4 ms·

Define "god". If we are in a simulation, are the simulators gods? Seriously, though, this is literally unknowable. We do not know - and possibly cannot know -

Define "god". If we are in a simulation, are the simulators gods? Seriously, though, this is literally unknowable. We do not know - and possibly cannot know - where the universe came from. However, looking at the sheer size of the universe, supposing that we have any special place in it is sheerest hubris. If there is a "god", we are still nothing special, just more stardust...

JohnFen 3y ago
This "what is god" problem is why I consider myself an Ignostic (aka "incompetent atheism"). I can't tell you whether or not I believe in god until you can tell me exactly what you mean by "god".
minkzilla 3y ago
Why is it unknowable? Just because we do not know yet doesn't seem to me to be conclusive evidence that it is unknowable. I also think some would argue that being omniscient god has the "bandwidth" to care about everything and everyone. So in one sense everyone is special, which of course means no one is special but does not mean that our actions would be inconsequential.
mbivert 3y ago
It's definitely a core issue in all those discussions; such a notion, and others like "first cause", "good/bad", "free will", etc. are subtle and rarely come without more or less hidden assumptions. Furthermore, our perception is fantastically limited, and this isn't hidden to us: we're certainly aware, or should be, that what we know of reality is negligible, in comparison to what's actually happening out there right now / what has happened in the past. It reminds me of a story of a family acquaintance, who was in Algeria a few decades ago (I think this was during the Algerian War[0]): she was in a bus and realized she forgot to take something (guess this generally qualifies as a "bad" thing); while she was outside of the bus, it exploded, killing its passengers ("good" thing for her, but hardly feels like a "good" thing overall). > this is literally unknowable This, I disagree: for example, direct experience (really direct, not sign interpretation) could very well be one may to know for sure. The problem is, even if we agree that such cases exist, and are genuine (why not), it seems that sharing the certainty of such experiences with others is indeed impossible, unless perhaps to others hit by the same storm. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > direct experience (really direct, not sign interpretation) could very well be one may to know for sure. Direct experience is weak evidence. Our brains are very good at fooling us.
  - minkzilla 3y ago
    Yes but what else do we have? Indirect experience seems even more error prone
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      The whole point of the scientific method is to try to remove this sort of problem when attempting to determine truth. It's certainly not perfect, but it is very effective.
derbOac 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism Finding a term for that was a cathartic experience for me. Before then I thought I was the only one who had that perspective.
s__s 3y ago
> If there is a "god", we are still nothing special, just more stardust... How did you arrive at that conclusion? With or without a god, and barring any new evidence, sentient life seems to stand out as mind-blowing special and amazing. > looking at the sheer size of the universe, supposing that we have any special place in it is sheerest hubris. I don’t think it logically follows that our physical size relative to the size of the universe can tell us anything meaningful at all.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > sentient life seems to stand out as mind-blowing special and amazing "I used to think that the brain was the most amazing thing in the universe. Then I remembered what it was that was telling me that." -- Emo Phillips
kromem 3y ago
A little over 2,000 years ago someone wrote Elihu's speech in Job where he claimed God was unknowable because why it rained or where snow came from was beyond human understanding, so how could we understand something like God. Claims of what can't be known often tend to turn out to be wrong. Even in terms of discussion of understanding our own universe this may be the case. A century ago physicists had their minds blown by the discovery of quantum mechanics on the tail end of having just discovered general relativity. Still today, physicists struggle in unifying those two models, with the former discrete and the latter continuous. Meanwhile in just the past few decades, we've landed on a similar paradigm for a very niche application. This is from Nvidia's GPU Gems book chapter 39: Although the data set is interpreted as a continuous function in space, for practical purposes it is represented by a uniform 3D array of samples. In graphics memory, volume data is stored as a stack of 2D texture slices or as a single 3D texture object. The term voxel denotes an individual "volume element," similar to the terms pixel for "picture element" and texel for "texture element." Each voxel corresponds to a location in data space and has one or more data values associated with it. Values at intermediate locations are obtained by interpolating data at neighboring volume elements. This process is known as reconstruction and plays an important role in volume rendering and processing applications. We are in what appears to be a continuous universe at macro scales which at low levels of fidelity behaves as discrete probabilities which alter based on interactions and observation. Meanwhile we're building virtual environments functionally modeled as continuous geometry which at low fidelity converts to discrete representations which behave differently depending on interaction and observation to conserve resources. We're well on track for knowing quite a lot more about the nature of our reality, and just because things seem uncertain or debatable today doesn't mean they will remain that way into tomorrow. In fact, looking at much of history, it stands to reason many things we think unknowable will in fact be known in the future. As to whether we like the eventual answers to the questions we ask is a different topic entirely.

