I'm sure someone/something smart enough like post-technological singularity AI will find a workaround for such obstacles to omnscience, if they even exist that is. — Agent Smith

In the current issue of Philosophy Now magazine, David Chalmers is interviewed about his latest book : Reality +. It's described as "an adventure tour of computer-simulated worlds and virtual reality". He uses the modern metaphor of Virtual Reality in a manner similar to that of Plato's Cave. He describes his Reality + concept in terms that are amenable to my own Enformationism thesis. "The fact that we are conscious beings does not negate the idea that we are sims, since consciousness is substrate independent, emerging from the organization of a complex system, . . . the entities in virtual reality are real . . . they are digital objects, made of information or bits." [my bold] The video game movie TRON is a good illustration. When the hero is inside the game, that simulated world becomes his reality. The only difference is that when you die in our "virtual" reality, you can't leave the game and go back to your "actual" reality. That is, unless there is a techno-heaven for virtual souls to retire to. The interviewer sums up the book : "It is likely that we live in a computer simulation but that should not worry us because everything is still real".

Remember, though, that this technophilosophy book uses metaphors to convey his projection of possible futures. They are not divinely inspired prophecies. Chalmers, says "one central part of my work on consciousness has been arguing that machines can be conscious". With that in mind, he cautions that self-conscious AI, like SkyNet in the Terminator, could become a destructive force in the world, just as self-assertive as Vlad Putin's meat mind. So, we (or AI machines) will still be faced with the ancient philosophical problem of recognizing Evil, and choosing Good. He also notes that "maybe physics can't add up fully to an explanation of consciousness because physics is mostly a kind of abstract causal structure but consciousness goes beyond that". The main problem with relying on Physics is that it is Reductive and narrowly focused. So, philosophers of Consciousness (meta-physics) must be Holistic, with a broader perspective.

Chalmers compares his VR metaphor with Descartes' warning that what we take to be real could be due to an evil Daemon creating an illusion to veil the true reality. "You can think of the evil demon's world as being a type of virtual reality". However, in Chalmer's analogy, the VR is our actual reality. That may sound confusing, but the interviewer notes that, "philosophers use metaphors that are emblematic for their age. . . . . Voltaire believed that God was a clockmaker . . . . the concept of a computer-simulated universe is simply a case in which the metaphor has displaced the real". In that case, you could imagine that "God is a hacker in the next universe up". Which is similar to my own metaphor of the First Cause as the Programmer of our evolutionary program. I don't take that notion literally, so it's merely a way of thinking about our Information-based reality. :nerd:

I recall making an argument that the fact that people think it's possible for reality as we know it to be an illusion (simulation) implies that the real McCoy (true reality) is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the copy (virtual reality). Why should anyone then try to, well, wake up from what we fear/suspect is only a dream? The doubt would only reappear even if it does so, now, at another level so to speak.

AI will only act in ways we program them to and so, if we find them obnoxious, overbearing, and unreasonable, threatening, and violent, we have only ourselves to blame: GIGO.

I recall making an argument that the fact that people think it's possible for reality as we know it to be an illusion (simulation) implies that the real McCoy (true reality) is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the copy (virtual reality). Why should anyone then try to, well, wake up from what we fear/suspect is only a dream? The doubt would only reappear even if it does so, now, at another level so to speak. — Agent Smith

Yes. That's the argument Cypher made in The Matrix : the illusion was the only reality he had known, before he was "woke" into the harsh reality of the dismal subterranean refuge of the metaphorically named Zion. Several scientists & philosophers (ding an sich) have discussed the same problem with simulated-reality proposals : if you can't tell (experience) the difference, what's the difference? However, as lusty French males used to say, in a different context, "vive la difference". :smile:


“I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.”
___Cypher

Why, in your opinion, is the real on every occasion, portrayed as being worse than the illusion. Too good to be true is the taekeaway here, oui? You will recall that drop-dead gorgeous platinum blonde with an hour-glass figure dressed in electrifying red in the training program developed by Mouse in The Matrix?

What does "Deus Novacula Occami" mean @Agent? Couldn't find it anywhere ...

Anyway, I can't see your point ... That "God" is the best (shortest, simplest) answer to "Why does ice float on water?"
That is, trading off a scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon with a non-scientific and unprovable one?

The Occam's razor principle suggests preferring the simpler explanation among existing ones, e.g. one with fewer parameters or assumptions. It does not suggest offering a magic word, a master key that opens all doors or anything that is unprovable or escapes all questions.

