On 10/20/2010 10:12 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
>> very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
>> our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
>> is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
>> bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
>
> I'm not sure this follows, given that it's possible for the
> superuniverse to affect this universe. We don't have to reach out to run
> experiments, if we can observe what's happening. And I can demonstrate
> this with an example:
>
> Let's say the superuniverse exists, and not only that, our universe was
> specifically created and controlled by a being there whom we will call
> God for want of a better name. Think of our universe as a giant
> (deterministic) game of The Sims for God.
>
> Interestingly, this give all kinds of attributes to "God" that are
> usually discussed in earth religions nowadays: Created the universe.
> Omnipotent, by the simple expedient that he can modify any bit of the
> code to make it do what he wants, or change data structures with a
> debugger, etc. Omniscient, by the simple expedient of checkpointing the
> simulation, letting it run, and seeing what happens, then winding it
> back again. Capricious, possibly. Interested in humans, likely, unless
> God is only interested in some other bunch of aliens. Desiring of
> worship, perhaps, if that's how he gets his rocks off. Probably still
> not infinitely loving and caring, but I'm pretty sure last I looked that
> only Christians think of God that way.
>
> Certainly if such a supernatural being exists, it might be easy for him
> to simply reveal such a fact to everyone in unarguable ways,
> definitively answering whether there is such a thing as "supernatural",
> even beyond the ability of alien technology, such as altering
> fundamental physical constants, predicting the results of quantum
> events, moving things around faster than light, etc.
>
>
> Of course, then, the next question becomes whether, if so revealed, the
> supernatural becomes part of our universe and hence natural. At that
> point, it's a semantic argument.
>
Course, another question is, "Is it truly possible to create such a 
construct, in which the actors in the construct can *never* be aware of 
the nature of the construct?" I.e., no flaws can be detected, things 
that happen in ways they shouldn't, or which otherwise implies that the 
system was "designed". This is a perfectly valid question, for which the 
answer seems to be, "Nothing obvious, so far, would imply this, as far 
as we can tell." Doesn't prove that the "design" isn't bullet proof, in 
the sense of use not being *able* to see the flaws, but, again, if that 
is the reality of the situation, then all we can do is work with what we 
*can* see, since, by definition, the superuniverse is irrelevant to 
anything we can detect/test/analyze anyway, and therefor does not, for 
practical purposes, exist anyway.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 8:58 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Sadly, this is not uncommon. However, many, including myself, have
>>> argued that you cannot have such a drastic error in thinking, and not
>>> have it spill over into your own discipline,
>>
>> Huh. Odd. Some of the smartest people I know doing computers are
>> devoutly religious. I can't imagine why you'd think that belief that
>> Jesus sacrificed himself to save you would interfere with your ability
>> to design computer software, for example.
>>
> Right.. Because there isn't, for example, a very weird association 
> between either engineers *or* computer science, and the tendency of both 
> to think ID makes more sense than Evolution. Its invariably one or the 
> other, which ends up being the discipline someone belongs to, when they 
> claim to advocate ID. 

You know, I don't know where you grew up or anything, but I have the hardest 
time in the world understanding WTF you're going on about.  That entire 
sentence makes no sense. It's like a written version of the G-Man speaking.

You said "you can't have such a drastic error in thinking" (i.e., being 
religious) "and not have it spill over into your own discipline."

I give examples of where you can.

I don't understand what you're trying to say in response, but it doesn't 
sound like anything addressing what I said.


>>> I flat out do not believe
>>
>> So, in other words, "seems reasonable, so I have faith that it is so"?
>>
> Sorry, did I make the mistake of failing to denote "believe" in this 
> context as, "based on my experience, not just because I want it to be 
> true." 

And I'm saying you have confirmation bias. Just like the people who say 
"thinks just don't *work* that way" are basing it on their experience.

> Because, you know.. Having nearly every moron I have ever seen 
> show up on a science blog denying evolution 

Now you're going on about something else.

Please explain how the lack of belief in evolution affects ones ability to 
program computers. You simply assert this, yet none of your examples 
actually show it affects that.  You simply point out that computer 
scientists do indeed sometimes assert this. So? Does it "spill over into 
your own discipline"?

