they have not looked into the possibilities deep enough.

[Arbenol68]

Seeker79, on 14 June 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

The universe and time is to vast to rule it out. The end game of evolution is something that is quite nearly all powerful and lasts forever. Give evolution enough time and a god like being will be born. The only thing in the way is the limits of nature itself. I think ultra intelligence can easily figure ways to bend, break, and take advantage of the rules. Humans already do it to an extent. Our conciousness transcends our biology.

It would be very difficult to argue the plausibility of this, but that's a long way from saying that it's a certainty. There's a lot of debate about whether human-like sentience is an inevitable consequence of evolution. Gould's argument about rewinding the clock and evolution taking a different course may have some merit. Dinosaurs had nearly 200 million years to evolve sentience, but didn't. Our presence is a result of a combination of unlikely and propitious events. Given enough time, it's fair to say that what can happen, probably will - but that doesn't detract from the possibility that we are a glorious fluke.
As it goes, I'm inclined to agree with you - if it can be shown that natural processes could not have brought the universe(s) into existence. We're a long way from being able to answer that.