From those who believe that we are in a simulation with over 70% confidence there’s only one person who has a higher chance of God existing then the chance that we live in a simulation.
Given that a God got here defined as someone with world making powers, how do you get a simulation without a God?
P(Supernatural) What is the probability that supernatural events, defined as those involving ontologically basic mental entities, have occurred since the beginning of the universe?
P(God) What is the probability that there is a god, defined as a supernatural (see above) intelligent entity who created the universe?
A simulator is not a god because gods are ontologically basic, while simulators are not.
John lives in a simulation. He thinks about the properties of the simulator. The simulator can’t be reduced to the kind of physical objects that John can observe in his reality.
The simulator is made of different stuff.
If it just about reducing the entity into multiple parts than that’s possible for the Chrisitan God who’s made up of three parts.
Otherwise can you point me to a good definition of ontologically basic?
If [naturalism] is true, then all minds, and all the contents and powers and effects of minds, are entirely caused by natural [i.e. fundamentally nonmental] phenomena. But if naturalism is false, then some minds, or some of the contents or powers or effects of minds, are causally independent of nature. In other words, such things would then be partly or wholly caused by themselves, or exist or operate directly or fundamentally on their own.
It’s not a matter of whether they are “made of different stuff” but if they are made of stuff at all. A simulator is no more supernatural to us than we are to a boxed AI; we’re both running inside the same material universe, just in different ways.
The boxed AI runs inside a universe that follow the laws of Turing computing.
Nature is the stuff around us. A simulation simulates nature. The one who runs the simulation isn’t part of that nature. The simulator can exist without needing anything from the nature in with John lives.
If I’m reading Harry Potter, Harry Potter lives in a world where magic happens. I don’t. Those two world are fundamentally different. The magic that happens in Harry Potter’s world is causally independent from myself.
According to Yvain’s definition, you are correct. On the other hand, I can’t think of something more godlike than creating or designing the universe, can you? It just seems like a very idiosyncratic definition, which is why I complained to Yvain about it last year.
Moreover, a simulator who is not ontologically basic (i.e. is made of matter; arose through material processes in their own universe) does not meet four of Aquinas’s “five ways” — unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, or maximum degree of goodness.
Would someone who created a computer that created the universe count as a god? I can easily write computer games with more complex behavior than I feel capable of fully comprehending, but I would not consider that computer program an intelligent entity. I can imagine that someone more educated and with a higher mental capacity than I could similarly write a computer program that is capable of creating and maintaining in simulation a universe with the global constants and initial conditions necessary to produce intelligent life without the program actually qualifying as intelligent itself.
My personal belief is that if there is a “god”, he is quite probably much like a video game programmer, who can set up a universe like an MMO and let it run “infinitely” in “real-time”, but, being constrained to a similar time-scale as the “players”, is unable to make a large number of fine-grained adjustments to local variables at the immediate behest of said players (i.e. “answering prayers”). Someday we may get a version 2.0 release which allows third-party plugins so players can hack the universe to answer their own prayers, but I don’t place a high conditional probability on that happening within my projected lifetime.
My personal belief is that if there is a “god”, he is quite probably much like a video game programmer, who can set up a universe like an MMO and let it run “infinitely” in “real-time”, but, being constrained to a similar time-scale as the “players”, is unable to make a large number of fine-grained adjustments to local variables at the immediate behest of said players (i.e. “answering prayers”).
Given that all the ‘players’ are running in the universe in question, being able to make a large number of fine-grained adjustments to local variables in an instant (in-universe time) is simple; simply pause the simulation.
...unless some of you out there are actually players from outside the universe, in which case the rest of us would appreciate a hint.
My personal belief is that if there is a “god”, he is quite probably much like a video game programmer, who can set up a universe like an MMO and let it run “infinitely” in “real-time”, but, being constrained to a similar time-scale as the “players”, is unable to make a large number of fine-grained adjustments to local variables at the immediate behest of said players (i.e. “answering prayers”).
This seems to unreasonably deviate from the way almost every type of simulation I’ve ever heard of works. You can pause/resume, you can increase/decrease the “timesteps” to make the world go “faster” (with larger quanta levels though), or you could just arbitrarily increase the raw processing speed of the machine running the simulation to make the ratio of simulated vs external time proportionally higher.