You say you've argued this. What's your argument?

Now, if you said "You can't believe in creationism and not have it affect 
your discipline if your discipline is biology or medicine", then sure, I'd 
believe that.

> It does effect things. 

Sheesh. I've seen about thirty people today attempting proof by vigorous 
assertion.

> You don't need to believe in the earth 
> being billions of years old to be a car mechanic either, but if you 
> found yourself having to find your own oil

... then you'd no longer be a car mechanic, now would you? You'd be a geologist.

> Same for someone that thinks genetics is a lie, and programs 
> computers. If they never deal with the obscurity of genetic algorithms, 

I think it's entirely possible for someone to believe Jesus is their savior 
and still understand how genetic algorithms work. I think it's entirely 
possible for someone to believe in creationism and understand how genetic 
algorithms work. Why wouldn't they?

> and they don't need to build their own chips, 

I've been a professional computer programmer for 30+ years. I have a PhD in 
it. I've never needed to use a genetic algorithm or build my own chips, in 
spite of actually knowing the physics behind how semiconductors work, which 
is more than I can say about 99% of anyone else I know who programs 
computers, most of whom don't even know how many connectors a transistor has.

> Same with every other field. 

Oh, I'm pretty sure you can be a carpenter without knowing how evolution 
works. I'm almost certain you can lay cement and build roads and still 
believe the Mohamed spoke directly to angels.

Indeed, not only can you be a carpenter and religious, I'd go so far as to 
say you can even be a carpenter and be GOD HIMSELF.  ;-)

> you may be completely unaffected by the fact that you also believe 
> something contradicted by the existence of the gadget you are using in 
> the first place. 

I don't follow. How does believing that Jesus is the son of God and died for 
our sins on the cross prevent me from understanding how an electrical 
circuit works?  Above, you say "you argue that" but you haven't actually 
given me an explanation except in cases where it's actually relevant to the 
work you do.

How does believing in Jesus' resurrection prevent me from understanding how 
computers work?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> No, I find it implausible that someone can **only** believe in the 
> specific mythology of their religion, without taking on, at bare 
> minimum, Altie medicine, *or*, therapeutic touch, *or* astrology, *or* 
> at least **one**, of not far more, other goofy ideas. 

Well, I know a bunch of people like that. Sorry you find it implausible 
without any reason to back you up other than your general disdain for 
irrational beliefs.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Of course, then, the next question becomes whether, if so revealed, the 
>> supernatural becomes part of our universe and hence natural. At that point, 
>> it's a semantic argument.
> 
>   As I said, if this hypothetical being is bound to the physical laws of
> the hypothesized superuniverse rather than the ones of our universe, this
> being would be, by definition, "supernatural" (because "natural" would be
> anything bound to the laws of *this* universe).

I'm not disagreeing.

>   Of course one could argue that if the existence and nature of the
> superuniverse becomes well-known, the definition of "natural" would then
> be expanded to cover that as well.

That's what the paragraph you quoted was trying to express. That's why I 
said "it's a semantic argument."  It becomes a question of whether we say 
"natural is how the simulation runs" or whether we say "natural is the laws 
of that guy's super-universe, and our simulation obeys those laws just like 
the Sims obeys the laws of physics running your PC."

>   (It's also possible that if such a superuniverse exists, it's so different
> from our "sub-universe" that humans have no way of comprehending it nor
> expressing the laws that govern it. Maybe by its nature its very existence
> is completely equivalent to a paradox or impossibility to us. Maybe the
> laws of our universe are not a "subset" at all, but a set of completely
> different and random physical laws which formed inside this "bubble" that
> is our universe, and which are completely separate and independent from
> the superuniverse where this "bubble" appeared.)


Agreed.  That's also possible, but much less interesting to speculate about. :-)



-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Course, another question is, "Is it truly possible to create such a 
> construct, in which the actors in the construct can *never* be aware of 
> the nature of the construct?" I.e., no flaws can be detected, things 
> that happen in ways they shouldn't, or which otherwise implies that the 
> system was "designed". 

