RE: If the universe was fine tuned for our life...
December 5, 2014 at 12:45 pm
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2014 at 1:05 pm by Heywood.)
(December 5, 2014 at 9:39 am)Rhythm Wrote:(December 5, 2014 at 7:52 am)Heywood Wrote: Procedural generations are tools used by intellects to create sub realities. The are not sub realities in and of themselves. Can you give an example of a sub reality that uses a procedural generation but was not created by an intelligence?LOL< goal posted. Confronted with the reality that it is a procedural generation and not an intellect required and creating the game worlds referenced, you've decided to take a step back, and ask a different question. Good for you, unfortunately, yes I can.
-In that all of them are examples. We implement procedural generations, our intelligence is used to direct their effect - it isn't required for their existence, nor do we need to "create" them. A procedural generation is a description of a logical function - we discovered those, we didn't invent them. What we -did- invent was the implementation thereof, in the form of a modern computer. But...since we've invented a variety of computing systems and they all fulfill the function it's very plain that it isn't any specific invention of ours upon which this all depends. Strings, levers, analog or digital...even rolls of toilet paper (I shit you not) - it all does the same thing for the same reasons under the same rules in the same reality - and the same space.
(I'm afraid that you can't decide that procedural generations are not sub-realities unless you ditch all of your examples - but then where would you draw your observations from? If you decide to keep your examples (so that you can claim to have observations upon which this argument is arranged) you must allow procedural generations, as the examples you've offered -are- procedural generations themselves)
-this thread has been an idiots guide to poor logic btw and we're talking fucking computers!...... so gratz on that - I'm wondering if any stone will be left unturned by the time you bail out, impressive..in it's own way.
We didn't create the tensile strength of steel either....does that mean intelligence wasn't required for the existence of the Burj Khalifa? I understand that we don't create algorithms, but we certainly employ them in ways nature never would. I keep asking you to show me an example of a sub reality which would exist even if there was no intelligence. You claim Secondlife is a sub reality which would exist or could reasonably come into existence if there was no intelligence. That claim is absurd.
(December 5, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Sorry, woody, you can't invoke relativity just so you can slip in "subreality" assertions without justification and then expect nobody to notice that you've palmed a card.
The point is it is not a novel concept on my part to use perspective to determine what is real and what isn't. Such thinking is fundamentally ingrained into our physics and now I am applying the same thinking philosophically.
There is no palmed card here....there is only consilience.
(December 5, 2014 at 9:05 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: How do you determine that we are currently living in a sub-reality that required an intelligence to generate?
There are two questions here:
Question 1: is our reality a sub reality.
Question 2: is intelligence required for the creation of our sub reality.
I claim the answer to question 2 is yes because it appears that all sub realities come into existence needing the involvement of intellect. I've already discussed this in great detail. I haven't really touched on question 1 in this thread. But there are lots of reason to think this is true. Here is a simple one.
The universe appears to be fine tuned. This is a view held by many physicist and cosmologists and not just crack pot theists. The fine tuning problem cries out for an explanation. There are 3
A)The universe is a sub reality of God and His reality.
B)The universe is a sub reality of a multiverse.
C)It is just happenstance that the universe came into being so fine tuned.
Now apply the principle of indifference to the 3 explanations and consider each of the three to be equally likely. Since 2 of the three have our universe as sub reality of a larger reality...then by this thinking you can reasonably assume that there is a 66% chance that we live in a sub reality. There are other lines of thinking that also conclude we are probably living in a sub reality.
