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

[Heywood]

My previous thread on the appearance of design answers your entire argument. Your argument is a trivial result when properly understood. Either design is the product of intellect, which is the result of natural processes (evolution), and so is an example of sub-realities being created by a natural process, or it's not. Big whoop.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24636.html

In that thread you claim:

The reason all X we've seen are Y, of human design, is because we've focused on an area rich in X that are Y.

I have already claimed(at least a couple of times already) that if you can show me an X that is not Y my argument is demolished. Its not that I am focusing on an area rich in X that are Y. I'm looking for all Xs....as many as I can find....and finding none that are not also Y.

[Jenny A]

A sub reality is a space continuum that is governed by rules. The space continuum of a subreality is not the space continuum of its parent reality.

Space is a dimensional extant where things happen. By dimensional I mean the space has dimensions. In our reality it has 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension(as far as we know). Continuum refers to continuity. It isn't broken up into chunks.

A sub-reality is not equivalent to the actual reality because a sub reality is dependent upon another reality. Actual reality is not dependent on anything. Actual reality by definition is all there is. The two things, actual reality and sub reality are very different from each other.

So to put it all together, a sub-reality is an existing undivided dimensional space governed by rules other than those of our reality?

Either that definition is overly broad, or there are none. Let's start with overly broad. Have you ever played classic non-computer aided D&D? Words and graph paper describe the space and the rules for the space. Although rather more primitively depicted, it is every bit as much a space as the graphics in a computer game. There are rules governing that space which are primarily those of chance. To determine what happens in the space we roll dice of various numbers of sides.

Many war games played with cards and boards are similar. At the simplest level so is chess. All of them have a depiction of dimensional space with rules for operating within the space. Other than the artfulness with which they are depicted and the speed at which the rules can be calculated, these spaces fit your definition every bit as much as a computer game space.

Here's the rub. They aren't really extant. The spaces of these sub-realities don't really exist. They are just imaginary spaces depicted with more or less ingenuity. Consequently, I don't think they are nearly enough like reality to tell us anything about how reality was constructed.

[robvalue]

I give up.

This might surprise you....but there was a time in my life when I thought God did not exist.

It doesn't surprise me, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that.

What I can be confident about is that whatever changed your mind about the existence of God, it has nothing to do with these arguments you're presenting. They are rationalizations.

Am I right?

Because as I've said many times, this argument doesn't even get you to Deism, unless you consider yourself a god when you play Minecraft.

And you seem to want to assign more to this creator and other reality than just "something somewhere else". If you don't, then that's cool, but I don't know why it matters in the slightest if it is true or not.



[Edited, was on my ipad and thought you were also a christian]

[Heywood]

So to put it all together, a sub-reality is an existing undivided dimensional space governed by rules other than those of our reality?

Either that definition is overly broad, or there are none. Let's start with overly broad. Have you ever played classic non-computer aided D&D? Words and graph paper describe the space and the rules for the space. Although rather more primitively depicted, it is every bit as much a space as the graphics in a computer game. There are rules governing that space which are primarily those of chance. To determine what happens in the space we roll dice of various numbers of sides.

Many war games played with cards and boards are similar. At the simplest level so is chess. All of them have a depiction of dimensional space with rules for operating within the space. Other than the artfulness with which they are depicted and the speed at which the rules can be calculated, these spaces fit your definition every bit as much as a computer game space.

Here's the rub. They aren't really extant. The spaces of these sub-realities don't really exist. They are just imaginary spaces depicted with more or less ingenuity. Consequently, I don't think they are nearly enough like reality to tell us anything about how reality was constructed.

The rules can be identical. It can't be the same space. I was specific about that in my definition. I don't believe your chess example satisfies my definition for that reason. Your D&D example....however..... I don't have a problem with it. I have long thought that one can create a sub reality in ones mind or imagination. But for the sake of argument, lets grant that chess, card games, etc are all the kinds of things that satisfy the definition of sub reality I offered. All those things you have mention....none of them exist unless intelligence exists.....so all those things add credibility to my inductive argument....that sub realities appear to only exists as the product of intelligence. Again, I challenge you or anyone to find something that satisfies my definition of sub reality....that doesn't require intelligence to exist. If you can...my argument is demolished.

You are right, I did make the definition overly broad, I can't imagine it being more broad....but I did that for a reason. That reason being I didn't want to fall into the trap Rasetsu warn's against. Namely I didn't want to focus on one area that is purposely rich with the products of intelligence.

As far as being extant...that is really a matter of perspective. It is possible that you are a simulant. From your perspective our reality is as real as it gets. However from the perspective of those running the simulation...your reality doesn't really exist. Its just a procedural generation running inside a box. Which perspective is valid? If your simulation contains conscious beings, I would say error on the safe side and assume a simulated reality is a valid reality. Right now its no big deal if you choose the wrong perspective...nobody is going to be harmed. That might not always be the case.

