6 ms·

The rabbi recently on the Lex Fridman podcast told a joke that went (roughly) like Scientists come to God and say "OK God, we've had a lot of progress lately i

by evanb 4y ago

The rabbi recently on the Lex Fridman podcast told a joke that went (roughly) like Scientists come to God and say "OK God, we've had a lot of progress lately in synthetic biology, genetics, engineering, etc. and we're pretty sure we know how you did it." God says "Oh really?". "Yes. We'll create living creatures out of dirt to show that we can do just as you did with Adam." God says "Wow, fantastic!" So the scientists go outside with a shovel to collect some dirt. And as they're about to dig their spades in, God says "No no no, get your own dirt!"

burrows 4y ago
Right, God and his talking dirt.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  The point isn't about the dirt's abilities. The point is how did the dirt come to be in the first place (or really, the atoms, subatomic particles, and mass itself)?
  - TuringTest 4y ago
    Yeah but the missing point in the reasoning leading to that joke (and theological arguments) is, who created God? If you make the argument that a deity is its own creator and cause, that idea could be applied to the existing physical universe directly.
    - mcv 4y ago
      Which is kinda the idea behind the big bang.
      - Thorrez 4y ago
        Can you elaborate? Related: the idea of the Big Bang was first thought of by the Catholic priest Monsignor Georges Lemaître. Many scientists at the time dismissed the Big Bang, saying it was an attempt to bring religious concepts into physics. Another tangent: Msgr. Lemaître was quite interested in computer programming, as computers started to be invented toward the end of his life.
        mcv 4y ago
        Pretty much what GP said: > If you make the argument that a deity is its own creator and cause, that idea could be applied to the existing physical universe directly. The big bang could be seen as the physical universe creating itself. Of course you could also see it as created by God (I certainly do), but these two are pretty much your only options, and I don't think one of them is more or less valid than the other. And with God not being subject to the physical universe or its laws, from scientific viewpoint, it's irrelevant. It might as well be the universe creating itself. The difference exists only outside the reach of science.
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      God is outside of space and time, whereas the physical universe is inside of space and time. The physical universe obeys the laws of physics and God doesn't. So just because God can do something doesn't mean the physical universe can. Also, we have evidence the physical universe hasn't been around forever: the Big Bang.
      - TuringTest 4y ago
        > Also, we have evidence the physical universe hasn't been around forever: the Big Bang. That's not exact. The Big Bang model brings us really close to the start of the known universe, but it doesn't describe what happened before that - nor dictates that it was really the beginning; the mathematics collapse into a non-descriptive degenerate singularity that doesn't need to match reality anymore. By this model, it is possible that there was some physical process before it that caused it and has been going on forever. Also, the Big Bang model doesn't preclude the existence of other universes far away that were created by the same process, that we simply can't reach because they're out of our scope of causality. > God is outside of space and time, whereas the physical universe is inside of space and time That's a cop-out. What does it mean to "exist" if it isn't related to space and time? > The physical universe obeys the laws of physics and God doesn't. So just because God can do something doesn't mean the physical universe can. What if the physical universe dictates the laws of physics? Then you don't need God as an entity to explain existence. Unless you want to call the physical universe "god", which is on itself a valid deistic proposition.
        Thorrez 4y ago
        >By this model, it is possible that there was some physical process before it that caused it and has been going on forever. What about the topic of this post, the second law of thermodynamics? >That's a cop-out. In a way. It's a hypothetical answer to the question. But it also doesn't offer any proof or a way to test if it's true or not. >What does it mean to "exist" if it isn't related to space and time? I think to some degree it's a mystery. One analogy that can partially get there, is consider if we built a really powerful computer and simulated an AI person and world inside (assuming there's no soul, this seems plausibly possible). That person would just know the simulated space and time, and would think nothing else exists, but yet we exist. This isn't a full explanation because it would have the turtles all the way down problem, but I think it helps to conceptualize the idea of something outside of our space and time. >What if the physical universe dictates the laws of physics? Scientific progress seems to me to be finding more and more foundational phenomenon that are causing higher-level phenomenon. It seems strange that at some point things stop being caused and instead cause themselves, don't follow laws but instead create laws out of nothing. It just seems different to me than what we've observed so far. >Unless you want to call the physical universe "god", which is on itself a valid deistic proposition. I guess that sort of makes sense. But I think it makes more sense to divide it into the foundation cause, and everything that rippled out from that.
tshaddox 4y ago
Did God create the substrate he exists in?
- arethuza 4y ago
  No, it's virtualisation all the way down.
  - state_less 4y ago
    And we’re running on a pirated copy.
    - psd1 4y ago
      That explains why the devs won't fix quantum mechanics
    - arethuza 4y ago
      I just hope the Many Worlds use Copy on Write.
    - jtms 4y ago
      How did we bypass the DRM??
      - arethuza 4y ago
        Go to the underlying virtualization layer and peek up.
- jessermeyer 4y ago
  I don't think many models of divinity would consider this a well formed question because there would be nothing 'sub' (e,g under, beneath) divine order itself. The divine is often characterized as self-enduring, self-maintaining, and self-creating. This question is reasonable refutation of a God that is imagined to fundamentally be a 'person' who 'lives' somewhere though. It's my feeling that the Hindu observation of infinite turtle dependence argues that the notion of divine dependence is ill-fated to begin with.

by evanb 4y ago

burrows 4y ago

Right, God and his talking dirt.