JohnFen 3y ago

This "what is god" problem is why I consider myself an Ignostic (aka "incompetent atheism"). I can't tell you whether or not I believe in god until you can tell me exactly what you mean by "god".

minkzilla 3y ago

Why is it unknowable? Just because we do not know yet doesn't seem to me to be conclusive evidence that it is unknowable. I also think some would argue that being omniscient god has the "bandwidth" to care about everything and everyone. So in one sense everyone is special, which of course means no one is special but does not mean that our actions would be inconsequential.

mbivert 3y ago

It's definitely a core issue in all those discussions; such a notion, and others like "first cause", "good/bad", "free will", etc. are subtle and rarely come without more or less hidden assumptions. Furthermore, our perception is fantastically limited, and this isn't hidden to us: we're certainly aware, or should be, that what we know of reality is negligible, in comparison to what's actually happening out there right now / what has happened in the past. It reminds me of a story of a family acquaintance, who was in Algeria a few decades ago (I think this was during the Algerian War[0]): she was in a bus and realized she forgot to take something (guess this generally qualifies as a "bad" thing); while she was outside of the bus, it exploded, killing its passengers ("good" thing for her, but hardly feels like a "good" thing overall). > this is literally unknowable This, I disagree: for example, direct experience (really direct, not sign interpretation) could very well be one may to know for sure. The problem is, even if we agree that such cases exist, and are genuine (why not), it seems that sharing the certainty of such experiences with others is indeed impossible, unless perhaps to others hit by the same storm. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War

JohnFen 3y ago
> direct experience (really direct, not sign interpretation) could very well be one may to know for sure. Direct experience is weak evidence. Our brains are very good at fooling us.
- minkzilla 3y ago
  Yes but what else do we have? Indirect experience seems even more error prone
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    The whole point of the scientific method is to try to remove this sort of problem when attempting to determine truth. It's certainly not perfect, but it is very effective.

derbOac 3y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism Finding a term for that was a cathartic experience for me. Before then I thought I was the only one who had that perspective.

s__s 3y ago

> If there is a "god", we are still nothing special, just more stardust... How did you arrive at that conclusion? With or without a god, and barring any new evidence, sentient life seems to stand out as mind-blowing special and amazing. > looking at the sheer size of the universe, supposing that we have any special place in it is sheerest hubris. I don’t think it logically follows that our physical size relative to the size of the universe can tell us anything meaningful at all.

JohnFen 3y ago
> sentient life seems to stand out as mind-blowing special and amazing "I used to think that the brain was the most amazing thing in the universe. Then I remembered what it was that was telling me that." -- Emo Phillips

kromem 3y ago

A little over 2,000 years ago someone wrote Elihu's speech in Job where he claimed God was unknowable because why it rained or where snow came from was beyond human understanding, so how could we understand something like God. Claims of what can't be known often tend to turn out to be wrong. Even in terms of discussion of understanding our own universe this may be the case. A century ago physicists had their minds blown by the discovery of quantum mechanics on the tail end of having just discovered general relativity. Still today, physicists struggle in unifying those two models, with the former discrete and the latter continuous. Meanwhile in just the past few decades, we've landed on a similar paradigm for a very niche application. This is from Nvidia's GPU Gems book chapter 39: Although the data set is interpreted as a continuous function in space, for practical purposes it is represented by a uniform 3D array of samples. In graphics memory, volume data is stored as a stack of 2D texture slices or as a single 3D texture object. The term voxel denotes an individual "volume element," similar to the terms pixel for "picture element" and texel for "texture element." Each voxel corresponds to a location in data space and has one or more data values associated with it. Values at intermediate locations are obtained by interpolating data at neighboring volume elements. This process is known as reconstruction and plays an important role in volume rendering and processing applications. We are in what appears to be a continuous universe at macro scales which at low levels of fidelity behaves as discrete probabilities which alter based on interactions and observation. Meanwhile we're building virtual environments functionally modeled as continuous geometry which at low fidelity converts to discrete representations which behave differently depending on interaction and observation to conserve resources. We're well on track for knowing quite a lot more about the nature of our reality, and just because things seem uncertain or debatable today doesn't mean they will remain that way into tomorrow. In fact, looking at much of history, it stands to reason many things we think unknowable will in fact be known in the future. As to whether we like the eventual answers to the questions we ask is a different topic entirely.