The thing about all the sub realities we have discussed is none of them are fine tuned for sustained emergent complexity. I have played with evolution simulators and they are cool....but the emergent complexity always stalls out...it always plateaus. I predict that as we learn to fine tune the sub realities to create sustained emergent complexity....we will begin to see things like consciousness emerge from them.

One dream I have had is to take a game like Skyrim...and make the monsters in it subject to natural selection.....but now I am rambling.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have already claimed(at least a couple of times already) that if you can show me an X that is not Y my argument is demolished. Its not that I am focusing on an area rich in X that are Y. I'm looking for all Xs....as many as I can find....and finding none that are not also Y.

I've shown you why -every x- you've offered is not a y. If there was some point that this would compel you to drop the argument you would have already done so. Let's try being honest with ourselves from time to time Heywood.

[The Grand Nudger]

The rules can be identical. It can't be the same space. I was specific about that in my definition.

Well, since every example you've offered is "the same space" we still have no examples of a subreality to consider or make observations -from-.

I don't believe your chess example satisfies my definition for that reason. Your D&D example....however..... I don't have a problem with it. I have long thought that one can create a sub reality in ones mind or imagination. But for the sake of argument, lets grant that chess, card games, etc are all the kinds of things that satisfy the definition of sub reality I offered. All those things you have mention....none of them exist unless intelligence exists.....

Well, without intelligence there would would be fewer folks around to enjoy them, anyway.

so all those things add credibility to my inductive argument....that sub realities appear to only exists as the product of intelligence.

What argument?

Again, I challenge you or anyone to find something that satisfies my definition of sub reality....that doesn't require intelligence to exist. If you can...my argument is demolished.

-you keep saying this...but I don't think that it's true.....

It is possible that you are a simulant.

An amazing possibility, agreed - but that doesn;t require any subreality, or any alternate space to accomplish - so ultimately it says nothing about any "sub reality".

From your perspective our reality is as real as it gets. However from the perspective of those running the simulation...your reality doesn't really exist.

There's no requirement that anyone be "outside of the simulation". If it's a simulation, it exists - if our observations of simulations hold and can be used in this manner...then you could point to the hardware and say "there it is" - just like I can in reality..

Its just a procedural generation running inside a box.

-which, as a defining characteristic - do not require intellect.

[quote]
The thing about all the sub realities we have discussed is none of them are fine tuned for sustained emergent complexity. I have played with evolution simulators and they are cool....but the emergent complexity always stalls out...it always plateaus. I predict that as we learn to fine tune the sub realities to create sustained emergent complexity....we will begin to see things like consciousness emerge from them.

That's something we ought to be able to accomplish without any sub-reality...and I sure hope we don't actually need one...because then we'd be fucked.

One dream I have had is to take a game like Skyrim...and make the monsters in it subject to natural selection.....but now I am rambling.

Try SPORE.

If you want to see something complex emerge, try Eyewire.

[Jenny A]

So to put it all together, a sub-reality is an existing undivided dimensional space governed by rules other than those of our reality?

Either that definition is overly broad, or there are none. Let's start with overly broad. Have you ever played classic non-computer aided D&D? Words and graph paper describe the space and the rules for the space. Although rather more primitively depicted, it is every bit as much a space as the graphics in a computer game. There are rules governing that space which are primarily those of chance. To determine what happens in the space we roll dice of various numbers of sides.

Many war games played with cards and boards are similar. At the simplest level so is chess. All of them have a depiction of dimensional space with rules for operating within the space. Other than the artfulness with which they are depicted and the speed at which the rules can be calculated, these spaces fit your definition every bit as much as a computer game space.

Here's the rub. They aren't really extant. The spaces of these sub-realities don't really exist. They are just imaginary spaces depicted with more or less ingenuity. Consequently, I don't think they are nearly enough like reality to tell us anything about how reality was constructed.

The rules can be identical. It can't be the same space. I was specific about that in my definition. I don't believe your chess example satisfies my definition for that reason. Your D&D example....however..... I don't have a problem with it. I have long thought that one can create a sub reality in ones mind or imagination. But for the sake of argument, lets grant that chess, card games, etc are all the kinds of things that satisfy the definition of sub reality I offered. All those things you have mention....none of them exist unless intelligence exists.....so all those things add credibility to my inductive argument....that sub realities appear to only exists as the product of intelligence. Again, I challenge you or anyone to find something that satisfies my definition of sub reality....that doesn't require intelligence to exist. If you can...my argument is demolished.

