Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[The Grand Nudger]

Just to be difficult, if I were to play devil's advocate, I might say: the same underlying physical processes are responsible for both, aren't they?

Not even remotely.

Well, it's more like the foundational principles of our reality could be similar to foundational principles of human simulated realities, wherefore our reality could be simulated. It's a bit different.

Wouldn't they be....since we created those sims -based upon the principles of our own reality within the environment of that reality-? Should there be different foundational principles in a simulation generated from within this reality? Can there be? I don't think that our ability to create sims actually has much to say about our -reality-...though I do think it has alot to say about our -perception- of it.

So, the albatross bit doesn't hold water for you? Why not?

[sswhateverlove]

Wouldn't they be....since we created those sims -based upon the principles of our own reality within the environment of that reality-? Should there be different foundational principles in a simulation generated from within this reality? Can there be? I don't think that our ability to create sims actually has much to say about our -reality-...though I do think it has alot to say about our -perception- of it.

Moreso we created those sims based on understanding computer technology and programming. I could be wrong, but I believe it has only been recently that certain revelations have led scientists to questioning whether our reality is operating in a similar way to the computer simulations and to question about associated "programming".

[The Grand Nudger]

Moreso we created those sims based on understanding computer technology and programming.

Both firmly rooted in this reality. Again it shouldn't really surprise us that our sims have things in common (or appear to have things in common) with the reality in which they were created, leveraging the principles of that reality. Not only would we expect that, with a sim...we're actually aiming for it. "Huh, isn't it strange that I tried to sculpt a potato and ended up with something a least a little bit like a potato?" -Not really, no.

I could be wrong, but I believe it has only been recently that certain revelations have led scientists to questioning whether our reality is operating in a similar way to the computer simulations and to question about associated "programming".

Depends on your definition of "recent", it was a thing before The Matrix was a thing. People have been wondering whether this world was "real" for far longer than that (as in more than a thousand years - at the least, who knows what Great Uncle Og wondered about back in the day).

[sswhateverlove]

Both firmly rooted in this reality. Again it shouldn't really surprise us that our sims have things in common (or appear to have things in common) with the reality in which they were created, leveraging the principles of that reality.

So, classical physics (prior to the 21st century) is generally characterized by the principle of complete determinism and includes newton's laws of motion, classical Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms, classical electrodynamics (Maxwell's Equations), and classical thermodynamics. In contrast to classical physics, "modern physics" is a slightly looser term which may refer to just quantum physics or to 20th and 21st century physics in general. Modern physics includes quantum theory and relativity, when applicable.
Although to some extent we formed opinion of how reality works by classical physics, the idea of a reality that seems to abide by some of the principles of computer science (think 1s and 0s), it seems, is a relatively new one.

Additionally, "a decisive refutation of any claim that our reality is computer-simulated would be the discovery of some uncomputable physics, because if reality is doing something that no computer can do, it cannot be a computer simulation. (Computability generally means computability by a Turing machine. Hypercomputation (super-Turing computation) introduces other possibilities which will be dealt with separately.) In fact, known physics is held to be (Turing) computable, but the statement "physics is computable" needs to be qualified in various ways. Before symbolic computation, a number, thinking particularly of a real number, one with an infinite number of digits, was said to be computable if a Turing machine will continue to spit out digits endlessly, never reaching a "final digit". This runs counter, however, to the idea of simulating physics in real time (or any plausible kind of time). Known physical laws (including those of quantum mechanics) are very much infused with real numbers and continua, and the universe seems to be able to decide their values on a moment-by-moment basis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

[sswhateverlove]

I just realized my stuff about time progression is not on this thread and it relates to my last post.

Maybe I should've posted all of my ideas in one thread... Geez... I thought I was being helpful by dividing it up because it involves so many areas of research...

Now I just keep overlapping discussions. Is that to be expected? Is it easier, or more difficult to try to explore all these disciplines in one thread, or to keep them as separate threads?

[The Grand Nudger]

Although to some extent we formed opinion of how reality works by classical physics, the idea of a reality that seems to abide by some of the principles of computer science (think 1s and 0s), it seems, is a relatively new one.

It's one of the newer iterations of an age old proposition, yeah.

Additionally, "a decisive refutation of any claim that our reality is computer-simulated would be the discovery of some uncomputable physics, because if reality is doing something that no computer can do, it cannot be a computer simulation.

If reality is doing something that no computer -could do-...not -can do-. No computer that we know of -can- create such a sim (so ...I suppose, refutation supplied). In the hypothetical, there's a computer beefy enough to manufacture our reality in toto (somehow). What such a refutation asks for, in effect, is an example of reality doing something that is illogical. Mostly because computers are logic abstracting machines, anything that can be handled logically is something that a computer -could do-. "Un-computable physics" does not mean that -we- are not able to compute them (any more than we're looking for what a computer can rather than could do)......but that they are fundamentally not subject to computation.

