(November 30, 2014 at 3:02 pm)Smaug Wrote: This is not an unreasonable proposition.

Well even if so, it's just as pointless to us as any other principally unprovable hypothesis.

Because this hypothesis has reasons to be believed.....namely the observation that sub-realities need intellects to come into existence/ our reality appears to be a sub reality of a larger reality....it is a much more reasonable proposition than there is no God.

(November 30, 2014 at 2:20 pm)Heywood Wrote: What do you mean by "wash between"?

If realities can be broken into "subrealities", and both "our reality" and minecraft are examples of realities - plural. If you want them to be similar enough to draw comparisons that might hold, or in fact two examples of the same thing..a "subreality". Rather than, say, one example of the same thing. If you feel that you've come to some conclusion that the two are similar I'd have to suggest that this is only because you assumed it from the outset by demanding that we consider minecraft a "sub-reality". Even so, it wouldn't matter, because now we're talking about computing, and we have no indications that "intellect" is required for computation, or for a universe in which computation is possible. All that is required is interaction and uniformity of effect (we can even wiggle on the last bit).

Quote: Minecraft reality is dependent on our reality....

-and yet fantasy is possible in that "sub reality" - so whatever dependence you might wish to invoke it's going to be entirely superficial. A minecraft server is a physical place. What happens "in minecraft" -actually happens- in "our reality". It would happen in any system capable of doing the work that the system minecraft refers to does. Intellect or not. Nothing is happening in a "minecraft reality" that doesn't happen when toilet paper rolls bump into each other.

Quote:but it does not come into existence without the presence of an intellect.

It's just o's and 1's playing out on a machine amigo. We use interpretation to "make it" analogous to what you perceive to be some other "reality" discrete from this one. A clever fascimile of how we perceive "our reality" but lacking, in many ways. We're not actually making a world when we load a chunk Heywood.....we're lighting up digital gates -in this world...to paint pretty pictures on a screen that our eyes can see. The reason that we can do this has nothing to do with intellect, so far as we're able to observe...and everything to do with the attributes of a universe in which logical functions can-be-achieved...by any means. That you even thought minecraft would be a friendly example boggles the mind...a minecraft world, a synonym to you for a sub reality..and precisely like our own in this respect at least (so sayeth you) is a product of procedural generation.....so even if we allowed a comparison to hold (for no reason - and with much reason to the contrary)............what is required is procedure, not intellect. Intellect, in minecraft, is used (by the player...and even that;s a generous concession to conversation given the subject matter) to -alter- an existing procedural generation. No intellect needs to be present for the generation to come into existence. It's a random number generator (if you weren't aware of how minecraft worked...you're welcome) housed in a machine. If a rock hit the enter key - voila, minecraft world - or, as you prefer "sub-reality".

Quote: It appears that sub realities only come into existence via the hand of some intellect.

Does it? Point to one? All I see is a continuos expression of one reality that happens whether we're there to observe it or not, whether we designed it or not. Accidental computers work just as well as intentional ones - for the same reasons.

Quote: It appears that our reality is a sub reality.

Oh? Less assertion more elaboration. What leads you to this conclusion?

Quote:Therefore there is reason to believe our reality came into existence via the hand of an intellect.

"Therefore" is generally reserved for statements that follow from sound premises in a valid form to a logical conclusion. What you've done here is confused what we know to be an intentional effect of the manipulation of a system that does not require intellect, well known, well understood, well contained and described..... as an objective "sub-reality" of some other imagined or assumed system. It's almost as if you thought that the bird -actually appeared- out of the rabbits hat......

(November 30, 2014 at 3:12 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 30, 2014 at 3:02 pm)Smaug Wrote: This is not an unreasonable proposition.

Well even if so, it's just as pointless to us as any other principally unprovable hypothesis.

Because this hypothesis has reasons to be believed.....namely the observation that sub-realities need intellects to come into existence/ our reality appears to be a sub reality of a larger reality....it is a much more reasonable proposition than there is no God.

Is it? It appears wholly fallacious from here.

(November 30, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote: It appears that our reality is a sub reality.

Oh? Less assertion more elaboration. What leads you to this conclusion?

The apparent fine tuning of our universe toward emergent complexity leads me to this conclusion. The apparent fine tuning can really only be explained by an intellect(which must reside in its own reality) or a multiverse. Sure you can think up a couple more...but those explanations are pretty easily dismissed. Intellect and multiverse....not so easily dismissed. If I was an atheist I would believe in a multiverse. I am not an atheists because I make observations about the world which suggests the existence of an intellect greater than human intellect.

Now as far as whether or not Minecraft is a sub reality of our reality? That is an assumption that I make. You are free to accept or reject that assumption. I agree that minecraft is substantially different than our reality but not enough to say it isn't a sub reality.

You can demolish my argument by providing an example of something which can reasonably be construed as a sub reality....but which came into existence without the hand of an intellect. My idea of a sub reality is pretty broad so this should be easy for you(if my argument is indeed faulty).

(November 30, 2014 at 1:33 pm)Heywood Wrote: The universe is fined tuned....but not for life. The universe is fine tuned for emergent complexity....life is just one example of emergent complexity.

Really? How so? There is a hell of a lot of universe, more than my mind or yours can really comprehend, and life is the most complex thing we've found in it. And we haven't found much of any evidence of life elsewhere, just indications that it might be possible on some other planets. If it was designed for emergent complexity, it wasn't designed well. Mostly what there is is empty space.

Is it not more likely that out of the infinite possibilities, this is just one that worked? Regardless of the one in a million, billion, trillion, googolplex, googolplex raised to the power of googolplex possibilities, space-time had nothing else to do.

(November 30, 2014 at 1:36 pm)Heywood Wrote: Most coherent models of the universe do not result in sustained emergent complexity. Our is special in that it does.

I'd like either a citation with explanation, or just an explanation of any sort for that assertion.

What apparent fine tuning? Why would life be the most complex thing, by what metrics? And why would an intellect be required? Just as gravity can operate a pneumatic timer and flip a toggle - things can be "tuned" by unthinking means...even when they are "tuned".

You already provided the example when you used minecraft......it's just a consequence of a computing system Heywood.....unless you think that intellect is required for computation (and thusly that computers have intellects...as well as anything else that is capable of computational work - like toilet paper rolls and balls of string)....then your own example tanked your argument. I don't have to find a "sub-reality", you offered one. Doesn't really matter if it isn't...you accepted that it was. End of.

(intellect as generally conceived is fairly easy to dismiss, btw).

Quote:Because this hypothesis has reasons to be believed.....namely the observation that sub-realities need intellects to come into existence/ our reality appears to be a sub reality of a larger reality....it is a much more reasonable proposition than there is no God.

1) Endless or finite chain of creators makes no more sence than the absence of creator.
2) 'Sub-realities' are undefined to start with.

(November 30, 2014 at 1:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: Physic engines are pretty easy for us and we have simulated many different coherent universes. Most coherent models of universes result in nothing much happening at all. The parameters of our universe allow for sustained emergent complexity. This is a fact and it is not in dispute.

Citation please. The universe took it's own sweet time about producing us. It would have to be a model that allowed for about 10 billion years for emerging life. That would be one heck of a computer model.