5 ms·

I think, just as no system is fully self descriptive (there is always an axiom), and there is no fully self contained perpetual motion machine So it is reasona

I think, just as no system is fully self descriptive (there is always an axiom), and there is no fully self contained perpetual motion machine So it is reasonable to take the universe as not fully self descriptive or defining For instance can the universe create it's own arbitrary laws of physics and run molecules on that basis? No it doesn't And so essentially, a simulation, or God becomes required. And the one running the simulation would need an immense power essentially beyond the realms of our conception It seems if we are to exist, then, for want of a better word, God is essential

lumost 5y ago
There’s no natural reason to think that the laws of the universe aren’t what they are simply due to a natural process. While no one has credibly made a testable hypothesis on what this process would be as of yet. However I don’t have reason to believe this would be impossible to test.
- tsegratis 5y ago
  Whatever system made the laws of the universe, it is presumably extremely consistent and uniform (otherwise how give rise to such a uniform universe) So yes, eminently testable, no disagreement with you on that And yet at the same time, the simulation hypothesis is not really disprovable, and infact, is quite reasonable Which presents the problem (if simulation is not disprovable) that there may be many valid explanations that are untestable So in that sense, I would say impossible to test But still I'm surprised you say there are no testable hypotheses!
  - lumost 5y ago
    There are testable hypothesis, but not about the extremely early universe as of yet. The energy requirements put it outside the realm of terrestrial experiments - and as of yet no one has a good simulacra of the universe prior to the big bang. While there are some theoretical white hole approaches to justify the big bang etc. These are not as of yet testable.
tomrod 5y ago
Phooey. Turtles then. Because that simulator runner would also have a simulator runner, and so on. Let's leave the cultural baggage of self-existent platonic forms for ultimate power at the door, it's an ultimately overtrod path of philosophical inquiry. If you constitutionally can't leave it at the door, read David Brin's crystal spheres (and enjoy!).
- polynomial 5y ago
  Wasn't Crystal Spheres about the Fermi Paradox, not the Prime Mover Paradox?
  - tomrod 5y ago
    You are very correct! I believe I mixed it up with Stones of Significance. Thank you for the correction.
  - tsegratis 5y ago
    Yes, well said, I was simply postulating a prime mover as already given by many others; Aristotle, Aquinas, etc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas) Without a prime mover, we are left with turtles, true, I think
    - tomrod 5y ago
      It's an either/or if you presume designed structure and mindful order are the nature of the universe, which is typically what people adopt to avoid dealing with nihilism (if Camus, Kierkegaard, and Sartre are to be believed).
      - tsegratis 5y ago
        Personally I'll go with the one who introduces themself as "I AM who I AM" To me that's a prime mover statement, if ever there was one But I have a feeling you resolve nihilism towards something meaningful? Personally I don't get how that works, but I'm interested, and look forward to any explanation
CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
I don't see how adding a simulation/God solves your issue? If a system cannot be self prescriptive/be without axioms/ (whatever you think the issue is) then adding another layer of systems is not going to solve your issue. If it can be, adding another layer is not necessary.
- tsegratis 5y ago
  Yes, it would need to be qualitively different Simply to be able to simulate the universe, or provide a basis for (however we describe the issue) already needs to an excessively stupendous amount of power -- but that is something still within the realms of physics I was suggesting (as essentially do you) that to break out of the nested simulations (or whatever formulation) takes something qualitively different to what this universe is able to even fully conceptualize My placation to God (aka universe simulator runner), is to say that clearly this thing exists (else we don't) and clearly it must be different and outside the universe to an extent that we can't describe it In the same way that a set can't describe it's aleph numbers -- So in brief, I'm agreeing that another layer of simulation doesn't cut it
  - CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
    I think I see now what you mean. I guess it just comes down to semantics then. I would say that, by definition (but I'm not sure if this is the most common definition), anything that can act upon the universe is part of it. Your God/simulator/... might be alien to us, but by definition it is part of our universe, and it's just us that do not entirely understand the capabilities of the universe.

lumost 5y ago

There’s no natural reason to think that the laws of the universe aren’t what they are simply due to a natural process. While no one has credibly made a testable hypothesis on what this process would be as of yet. However I don’t have reason to believe this would be impossible to test.

tsegratis 5y ago
Whatever system made the laws of the universe, it is presumably extremely consistent and uniform (otherwise how give rise to such a uniform universe) So yes, eminently testable, no disagreement with you on that And yet at the same time, the simulation hypothesis is not really disprovable, and infact, is quite reasonable Which presents the problem (if simulation is not disprovable) that there may be many valid explanations that are untestable So in that sense, I would say impossible to test But still I'm surprised you say there are no testable hypotheses!
- lumost 5y ago
  There are testable hypothesis, but not about the extremely early universe as of yet. The energy requirements put it outside the realm of terrestrial experiments - and as of yet no one has a good simulacra of the universe prior to the big bang. While there are some theoretical white hole approaches to justify the big bang etc. These are not as of yet testable.

tomrod 5y ago

Phooey. Turtles then. Because that simulator runner would also have a simulator runner, and so on. Let's leave the cultural baggage of self-existent platonic forms for ultimate power at the door, it's an ultimately overtrod path of philosophical inquiry. If you constitutionally can't leave it at the door, read David Brin's crystal spheres (and enjoy!).

polynomial 5y ago
Wasn't Crystal Spheres about the Fermi Paradox, not the Prime Mover Paradox?
- tomrod 5y ago
  You are very correct! I believe I mixed it up with Stones of Significance. Thank you for the correction.
- tsegratis 5y ago
  Yes, well said, I was simply postulating a prime mover as already given by many others; Aristotle, Aquinas, etc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas) Without a prime mover, we are left with turtles, true, I think
  - tomrod 5y ago
    It's an either/or if you presume designed structure and mindful order are the nature of the universe, which is typically what people adopt to avoid dealing with nihilism (if Camus, Kierkegaard, and Sartre are to be believed).
    - tsegratis 5y ago
      Personally I'll go with the one who introduces themself as "I AM who I AM" To me that's a prime mover statement, if ever there was one But I have a feeling you resolve nihilism towards something meaningful? Personally I don't get how that works, but I'm interested, and look forward to any explanation

CorrectHorseBat 5y ago

I don't see how adding a simulation/God solves your issue? If a system cannot be self prescriptive/be without axioms/ (whatever you think the issue is) then adding another layer of systems is not going to solve your issue. If it can be, adding another layer is not necessary.

tsegratis 5y ago
Yes, it would need to be qualitively different Simply to be able to simulate the universe, or provide a basis for (however we describe the issue) already needs to an excessively stupendous amount of power -- but that is something still within the realms of physics I was suggesting (as essentially do you) that to break out of the nested simulations (or whatever formulation) takes something qualitively different to what this universe is able to even fully conceptualize My placation to God (aka universe simulator runner), is to say that clearly this thing exists (else we don't) and clearly it must be different and outside the universe to an extent that we can't describe it In the same way that a set can't describe it's aleph numbers -- So in brief, I'm agreeing that another layer of simulation doesn't cut it
- CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
  I think I see now what you mean. I guess it just comes down to semantics then. I would say that, by definition (but I'm not sure if this is the most common definition), anything that can act upon the universe is part of it. Your God/simulator/... might be alien to us, but by definition it is part of our universe, and it's just us that do not entirely understand the capabilities of the universe.