Any "decisive refutation" that rests upon ignorance or the unknown unknown is unsatisfying to me.....but an example of something non logical (or unable to be expressed as such) would definitely be a decisive refutation of a whole hell of alot - the least of which simulated reality. It all sounds incredibly non-falsifiable, and I have to ask, if we have in our hands such a refutation (the existence of something that cannot be handled by logic, by algorithm, a non-computable, the truly unknown unknowable)- why should we trust any logical argument surrounding it or expounding upon it, and more disturbingly...how would we actually "know" that we had such an example in the first place? The refutation would immediately argue against itself (ineffectively, as it argues against arguing..lol)

With all of that said, why would that have anything to do with intelligent design? The airplane/albatross claim will -have- to be made at some point...won't it?

(yeah, it happens, interests bleed over across multiple threads, I could also make the sim claim but from an entirely different angle than "intelligent design" - I'm a comp mind junkie. I'd tell you that what you perceive to be your external reality -is- a sim, created by your sensory apparatus and brain - which, at it's core, is neither intelligent - nor designed, which handily answers why sims and reality appear to share attributes even more specifically than the nature of the sims construction - ie, a sim -could be- constructed which does not have any similarity.....but it wouldn't be very useful to us, as we expect and leverage data of a particular sort - the sort that we program/build into our machine sims and the sort that our biological sim runs on to begin with.)

[Chas]

Show me a fraction of that 80% (regarding that intelligence) and I'll be satisfied. Gimme 1%, a half a percent? What's designed? What about it's "operation" suggests intelligence to you? 80% is pretty high confidence for such a statement, there has to be some meat on those bones.

Well for me, it started out with personal, "numinous experience" stuff that made me question initially (can't give you that, unfortunately). Later, exploring neuroscience and other areas of psychology and consciousness studies, I couldn't find anything that made me confident that researchers in neuropsychcology, endocrinology, immunology, etc currently have the answers to the hard questions of consciousness. Integrating a lot of learning led me to the neutral monist perspective, which led me to Hammeroff and Pemrose's "Orch OR theory. This theory ties in quantum theory and seems to explain certain things, particularly related to memory. Further, taking this information considered in light of computer science and new revelations of genetics studies, makes me feel that reality could look a lot like a holographic simulation. And with theories (with experimental data http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24...BYyVRbDXZg) proposed stating time is potentially illusory, coupled with the potential of a multiverse, it makes me wonder if we are not experiencing the game play of a simulated life on this planet that was captured in it's entirety (all possibilities) at once, but is being experienced by our awareness in "real time".

I know this all does nothing to actually describe anything about an intelligent designer, influence, however, you asked what makes me question it, so that's it... So far...

That's all fun, but where did the designer come from?

It's either a natural process (like evolution) or you have an infinite regress.

---

Just to be difficult, if I were to play devil's advocate, I might say: the same underlying physical processes are responsible for both, aren't they?

So, again, if you were to look at what I'm referring to you would see that neutral monism refers to the "view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves "neutral", that is, neither physical nor mental. This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things. Rather, neutral monism claims the universe consists of only one kind of stuff, in the form of neutral elements that are in themselves neither mental nor physical; these neutral elements might have the properties of color and shape, just as we experience those properties, but these shaped and colored elements do not exist in a mind (considered as a substantial entity, whether dualistically or physicalistically); they exist on their own."

I see no reason to believe any of that. It is Platonism on steroids.

[sswhateverlove]

I could also make the sim claim but from an entirely different angle than "intelligent design" - I'm a comp mind junkie. I'd tell you that what you perceive to be your external reality -is- a sim, created by your sensory apparatus and brain - which, at it's core, is neither intelligent - nor designed, which handily answers why sims and reality appear to share attributes even more specifically than the nature of the sims construction - ie, a sim -could be- constructed which does not have any similarity.....but it wouldn't be very useful to us, as we expect and leverage data of a particular sort - the sort that we program/build into our machine sims and the sort that our biological sim runs on to begin with.

From my perspective, when considering how slow neuroscience has been to explain most aspects of consciousness it seems that exploring from a different angle integrating other sciences may be more revealing. When considering consciousness in light of research in other fields as well, it reveals so much more about the potential possibilities regarding consciousness and it's role in our existence.

I am interested, as someone who says they are "a comp mind junkie", what your opinion is regarding the dissertation I posted and what it implies regarding consciousness?

---

Here, I will post again.

http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/pqdtopen/do...ml?FMT=ABS

[Anomalocaris]

What perspective is this? Wish thinking is not a perspective.

[The Grand Nudger]

It'll take me awhile to wade through it, and it may be beyond me to comment upon, but I'll give her a shot. Is there anything in that dissertation specifically that you want addressed? Care to paraphrase?