If the universe was fine tuned for our life...

[Smaug]

Define reality, subreality and intellect. As for now we're dealing with undefined or heavily under-defined notions.

[Heywood]

You've claimed earlier that our reality has to have a creator. Even with your 'phenomenological' hypothesis of sub-realities (which is build upon a false premise) it doesn't follow as you're never able to prove that our reality is a sub-reality and it exactly fits your 'phenomenological' criteria (which have to be presented alongside with your hypothesis).

I deny making that claim in this thread. If I made that claim earlier it should be easy enough for you to quote and paste it. Please do so and allow me the opportunity to defend myself....otherwise your accusation is underhanded.

[Jenny A]

Putting aside the definition of reality, you're basically trying to prove the following:
A sub-reality is a reality that belongs completely within other reality. that There exist realities that contain creators of sub-realities <=> for every reality and sub-reality there has to be a creator
Do you notice that while "<=" works "=>" doesn't follow? Hense the theorem is invalid.

Even in a more strict formulation as this:
A sub-reality is a reality that belongs completely within other reality. Every sub-reality has a creator <=> for every reality and sub-reality there has to be a creator
"=>" doesn't follow.

I am not claiming there has to be a creator for every sub reality. If you think this then you clearly do not understand the argument I am making. I am claiming that since we observe sub realities coming into existence via the hand of intellect....and never observe sub realities coming into existence sans intellect....that fact gives strength to the conjecture that all sub realities require intellects to come into existence. I am making an inductive argument...not a deductive one.

That doesn't necessarily help. Unlike a deductive argument where the conclusion is always correct if the premises are correct, in the case of a inductive argument, the premises might be correct and the conclusion still wrong.

For example:

Deductive:

1. All bachelors are unmarried.

2. Ken is a bachelor.

3. Therefore Ken is unmarried.


Inductive:

1. Every bachelor I know of is below the age of 90.

2. Joe is a bachelor.

3. Therefore Joe is under ninety. (Obviously unless he's one of the bachelors I've met this conclusion could be wrong).


The power of inductive reasoning depends upon the size the two groups correlated and whether there is any rational causation theory to link the groups. The inherent weakness of a limited sample size and that correlation does not equal causation are the two problems with inductive reasoning.

Now let's consider your particular inductive argument. We have just one reality and a limited number of anything approaching a sub-reality. This leaves you with an inductive argument like this:

1. Every simulation kind of like a reality (or sub-reality) is designed by sentient beings.

2. The universe is a reality.

3. Therefore the universe is designed by a sentient being.

This is considerably weaker than my under ninety bachelor conclusion, because at least I had real bachelors to draw from.

[Jackalope]

Of course not. However, if we grant one of your premises, that certain sub-realities require intellect to create, and you conclude from this that the reality containing said sub-realities requires intellect to exist, then you most certainly have committed a fallacy of composition. In fact, said observed sub-realities are not realities at all, but more properly described as models or simulations.

How you came up with "you think causality is fallacious?" from that is beyond me.

Premise A: Realities can contain sub realities.
Premise B: We observe sub realities coming into existence.
Premise C: We always observe the hand of intellect participating in the creation of a sub reality.
Premise D: We never observe sub realities coming into existence without an intellect.
Conclusion: Our observations suggest that sub realities require the hand of intellect to come into existence.

Where is this the composition fallacy in the above argument?

Thanks for laying it out clearly, I may have misunderstood where you're going with it. I'll withdraw that complaint until I see where you're going with it now.

Is there a composition fallacy in this next argument?

No, but your premise E and D are not in fact true - at least at the quantum level - unless you're able to demonstrate the cause of virtual particles coming into existence, or the cause of an individual atom's decay. AFAIK, those things to not have demonstrated causes (which is not quite the same as saying they are causeless, but it does negate your premises E and D below).

Premise E: We always observe effects having causes.
Premise D: We never observe effects not having causes.
Conclusion: Our observations suggest that effects always have causes.

[The Valkyrie]

I frequently hear creationists make the ridiculous claim that the Earth is fine tuned for humanity.

That must be why over 70% of the surface is actually hostile to human life.

Hmmmm . . .

[Heywood]

However, we have not, so far created a sentient being through intellect. Thus we still haven't seen any reality created unequivocally by an intellect, or as would be fairer in the case of the simulation by many many intellects developing technology and understanding through many generations.

The first video reminds me more of Plato's cave thought experiment. That is to say the spider isn't in an sub reality, it is merely fooled by misinterpretations of it's senses. Judging from the way in which it appears to give up, it may even have gotten wise to its misinterpretation, though I doubt it thought, "oh it a lazar."

In the computer simulation the evolved being chasing the red dot appears nearly as sentient as the real life spider chasing the red dot. Both beings can apparently perceive and navigate toward the red dot. Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

Are the spider and computer bug as sentient as humans? Certainly not....but they are sentient at least on a rudimentary level.

[Angrboda]

Chameleon-like animals create subrealities with the appearance of their environment without the use of intellect. You're making an induction from a sample size of 1 - humans. That's not an induction, that's a hasty generalization.

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about here.....but chameleon like animals have intellect....just not the same magnitude of human intellect.

Chameleon-like animals create simulations of the appearance of their background without the use of their intellect.

You will have to try harder.

You'd have to try awfully hard to be more condescending. And no, I don't have to try harder. The chameleon example stands. Their subrealities aren't the result of design.

[Smaug]

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.

(wrong premise emphasized)
If we accept your premise as true and consider this:

I am claiming that since we observe sub realities coming into existence via the hand of intellect....and never observe sub realities coming into existence sans intellect....that fact gives strength to the conjecture that all sub realities require intellects to come into existence.

we pretty much get that phenomenologically there has to be a creator for our universe. That, or your induction is pointless.

[Jenny A]

However, we have not, so far created a sentient being through intellect. Thus we still haven't seen any reality created unequivocally by an intellect, or as would be fairer in the case of the simulation by many many intellects developing technology and understanding through many generations.

The first video reminds me more of Plato's cave thought experiment. That is to say the spider isn't in an sub reality, it is merely fooled by misinterpretations of it's senses. Judging from the way in which it appears to give up, it may even have gotten wise to its misinterpretation, though I doubt it thought, "oh it a lazar."

In the computer simulation the evolved being chasing the red dot appears nearly as sentient as the real life spider chasing the red dot. Both beings can apparently perceive and navigate toward the red dot. Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

Are the spider and computer bug as sentient as humans? Certainly not....but they are sentient at least on a rudimentary level.

In the case of the spider perhaps. But before we apply it to the simulated creatures I think we'd better define sentient, don't you?

[Angrboda]

I call Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You're just choosing words which include what you want, and exclude what you don't want. If you'd developed the hypothesis prior to seeing the data, you might have a point. But you didn't, so you just have a fallacy.