Why, in your opinion, is the real on every occasion, portrayed as being worse than the illusion. Too good to be true is the taekeaway here, oui? You will recall that drop-dead gorgeous platinum blonde with an hour-glass figure dressed in electrifying red in the training program developed by Mouse in The Matrix? — Agent Smith

Oui, oui. Since the real world is good enough for survival, but far from optimum, the human mind has developed the unique ability to imagine something better than real. That illusory something is usually referred to as "Ideal". And that's why hard-nosed, leather-hearted Realists are so scornful of the impossible idealistic illusions fostered by optimists and religious authorities (e.g. heaven & nirvana). But, imaginary future states -- such as making-out with the woman in red -- are what drives ambition & progress for humanity. Yet, with age comes the wisdom to lower our expectations : in reality, that gorgeous woman is out of your league. :smile:

All I did was provide a (rational) basis for an age-old explanatory model viz. one God, to the Saracens, Allah. The argument gains strength under Idealism im which god is the all-seeing eye and things are the way they are for a very simple reason - God thinks them!

:ok: It's kinda sad that beauty, all things fun and enjoyable have such a bad reputation: they're, by and large, seen as the glowing escae at the end of the illicia of anglerfish (femme fatale).

The argument gains strength under Idealism im which god is the all-seeing eye and things are the way they are for a very simple reason - God thinks them! — Agent Smith

Well, I definitely support instead rational thinking and argumentation, as imperfect and versatile as these can be among human beings ...
(BTW, don't forget that God is a concept created by human beings, anyway.)

Well, I definitely support instead rational thinking and argumentation, as imperfect and versatile as these can be among human beings ...
(BTW, don't forget that God is a concept created by human beings, anyway.) — Alkis Piskas

God is as much a concept as an electron is in my humble opinion.

God is as much a concept as an electron is in my humble opinion. — Agent Smith

From some aspect, you might be right. Although I have a difficulty imagining God being examined under a microscope or measuring its electic field as it is done with electrons ...

From some aspect, you might be right. Although I have a difficulty imagining God being examined under a microscope or measuring its electic field as it is done with electrons ... — Alkis Piskas

Point made, point taken. It's just that for some folks, God isn't just a concept like Darwinian evolution isn't just a theory. There have been attempts, successful/not, you be the judge, to prove the existence of God à la how experimental physicists did for the itsy-bitsy electron.

There have been attempts, successful/not, you be the judge, to prove the existence of God à la how experimental physicists did for the itsy-bitsy electron. — Agent Smith

You are not referring to Higgs boson, which took the nickname "God particle", are you?

↪trogdor I'm not quite sure I follow. — Agent Smith

A theory of everything with one entity is basically a religious text like the Bible. It explains all phenomenon yes? Haven't read it. All from ethics to science.

With the alchemy im thinking like; alchemy became science in some sense; and science is what would be used to build a super AI God, which could be our doom but most likely not. There was a mystic side to alchemy too (as far as i understand) but that gets spaced out very fast.

Future super AI will most likely just be a tool i figure. And if we somehow the scientist somehow develop Putin AI that goes rouge it will most likely only use violence; but in a metaphysical butterfly effect scenario if the AI is smart enough it would truly be God. Given that like a subtile crack in a wall makes something do something, which i with my human brain can't grasp. But i don't think this is possible given that humans have freewill and that minds can't be read.

And like would the Theory contain sociological models and such? Like Capitalism and culture? That's what i mean the book would be very thick.

You are not referring to Higgs boson, which took the nickname "God particle", are you? — Alkis Piskas

No, I'm not. My point is that God's a hypothesis, scientifically speaking. In that sense then it can never be proven true although it can be considered provisionally true via experimental evidence. However, it can/should be falsifiable (re Karl Popper & The Problem of Evil).

In my humble opinion, the Theory of Evolution has a lot of potential.

You are not referring to Higgs boson, which took the nickname "God particle", are you? — Alkis Piskas

Why it's called the God particle? Because it's supposed to give mass (which can be explained in a more natural way)?

My point is that God's a hypothesis, scientifically speaking. In that sense then it can never be proven true although it can be considered provisionally true via experimental evidence. — Agent Smith

"A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it." (Wikipedia)
So,
1) Can the God hypothesis be tested? If so how?
2) A scientific hypothesis does not imply that "it can never be proven true". But if indeed it couldn't, then what would be its use?
3) An yes, a hypothesis can be considered provisionally true via experimental evidence. But what kind of "experimental evidence" can one expect to be provided about God?

Indeed, a hypothesis is like an IF-THEN condition. As such, it can be indeed "considered provisionally true", as you say, until if a satisfactory evidence is provided, i.e. the "IF condition" is satisfied.