Yes, it's trivial. If the system is deterministic, you run it until one of 
the simulees notices something wrong. Then you back it up, fix it, and let 
it go on again.

I'd say nowadays we're finding all kinds of things that may very well be 
flaws we're detecting: Bell's inequality, Plank length, dark energy, 
incompatibility of GR with QM, inability to separate out an individual 
quark, etc etc etc.

I thought one of the more interesting ideas was in one of Wolfram's books. 
If we're simulated, there's no reason to believe the universe updates all at 
once. There's no reason why each atom can't be moving one step of simulation 
(one plank length?) at a time, once for each particle in the universe, one 
at a time. You wouldn't notice, because your brain isn't getting updated 
while every other atom is getting moved into position.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> This is just a naturalist version of the supernatural. Its no more 
> useful, profound, or meaningful than the theist version, and makes just 
> as much sense to propose, which is "none". 

I think he was just defining what "supernatural" could possibly mean. It's 
not meaningless to talk about the supernatural, even if it doesn't exist. 
Just like it's less meaningless to talk about unicorns than about flimbrusters.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

>> Sadly, this is not uncommon. However, many, including myself, have argued 
>> that you cannot have such a drastic error in thinking, and not have it 
>> spill over into your own discipline,
>
> Huh. Odd. Some of the smartest people I know doing computers are devoutly 
> religious. I can't imagine why you'd think that belief that Jesus 
> sacrificed himself to save you would interfere with your ability to design 
> computer software, for example.

Ditto here, I know several of the Engineers I work with are very religious, 
and it doesn't affect their work at all, why would it?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/20/2010 9:37 AM, Warp wrote:
>
>    A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
> very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
> our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
> is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
> bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
>
>    However, if there is a "superuniverse", and our "sub-universe" (if we
> can call it like that) popped into existence inside it, that
> "superuniverse" would be, by definition, supernatural.
>

Interesting thought. Almost brings about the whole simulation 
hypothesis. Wherein we're actually living within a simulation of some 
sort. We can only observe what is within the bounds of our simulation. 
Beyond that, nothing is observable. By that /something/ has to be 
running the simulation. It explains a lot of unexplainable stuff, but 
its also unprovable. We can't prove there is something outside our own 
universe because it's beyond what we can observe about our own universe.

It's just a hypothesis, though. For all we know matter and the universe 
as we know it is totally concrete and is not simply a construct of some 
very complicated model. We'll never know. Speculation on what we are and 
what we live in is fun. That hypothesis probably belongs on the Periodic 
Table of Utter Nonsense somewhere... ;)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   (It's also possible that if such a superuniverse exists, it's so different
> > from our "sub-universe" that humans have no way of comprehending it nor
> > expressing the laws that govern it. Maybe by its nature its very existence
> > is completely equivalent to a paradox or impossibility to us. Maybe the
> > laws of our universe are not a "subset" at all, but a set of completely
> > different and random physical laws which formed inside this "bubble" that
> > is our universe, and which are completely separate and independent from
> > the superuniverse where this "bubble" appeared.)


> Agreed.  That's also possible, but much less interesting to speculate about. :-)

  I think it's an interesting possibility in one aspect: The Big Question
has always been: Where did everything come from?

  If the physical laws of the hypothetical superuniverse are drastically
different from ours, that question might actually not make any sense there.
Maybe there is no time there, and hence no beginning to anything. Maybe the
whole concept of time and things having to have a "beginning" is completely
nonsensical in the superuniverse. Maybe the concept of time exists only
inside this bubble that forms our Universe, but not outside. Maybe the
closest concept that we can come up with to explain the superuniverse is
that "it has always existed" (even though "always" implies some kind of
timeline which, as said, might be a completely nonsensical notion in the
superuniverse). Maybe what we consider the "big bang" and the "expanding
universe" from inside here, is something completely different from the
outside.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Maybe what we consider the "big bang" and the "expanding
> universe" from inside here, is something completely different from the
> outside.

Fun!  Probably more fun for a physicist than a computer scientist, but fun! :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message