Thorrez 4y ago
The point isn't about the dirt's abilities. The point is how did the dirt come to be in the first place (or really, the atoms, subatomic particles, and mass itself)?
- TuringTest 4y ago
  Yeah but the missing point in the reasoning leading to that joke (and theological arguments) is, who created God? If you make the argument that a deity is its own creator and cause, that idea could be applied to the existing physical universe directly.
  - mcv 4y ago
    Which is kinda the idea behind the big bang.
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      Can you elaborate? Related: the idea of the Big Bang was first thought of by the Catholic priest Monsignor Georges Lemaître. Many scientists at the time dismissed the Big Bang, saying it was an attempt to bring religious concepts into physics. Another tangent: Msgr. Lemaître was quite interested in computer programming, as computers started to be invented toward the end of his life.
      - mcv 4y ago
        Pretty much what GP said: > If you make the argument that a deity is its own creator and cause, that idea could be applied to the existing physical universe directly. The big bang could be seen as the physical universe creating itself. Of course you could also see it as created by God (I certainly do), but these two are pretty much your only options, and I don't think one of them is more or less valid than the other. And with God not being subject to the physical universe or its laws, from scientific viewpoint, it's irrelevant. It might as well be the universe creating itself. The difference exists only outside the reach of science.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    God is outside of space and time, whereas the physical universe is inside of space and time. The physical universe obeys the laws of physics and God doesn't. So just because God can do something doesn't mean the physical universe can. Also, we have evidence the physical universe hasn't been around forever: the Big Bang.
    - TuringTest 4y ago
      > Also, we have evidence the physical universe hasn't been around forever: the Big Bang. That's not exact. The Big Bang model brings us really close to the start of the known universe, but it doesn't describe what happened before that - nor dictates that it was really the beginning; the mathematics collapse into a non-descriptive degenerate singularity that doesn't need to match reality anymore. By this model, it is possible that there was some physical process before it that caused it and has been going on forever. Also, the Big Bang model doesn't preclude the existence of other universes far away that were created by the same process, that we simply can't reach because they're out of our scope of causality. > God is outside of space and time, whereas the physical universe is inside of space and time That's a cop-out. What does it mean to "exist" if it isn't related to space and time? > The physical universe obeys the laws of physics and God doesn't. So just because God can do something doesn't mean the physical universe can. What if the physical universe dictates the laws of physics? Then you don't need God as an entity to explain existence. Unless you want to call the physical universe "god", which is on itself a valid deistic proposition.
      - Thorrez 4y ago
        >By this model, it is possible that there was some physical process before it that caused it and has been going on forever. What about the topic of this post, the second law of thermodynamics? >That's a cop-out. In a way. It's a hypothetical answer to the question. But it also doesn't offer any proof or a way to test if it's true or not. >What does it mean to "exist" if it isn't related to space and time? I think to some degree it's a mystery. One analogy that can partially get there, is consider if we built a really powerful computer and simulated an AI person and world inside (assuming there's no soul, this seems plausibly possible). That person would just know the simulated space and time, and would think nothing else exists, but yet we exist. This isn't a full explanation because it would have the turtles all the way down problem, but I think it helps to conceptualize the idea of something outside of our space and time. >What if the physical universe dictates the laws of physics? Scientific progress seems to me to be finding more and more foundational phenomenon that are causing higher-level phenomenon. It seems strange that at some point things stop being caused and instead cause themselves, don't follow laws but instead create laws out of nothing. It just seems different to me than what we've observed so far. >Unless you want to call the physical universe "god", which is on itself a valid deistic proposition. I guess that sort of makes sense. But I think it makes more sense to divide it into the foundation cause, and everything that rippled out from that.

tshaddox 4y ago

Did God create the substrate he exists in?

arethuza 4y ago
No, it's virtualisation all the way down.
- state_less 4y ago
  And we’re running on a pirated copy.
  - psd1 4y ago
    That explains why the devs won't fix quantum mechanics
  - arethuza 4y ago
    I just hope the Many Worlds use Copy on Write.
  - jtms 4y ago
    How did we bypass the DRM??
    - arethuza 4y ago
      Go to the underlying virtualization layer and peek up.
jessermeyer 4y ago
I don't think many models of divinity would consider this a well formed question because there would be nothing 'sub' (e,g under, beneath) divine order itself. The divine is often characterized as self-enduring, self-maintaining, and self-creating. This question is reasonable refutation of a God that is imagined to fundamentally be a 'person' who 'lives' somewhere though. It's my feeling that the Hindu observation of infinite turtle dependence argues that the notion of divine dependence is ill-fated to begin with.