You are right, I did make the definition overly broad, I can't imagine it being more broad....but I did that for a reason. That reason being I didn't want to fall into the trap Rasetsu warn's against. Namely I didn't want to focus on one area that is purposely rich with the products of intelligence.

As far as being extant...that is really a matter of perspective. It is possible that you are a simulant. From your perspective our reality is as real as it gets. However from the perspective of those running the simulation...your reality doesn't really exist. Its just a procedural generation running inside a box. Which perspective is valid? If your simulation contains conscious beings, I would say error on the safe side and assume a simulated reality is a valid reality. Right now its no big deal if you choose the wrong perspective...nobody is going to be harmed. That might not always be the case.

Wait a minute here. For the existence of sub-realities (as you define them) to have any predictive power for a larger model, like the universe we inhabit, they would have to be a great deal more like the universe, i.e. real. And that's the rub, the space these sub-realities describe is imaginary. They don't actually exist anymore than the reality in a novel exists.

Speculating that we might be part of a simulation like a computer game is fun, but it doesn't add to the likelihood that such is the case. We know of no simulated reality that describes actually created space. Therefore I don't see that sub-realities are of any use in determining how the actual universe came to be.

The thing about all the sub realities we have discussed is none of them are fine tuned for sustained emergent complexity. I have played with evolution simulators and they are cool....but the emergent complexity always stalls out...it always plateaus. I predict that as we learn to fine tune the sub realities to create sustained emergent complexity....we will begin to see things like consciousness emerge from them.

One dream I have had is to take a game like Skyrim...and make the monsters in it subject to natural selection.....but now I am rambling.

Cool and very sci-fi thought, but there's no evidence that complexity leads to conscienceness.

[The Grand Nudger]

-or that consciousness is, itself, necessarily complex. Leave room for brute force.

[Heywood]

Wait a minute here. For the existence of sub-realities (as you define them) to have any predictive power for a larger model, like the universe we inhabit, they would have to be a great deal more like the universe, i.e. real. And that's the rub, the space these sub-realities describe is imaginary. They don't actually exist anymore than the reality in a novel exists.

Speculating that we might be part of a simulation like a computer game is fun, but it doesn't add to the likelihood that such is the case. We know of no simulated reality that describes actually created space. Therefore I don't see that sub-realities are of any use in determining how the actual universe came to be.

You miss understand what is being predicted. What is being predicted is this:

Things which satisfy the following definition require intelligence to come into existence.

A sub reality is a space continuum that is governed by rules. The space continuum of a subreality is not the space continuum of its parent reality

The reason this prediction currently holds is because everything that has thus far been presented as satisfying this definition requires intelligence to come into existence. If our reality satisfies this definition then the prediction likely holds for it as well.

Like I keep saying....if you can come up with something that satisfies the definition but doesn't require intelligence to have come into existence...then you demolish my argument. The more times you examine things and find that they satisfies the definition and requires intelligence to come into existence....while never finding a thing that satisfies the definition but does not require intelligence to come into existence, the more likely it becomes that all things which satisfy the definition require intelligence to come into existence. This is the induction.

[Jenny A]

Wait a minute here. For the existence of sub-realities (as you define them) to have any predictive power for a larger model, like the universe we inhabit, they would have to be a great deal more like the universe, i.e. real. And that's the rub, the space these sub-realities describe is imaginary. They don't actually exist anymore than the reality in a novel exists.

Speculating that we might be part of a simulation like a computer game is fun, but it doesn't add to the likelihood that such is the case. We know of no simulated reality that describes actually created space. Therefore I don't see that sub-realities are of any use in determining how the actual universe came to be.

You miss understand what is being predicted. What is being predicted is this:

Things which satisfy the following definition require of intelligence to come into existence.

A sub reality is a space continuum that is governed by rules. The space continuum of a subreality is not the space continuum of its parent reality

The reason this prediction currently holds is because everything that has thus far been presented as satisfying this definition requires intelligence to come into existence. If our reality satisfies this definition then the prediction likely holds for it as well. This is the induction.

Sorry but that is an absurd prediction. We have one universe which appears to be governed by rules many of which we have discovered. But our "rules" are really just descriptions of how things in the universe behave. There is no evidence that the rules "created" the universe by describing it. The rules are merely us humans describing things.

The sub-realities you have defined really are created by the rules, to the extent that they exist at all. But they really do not exist except as a set of rules. We cannot create real space merely by making up rules for how that space should work, no matter how complex or internally consistent the rules are.

To induce anything about the the construction of the real world based upon these sub-realities you have to assume that the the real world is a great deal more like a sub-reality than we have any reason to believe it is. Or you have to believe that sub-realities described by an intellect, cause those sub-realities to exist in any way other than as a thought experiment.