Of course, if what you’re proposing instead is that our “minds” are actually outside the simulation and sending input into it, rather than being fully contained within the simulation, then yes, the real-time constraint does apply.
ETA: In the latter case, I would argue that the term “Virtual Reality” is more appropriate and the use of “simulation” here is misleading and prone to conflating or confusing the two scenarios.
Hell, if the mathematical universe hypothesis is correct, then somewhere out there in the universe there is, with no intelligent priors, a collection of particles in the form of a computer, simulating a universe containing intelligent entities.
And the universe it is simulating itself contains an entity which created a computer which simulates a universe...
Given that the mathematical universe hypothesis is correct, what are the odds that the universe we experience A- is the mathematical universe B- is a computer analogue simulation which was generated spontaneously C- is a computer analogue simulation which was created by an intelligence but is currently unattended D- is a computer analogue simulation which is attended by someone who wishes to suppress the thought that the universe is atten---
If you give people a definition of “god” which technically includes things outside the usual conception of god, they’re probably going to continue operating by the standard definitions of the term. Even if I believed we were living in a simulation, I wouldn’t believe in “god,” because it would be laden with so many misleading associations inapplicable to what I actually believed.
That the simulation controllers/creators aren’t necessarily omnibenevolent is one possible explanation for us being in a simulation and there not existing what most people call ‘god.’
Omnibenevolent was not in the criteria for this question. If people used it as a criteria, it suggests that they felt victim to some bias that let’s them underrate the possibility that a god exists.
Maybe it’s the cognitive dissonance, because a good rationalist shouldn’t believe in a god?
What is the probability that there is a god, defined as a supernatural (see above) intelligent entity who created the universe?
Maybe it’s the cognitive dissonance, because a good rationalist shouldn’t believe in a god?
I still don’t see how that follows. Rationality can show that certain potential gods very probably don’t exist (e.g. Thor), but I think that’s as far as it goes.
I don’t argue here it’s rational to believe that god doesn’t exist. I argue that there a tribal belief among rationalists that part of being a good rationalist mean to be an atheist or teapot agnostic.
Ratioanlists who hold that tribal belief might experience cognitive dissonce when they have to put a percentage on the chance that God exists.
From those who believe that we are in a simulation with over 70% confidence there’s only one person who has a higher chance of God existing then the chance that we live in a simulation. Given that a God got here defined as someone with world making powers, how do you get a simulation without a God?
Look again at the survey questions:
A simulator is not a god because gods are ontologically basic, while simulators are not.
John lives in a simulation. He thinks about the properties of the simulator. The simulator can’t be reduced to the kind of physical objects that John can observe in his reality. The simulator is made of different stuff.
If it just about reducing the entity into multiple parts than that’s possible for the Chrisitan God who’s made up of three parts.
Otherwise can you point me to a good definition of ontologically basic?
— Richard Carrier
It’s not a matter of whether they are “made of different stuff” but if they are made of stuff at all. A simulator is no more supernatural to us than we are to a boxed AI; we’re both running inside the same material universe, just in different ways.
The boxed AI runs inside a universe that follow the laws of Turing computing.
Nature is the stuff around us. A simulation simulates nature. The one who runs the simulation isn’t part of that nature. The simulator can exist without needing anything from the nature in with John lives.
If I’m reading Harry Potter, Harry Potter lives in a world where magic happens. I don’t. Those two world are fundamentally different. The magic that happens in Harry Potter’s world is causally independent from myself.
According to Yvain’s definition, you are correct. On the other hand, I can’t think of something more godlike than creating or designing the universe, can you? It just seems like a very idiosyncratic definition, which is why I complained to Yvain about it last year.
Sure. For instance, some theists claim that God created and maintains logic itself.
Moreover, a simulator who is not ontologically basic (i.e. is made of matter; arose through material processes in their own universe) does not meet four of Aquinas’s “five ways” — unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, or maximum degree of goodness.