In our case, such an evidence could only be provided a posteriori: The existence of God could be deducted from observations or experiences that cannot be otherwise explained. E.g. a "miracle", which defies scientific or logical explanation. Indeed, I think this is the case for a lot of people who started to believe in God. Such an event-phenomenon would also satisfy the IF-THEN condition of the hypothesis. Yet, for me, it would just be an "unexplained" phenomenon, waiting for a scientific explanation or proof in the future.

Why it's called the God particle? Because it's supposed to give mass (which can be explained in a more natural way)? — Haglund

It beats me! :smile: I'm not good or knowledgeable in physics.
(I asked that only to put @Agent Smith's point in the right perspective.)

Why it's called the God particle? Because it's supposed to give mass (which can be explained in a more natural way)? — Haglund

It beats me! :smile: I'm not good or knowledgeable in physics.
(I asked that only to put Agent Smith's point in the right perspective.) — Alkis Piskas

To put this question in the "right perspective", here's the punch line : Physicist Leon Lederman labeled his book on the Higgs Boson as The God Particle, partly to suggest that it world explain one of the great remaining mysteries of physics : the cause of gravitation. But, the tongue-in-cheek name was also intended to be provocative, perhaps to tweak the know-it-alls who see no need for a Universal or First Cause of the physical world. :joke:

The Man Who Coined 'The God Particle' Explains: It Was A Joke! :
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/03/15/174440162/the-man-who-coined-the-god-particle-explains-it-was-a-joke

To put this question in the "right perspective", here's the punch line : Physicist Leon Lederman labeled his book on the Higgs Boson... — Gnomon

No, no. This is not the right perspective. @Agent Smith was not referring to Higgs boson ("God particle"). It was just a question I asked ... In fact, a wrong one!
This subject should be closed. It is irrelevant with this topic. (How can one I put a full stop on it?)

I'm particularly interested in miracles as evidence. As all evidences go, miracles only, for lack of a better word, support a god hypothesis. In other words, they don't clinch the case for theism, merely suggesting the possibility of a tertium quid, as between Joseph the carpenter and Miriam, his virgo intacta wife. Yahweh's guilty of adultery! Shouldn't we stone Him to death? Aaah, but Jesus, none other than Elohim Himself, did say "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Adonai, covering His own lousy ass!

What kinda a particle would you say deserves the name The God Particle? It has to be, well, fundamental to reality as we know it, oui?

I'm particularly interested in miracles as evidence. — Agent Smith

They have indeed a very strong appeal to everyone of us. And there's a reason for that: one of the things that attracts most the interest of a human being is mystery. Mysteries are a sort of magnetic material that is attracted by our mind acting as a magnet. In a more "crude" form, you can see that even in babies, how their attention is totally absorbed, with their face showing a big wonder, by certain things that have a special appeal to them. To a certain extent, you can see that even in animals. Mystery is a universal attractor in all kinds of life!

Your point of view and your descriptions are very interesting and I really respect them.

What could possibly be simplest explanation for all phenomena? A ToE (theory of everything)? One with just one entity obviously, oui? — Agent Smith

Problem with explaining all phenomena with God is that many phenomena used to be explained with God but later it turned out the truth or explanation had nothing to do with God.

Which means...god is, first and foremost, an explanation, one could call it proto-science if you will. The late Christopher Hitchens once remarked of the ethics of the Abrahamic Triad, paraphrasing, "...because it was our first, it was our worst!" Ditto for science!

No one's ever made the first jump. — Tank

mystery — Alkis Piskas

Is philosophy, at its heart, an attempt to solve the mystery the universe is?

What kinda a particle would you say deserves the name The God Particle? It has to be, well, fundamental to reality as we know it, oui? — Agent Smith

Non. I use the word G*D, to refer to the Whole of which we humans and sub-atomic dots are merely Parts. No part is fundamental to reality. However, I do sometimes refer to Generic Information as "fundamental". It's not a particle though, but the Creative Potential for all real forms. Maybe, we could call it the "God Potential", non? :joke:

God Potential — Gnomon

What if that's a particle? God is, according to some, the simplest thing imaginable (re Divine Simplicity) and it doesn't get simpler than a point particle, ja?

What if that's a particle? God is, according to some, the simplest thing imaginable (re Divine Simplicity) and it doesn't get simpler than a point particle, ja? — Agent Smith

Nein,
God is the most unimaginable being.

Have you heard of Anselm's argument?

:up:

What if that's a particle? God is, according to some, the simplest thing imaginable (re Divine Simplicity) and it doesn't get simpler than a point particle, ja? — Agent Smith

Ya, it does. The ultimate simple is not a part (one of many), but the Whole (all-encompassing Unity).
But, a better name for that unpartitioned infinite Potential might be a "holicale" (play on Holism). :joke: