5 ms·

Actually perhaps it's better that way. Otherwise they could base some superstitious thinking on it that would stick if we were unlucky enough and there'd be yet

by d33 9y ago

Actually perhaps it's better that way. Otherwise they could base some superstitious thinking on it that would stick if we were unlucky enough and there'd be yet another case of irrational thinking to be undone.

alex_duf 9y ago
I would chose a belief about a moving star in a heart beat compared to a talking bush and a dude walking on water. Edit: my point being, humans are superstitious in unpredictable way; A moving star wouldn't be more surprising than an eclipse. I'm sure our cultures and religions would have been roughly the same
vanattab 9y ago
I have never been able to understand why so many other scientists and "rationalist" look back on humans early "superstitious" ideas with contempt. To my mind these superstitious ideas are the beginning of the rationalist mindset. These ideas are people's attempts to explain and understand how the world works. I am certain that some of the ideas that many of us hold now will be thought quite silly in a few hundred years.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  > am certain that some of the ideas that many of us hold now will be thought quite silly in a few hundred years. Yes, like the theory that we're actually living in a simulation, espoused by Elon Musk and other respected, ostensibly science-minded people. It's basically Creationism in modern form.
  - tskaiser 9y ago
    It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel.
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      >It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel. Of course not. "Gospel" is a religious concept. They're claiming that it's a plausible, scientifically-supportable theory. I don't think it's an interesting idea at all, nor do I think it's a good starter for philosophical thinking. I think it's Creationist nonsense.
      - tskaiser 9y ago
        Okay.
      - torstenvl 9y ago
        A "scientifically-supportable theory"* is one that describes a phenomenon that can be observed sufficiently to form a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis by experiment. In what way would you propose to test the simulation hypothesis by experiment? (* I'm assuming you're using the word "theory" loosely here.)
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - UrukParthian 9y ago
    I wouldn't think of it as a theory. More like an off-the-cuff hypothesis, based on seeing and creating simulations of systems, that we ourselves are creations of a simulation. A single universe could be host to innumerable amounts of capsuled simulations. The point is "could" because a complete simulation of "the world" would require another world much the same way that complete map of the world would constitute another world if trying to capture a full level of detail. It's only silly in the sense that such an explanation is just one out of infinite possible, and coherent, propositions about the mechanics of "our world". In hindsight, the timescales of Hindu and Buddhist mythology don't seem absurd.
  - dboreham 9y ago
    It isn't like creationism because it is based on some otherwise currently unexplained observations such as quantum mechanical behavior and magic physical constants. The idea is that these are exactly the sort of observations you'd see if you were in a simulated universe. Now if we were to observe new species being created in N days, for small integer N, then I suppose your assertion about creationism would also hold.
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      >It isn't like creationism because it is based on some otherwise currently unexplained observations such as quantum mechanical behavior and magic physical constants. The idea is that these are exactly the sort of observations you'd see if you were in a simulated universe. Really? Why would you not simply "see" whatever the Creator(s) want you to "see"? After all, it's a simulation. And it seems to me likely that Creationism originally grew out of a then-unexplained observation: "Hey, we're alive and we exist! How the heck did that happen???" >Now if we were to observe new species being created in N days, for small integer N, then I suppose your assertion about creationism would also hold. I'm not sure what you mean. My assertion about classic Creationism is that it's disproven bunk. Are you saying that if "if we were to observe new species being created in N days, for small integer N" then my assertion that simulation-Creationism is also bunk would hold?
    - prewett 9y ago
      Wouldn't a simulation have to have a creator? Unless you are postulating that a Turing-complete simulator got itself together by random chance and, by random chance, started simulating universe(s), one of which, by random chance, happens to simulate beings that can imagine a simulator simulating themselves. It seems like a simulation is a fairly strong evidence FOR a creator. Hawking's quantum bubbles seem much more like what would happen without intervention. Also, creationism isn't limited to only 6 day creation, that's more of a modern thing by people that insist on taking Genesis 1 (which is poetry) literally. Early Christian thinkers postulated that 1 Genesis-day was actually 1000 years. Creationism just says that God created the world; how long it took and how he did it are implementation details.
    - baddox 9y ago
  - vog 9y ago
    > the theory that we're actually living in a simulation, ... It's basically Creationism in modern form. It's not even modern. It is basically Plato's Cave, which is classic Greek philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave The religious touch of that idea did not become popular until the movie "The Matrix", which originally had allusions to many different religions, but specialized to Christianity / Creationism with the second and especially the third movie "The Matrix Revolutions".
    - sjburt 9y ago
      That is not the meaning of the Allegory of the Cave at all! The metaphor is that human experience is limited by our senses (like living in the cave) and so to understand eternal, absolute truths you need to use pure reason (leaving the cave), not experience.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - vog 9y ago
        Not sure what you argue against, but exactly that aspect, "human experience is limited by our senses", means that everything could be a simulation. Plato named those "shadows", but that's only because people weren't used to good simulation technologies back then. Today we have 3D cinemas, flight simulators, VR headsets, etc. But if you still don't like that example, here's another historic example of a philosopher who published the idea that everything could be a simulation. The evil daemon by René Descartes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon So my point still stands: The idea that everything might be a simulation is as old as humanity. It is neither modern nor based on creationism.
        apotheothesomai 9y ago
        Plato's shadows have absolutely nothing to do with living in a simulation. He was talking about degrees of true knowledge and their alignment with his idea of a multi-layered existence. No multi-layered metaphysical construct in the ancient world discussed simulations. There isn't even a vocabulary that could describe an abstract simulation rather concrete reenactment, like drama or a physical model. Some ancient religions spoke of the physical world as an illusion, but that too does not mean anything like a simulation. A simulation is a virtual reality created by a higher intelligence in a real-world environment with great real-world power. Plato's forms weren't discussed as beings who did anything, and in the end were just reifications of predicates. Descartes' skepticism is the foremost example of a simulation issue, but in addition to the great flaws in his arguments in the Discourses, saying you can't absolutely prove that your senses are not an elaborate deception is no indication that it is. Profound ignorance and misunderstanding of philosophy is, for me, the most salient feature of the latest discourse on world-as-simulation. 2 weeks of an intro to philosophy college course would correct most peoples' thoughts on the matter, as examining Descartes is the most basic first step in learning philosophy.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    If people fear responsibility to acting immorally, the probability of becoming an inter-planetary species likely increases. So it makes sense for Musk.
- pstuart 9y ago
  I would suggest that any contempt of early superstitious ideas has to do with the fact that many live on today.
  - UrukParthian 9y ago
    People work with the best hardware and software they can. And for a lot of people, both components are shit beyond coexisting with other members of a "tribe". A lot of people absolutely suck at abstract thought, although "suck" is a relative term. If AI flourishes, it'll consider even the smartest human as a hillbilly swamp creature, a mockery of the possibilities of intelligence.
- d33 9y ago
  > I have never been able to understand why so many other scientists and "rationalist" look back on humans early "superstitious" ideas with contempt. To my mind these superstitious ideas are the beginning of the rationalist mindset. First of all, pstuart nailed it: "I would suggest that any contempt of early superstitious ideas has to do with the fact that many live on today.". Also, one could argue that not all modes of thinking eventually lead to rationalist mindset, at least not directly - one problem with superstitions is that people don't have or need proofs for them and that they as memes fight the same space truth does. True concept of, for example, evolution still is fighting with creationism because they solve the same problem, but one of them was made completely made up and people still believe in it because it was here earlier. I think it would be better if we had no answers rather than ones that are utterly wrong. Especially since people who make them up and believe based on "faith" alone are so convinced that their concept is true that they actually harm the actual, proven truth.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