Would someone who created a computer that created the universe count as a god? I can easily write computer games with more complex behavior than I feel capable of fully comprehending, but I would not consider that computer program an intelligent entity. I can imagine that someone more educated and with a higher mental capacity than I could similarly write a computer program that is capable of creating and maintaining in simulation a universe with the global constants and initial conditions necessary to produce intelligent life without the program actually qualifying as intelligent itself.
My personal belief is that if there is a “god”, he is quite probably much like a video game programmer, who can set up a universe like an MMO and let it run “infinitely” in “real-time”, but, being constrained to a similar time-scale as the “players”, is unable to make a large number of fine-grained adjustments to local variables at the immediate behest of said players (i.e. “answering prayers”). Someday we may get a version 2.0 release which allows third-party plugins so players can hack the universe to answer their own prayers, but I don’t place a high conditional probability on that happening within my projected lifetime.
Given that all the ‘players’ are running in the universe in question, being able to make a large number of fine-grained adjustments to local variables in an instant (in-universe time) is simple; simply pause the simulation.
...unless some of you out there are actually players from outside the universe, in which case the rest of us would appreciate a hint.
What, the myriad prophets of revealed religions and cults aren’t enough of a hint for you?
This seems to unreasonably deviate from the way almost every type of simulation I’ve ever heard of works. You can pause/resume, you can increase/decrease the “timesteps” to make the world go “faster” (with larger quanta levels though), or you could just arbitrarily increase the raw processing speed of the machine running the simulation to make the ratio of simulated vs external time proportionally higher.
Of course, if what you’re proposing instead is that our “minds” are actually outside the simulation and sending input into it, rather than being fully contained within the simulation, then yes, the real-time constraint does apply.
ETA: In the latter case, I would argue that the term “Virtual Reality” is more appropriate and the use of “simulation” here is misleading and prone to conflating or confusing the two scenarios.
Hell, if the mathematical universe hypothesis is correct, then somewhere out there in the universe there is, with no intelligent priors, a collection of particles in the form of a computer, simulating a universe containing intelligent entities.
And the universe it is simulating itself contains an entity which created a computer which simulates a universe...
Given that the mathematical universe hypothesis is correct, what are the odds that the universe we experience
A- is the mathematical universe
B- is a computer analogue simulation which was generated spontaneously
C- is a computer analogue simulation which was created by an intelligence but is currently unattended
D- is a computer analogue simulation which is attended by someone who wishes to suppress the thought that the universe is atten---
We’ve already had a discussion on whether it’s appropriate to regard belief in the simulation argument as theism, and the consensus was no.
The post is about whether the label theist is appropriate. This question is about whether you believe God exists. Those two questions aren’t the same.
6.69% of the people on lesswrong who think that they are “Atheist and not spiritual” believe that the chance that God exists is higher than 50%.
atheistNS ← subset(survey, survey$ReligiousViews==”Atheist and not spiritual”)
(length(subset(atheistNS, as.numeric(atheistNS$PGod)>50)$PGod)/length(atheistNS$PGod))
If you give people a definition of “god” which technically includes things outside the usual conception of god, they’re probably going to continue operating by the standard definitions of the term. Even if I believed we were living in a simulation, I wouldn’t believe in “god,” because it would be laden with so many misleading associations inapplicable to what I actually believed.
That the simulation controllers/creators aren’t necessarily omnibenevolent is one possible explanation for us being in a simulation and there not existing what most people call ‘god.’
Omnibenevolent was not in the criteria for this question. If people used it as a criteria, it suggests that they felt victim to some bias that let’s them underrate the possibility that a god exists.
Maybe it’s the cognitive dissonance, because a good rationalist shouldn’t believe in a god?
Right, just saw that, my bad.
I still don’t see how that follows. Rationality can show that certain potential gods very probably don’t exist (e.g. Thor), but I think that’s as far as it goes.
I don’t argue here it’s rational to believe that god doesn’t exist. I argue that there a tribal belief among rationalists that part of being a good rationalist mean to be an atheist or teapot agnostic.
Ratioanlists who hold that tribal belief might experience cognitive dissonce when they have to put a percentage on the chance that God exists.
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you.