by d33 9y ago

alex_duf 9y ago

I would chose a belief about a moving star in a heart beat compared to a talking bush and a dude walking on water. Edit: my point being, humans are superstitious in unpredictable way; A moving star wouldn't be more surprising than an eclipse. I'm sure our cultures and religions would have been roughly the same

vanattab 9y ago

I have never been able to understand why so many other scientists and "rationalist" look back on humans early "superstitious" ideas with contempt. To my mind these superstitious ideas are the beginning of the rationalist mindset. These ideas are people's attempts to explain and understand how the world works. I am certain that some of the ideas that many of us hold now will be thought quite silly in a few hundred years.

rhapsodic 9y ago
> am certain that some of the ideas that many of us hold now will be thought quite silly in a few hundred years. Yes, like the theory that we're actually living in a simulation, espoused by Elon Musk and other respected, ostensibly science-minded people. It's basically Creationism in modern form.
- tskaiser 9y ago
  It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    >It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel. Of course not. "Gospel" is a religious concept. They're claiming that it's a plausible, scientifically-supportable theory. I don't think it's an interesting idea at all, nor do I think it's a good starter for philosophical thinking. I think it's Creationist nonsense.
    - tskaiser 9y ago
      Okay.
    - torstenvl 9y ago
      A "scientifically-supportable theory"* is one that describes a phenomenon that can be observed sufficiently to form a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis by experiment. In what way would you propose to test the simulation hypothesis by experiment? (* I'm assuming you're using the word "theory" loosely here.)
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- UrukParthian 9y ago
  I wouldn't think of it as a theory. More like an off-the-cuff hypothesis, based on seeing and creating simulations of systems, that we ourselves are creations of a simulation. A single universe could be host to innumerable amounts of capsuled simulations. The point is "could" because a complete simulation of "the world" would require another world much the same way that complete map of the world would constitute another world if trying to capture a full level of detail. It's only silly in the sense that such an explanation is just one out of infinite possible, and coherent, propositions about the mechanics of "our world". In hindsight, the timescales of Hindu and Buddhist mythology don't seem absurd.
- dboreham 9y ago
  It isn't like creationism because it is based on some otherwise currently unexplained observations such as quantum mechanical behavior and magic physical constants. The idea is that these are exactly the sort of observations you'd see if you were in a simulated universe. Now if we were to observe new species being created in N days, for small integer N, then I suppose your assertion about creationism would also hold.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    >It isn't like creationism because it is based on some otherwise currently unexplained observations such as quantum mechanical behavior and magic physical constants. The idea is that these are exactly the sort of observations you'd see if you were in a simulated universe. Really? Why would you not simply "see" whatever the Creator(s) want you to "see"? After all, it's a simulation. And it seems to me likely that Creationism originally grew out of a then-unexplained observation: "Hey, we're alive and we exist! How the heck did that happen???" >Now if we were to observe new species being created in N days, for small integer N, then I suppose your assertion about creationism would also hold. I'm not sure what you mean. My assertion about classic Creationism is that it's disproven bunk. Are you saying that if "if we were to observe new species being created in N days, for small integer N" then my assertion that simulation-Creationism is also bunk would hold?
  - prewett 9y ago
    Wouldn't a simulation have to have a creator? Unless you are postulating that a Turing-complete simulator got itself together by random chance and, by random chance, started simulating universe(s), one of which, by random chance, happens to simulate beings that can imagine a simulator simulating themselves. It seems like a simulation is a fairly strong evidence FOR a creator. Hawking's quantum bubbles seem much more like what would happen without intervention. Also, creationism isn't limited to only 6 day creation, that's more of a modern thing by people that insist on taking Genesis 1 (which is poetry) literally. Early Christian thinkers postulated that 1 Genesis-day was actually 1000 years. Creationism just says that God created the world; how long it took and how he did it are implementation details.
  - baddox 9y ago
- vog 9y ago
  > the theory that we're actually living in a simulation, ... It's basically Creationism in modern form. It's not even modern. It is basically Plato's Cave, which is classic Greek philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave The religious touch of that idea did not become popular until the movie "The Matrix", which originally had allusions to many different religions, but specialized to Christianity / Creationism with the second and especially the third movie "The Matrix Revolutions".
  - sjburt 9y ago
    That is not the meaning of the Allegory of the Cave at all! The metaphor is that human experience is limited by our senses (like living in the cave) and so to understand eternal, absolute truths you need to use pure reason (leaving the cave), not experience.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - vog 9y ago
      Not sure what you argue against, but exactly that aspect, "human experience is limited by our senses", means that everything could be a simulation. Plato named those "shadows", but that's only because people weren't used to good simulation technologies back then. Today we have 3D cinemas, flight simulators, VR headsets, etc. But if you still don't like that example, here's another historic example of a philosopher who published the idea that everything could be a simulation. The evil daemon by René Descartes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon So my point still stands: The idea that everything might be a simulation is as old as humanity. It is neither modern nor based on creationism.
      - apotheothesomai 9y ago
        Plato's shadows have absolutely nothing to do with living in a simulation. He was talking about degrees of true knowledge and their alignment with his idea of a multi-layered existence. No multi-layered metaphysical construct in the ancient world discussed simulations. There isn't even a vocabulary that could describe an abstract simulation rather concrete reenactment, like drama or a physical model. Some ancient religions spoke of the physical world as an illusion, but that too does not mean anything like a simulation. A simulation is a virtual reality created by a higher intelligence in a real-world environment with great real-world power. Plato's forms weren't discussed as beings who did anything, and in the end were just reifications of predicates. Descartes' skepticism is the foremost example of a simulation issue, but in addition to the great flaws in his arguments in the Discourses, saying you can't absolutely prove that your senses are not an elaborate deception is no indication that it is. Profound ignorance and misunderstanding of philosophy is, for me, the most salient feature of the latest discourse on world-as-simulation. 2 weeks of an intro to philosophy college course would correct most peoples' thoughts on the matter, as examining Descartes is the most basic first step in learning philosophy.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  If people fear responsibility to acting immorally, the probability of becoming an inter-planetary species likely increases. So it makes sense for Musk.
pstuart 9y ago
I would suggest that any contempt of early superstitious ideas has to do with the fact that many live on today.
- UrukParthian 9y ago
  People work with the best hardware and software they can. And for a lot of people, both components are shit beyond coexisting with other members of a "tribe". A lot of people absolutely suck at abstract thought, although "suck" is a relative term. If AI flourishes, it'll consider even the smartest human as a hillbilly swamp creature, a mockery of the possibilities of intelligence.
d33 9y ago
> I have never been able to understand why so many other scientists and "rationalist" look back on humans early "superstitious" ideas with contempt. To my mind these superstitious ideas are the beginning of the rationalist mindset. First of all, pstuart nailed it: "I would suggest that any contempt of early superstitious ideas has to do with the fact that many live on today.". Also, one could argue that not all modes of thinking eventually lead to rationalist mindset, at least not directly - one problem with superstitions is that people don't have or need proofs for them and that they as memes fight the same space truth does. True concept of, for example, evolution still is fighting with creationism because they solve the same problem, but one of them was made completely made up and people still believe in it because it was here earlier. I think it would be better if we had no answers rather than ones that are utterly wrong. Especially since people who make them up and believe based on "faith" alone are so convinced that their concept is true that they actually harm the actual, proven truth.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]