6 ms·

One or more beings with power and intelligence many orders of magnitude higher than our own. To call it god or gods gives a religious tone to it that totally de

One or more beings with power and intelligence many orders of magnitude higher than our own. To call it god or gods gives a religious tone to it that totally derails the discussion and I’m specifically avoiding. This isn’t about going to church on Sundays. There are a few answers to the “Where are they?” question. One is that the parameters to the Drake equation mean life is so rare we actually are alone (as another commenter linked to). Another group of answers is that there is life, but something about the relationship between us means we don’t observe them. Maybe they’re hiding from us. Maybe they’re hiding from everyone. I think the range of possible answers that people think of for this scenario is generally much too narrow. The power imbalances can be wildly greater than “they’re avoiding us”. We experience power imbalances this large every day. What’s the relationship between a Petri dish of bacteria and a person? Imagine a culture of penicillin reasoning how it came to be. Maybe this universe is a total construction. Maybe it’s partially constructed, in the same way a farmer “makes” a farm from the Earth. If anything like that is the case, stochastic models are completely the wrong way to reason. It would be like if I wove a basket. There’s now at least one basket made by Travis Jungroth. Surely there must be more? Out of the millions of baskets made across time, what’s the probability that only one was made by me? Even for a low probability of any individual basket, the numbers start getting decent there’s another out there. But there’s not. I just… decided to make only one.

zolland 2y ago
I suppose there could be a distinction, but that is the idea of God, and that is the rational foundation for God's existence in Abrahamic religions. Funny to think that scientific development could invoke faith in some ways.
- travisjungroth 2y ago
  I’m specifically not invoking faith. This doesn’t support Abrahamic religions more than any other. The line of reasoning here applies just as much to Hinduism, simulation theory, many creation stories, zoo theory, etc.
  - zolland 2y ago
    The idea that the universe was created by a higher being applies to every religion, but does not invoke faith? If you were to believe that theory at all it would require faith. How else could you believe it? No matter what you call it, there is a leap of faith.
    - travisjungroth 2y ago
      Just to make sure we're on the same page, here's the definition of faith from Merriam Webster that I think applies: a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust The first thing is you don't have to "believe" in the idea I outlined to use it. It's just a condition under which a probabilistic explanation doesn't account for the lack of observed intelligent life. And, it hasn't been disproven. So that's a way any probabilistic model is incomplete. Second, we could come to seriously believe in this theory through consensus direct interactions with these higher powers. That wouldn't require a leap of faith at all. If robots showed up and were like "we were sent by your creators, they say you're doing great" and gave us a second moon as a present, that would be very strong proof of more powerful beings.
      - zolland 2y ago
        Yes, if we had direct contact with the higher being that created our universe, or any proof of their existence, humans would no longer require faith regarding the existence of God... How would you use this theory if you didn't believe it held any truth? You certainly can't draw any corollaries from it. If it is actually a relevant condition worth considering, then you must believe it to be tenable to some degree. There's a condition where when I kick a ball, just before I touch it, the ball actually invisibly flies to the moon and back and then moves forward. It would be a condition under which Newton's laws fail... but I would have to actually believe in that condition to some degree to use it. It is also similarly unfalsifiable. With current observations it is scientifically untenable, and believing in that condition would require faith. Any model can be proven incomplete if you conjure up unfalsifiable conditions that exist outside its domain and believe in them. > b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof For you to use the theory of creation in any meaningful way you must believe it is tenable. For you to believe it is tenable, without being faithful, there must be proof. Proof of this existence comes in many forms, where is your proof? Morality? Reason? Those aren't entirely scientific proofs... Just to be clear, I'm not trying to censure or disprove creationism and the metaphysical systems built upon it, they are very important and super interesting... but I don't think any of them are without a bit of faith, and they are certainly beyond science's capabilities. This is why I was saying it was interesting that science could invoke faith in some way.
- the_af 2y ago
  I think it's not the same. Religions are usually not mainly about more powerful beings creating other beings. There's always a whole set of prescriptive rules, "this is how you're supposed to live your life" that doesn't apply here. This is not a nitpick, it's actually the main thing about religion. Giving meaning and purpose to life. The hypothesis of some beings creating the rest of life in the universe doesn't provide this.
xandrius 2y ago
Ok, now I see what you are going for. It's a compelling idea but there is no evidence helping it. For me, it's easier to take what we see in our own "lawn" and expand it outwards to the cosmos as a whole. A frog evolved from a single-cell as well as an elephant did, and the geological landscapes we see are the result of physics, time and random fluctuations. I apply that to every other galaxy and that's it. Of course, one could think that single cell to be "planted" like a seed would be but no supporting evidence for now (or ever?).
- travisjungroth 2y ago
  No evidence helping it? Not a single thing that’s ever happened supports the idea that our current reality was constructed? > For me, it's easier to take what we see in our own "lawn" and expand it outwards to the cosmos as a whole. The uncomfortable thing about reality is that it’s often different from what is easier for us. What you choose to expand out into the galaxy or even the entire universe is a critical choice. You could choose to extend the relationships between plants, or how power structures develop, or the explosion of complexity localized on Earth, or the human tendency to purposefully create environments for life. > the geological landscapes we see are the result of physics, time and random fluctuations Most of them. Not all of them. Bingham Canyon Mine is an open pit 4km wide and 1.2km deep. El Teniente mine is 3,000km of tunnels up to 2km deep. There’s Mount Rushmore and the Hoover Dam. There are artificial islands and nuclear test sites. That’s all just in the last 150 years. Draw the trend of human progress and where does it end up a billion years from now? That’s even just assuming the conditions that created the universe mirror the conditions here on Earth, which is a tremendous assumption. It might be like having a letter dropped through your door slot for the first time and reasoning the postal service is entirely made of paper folded and stuffed into other paper. The actual reality of mail carriers with pensions, trucks with antilock breaks and sorting machines bigger than any animal that has ever existed would be unfathomable. Anyone suggesting it would be easily dismissed in favor of a simpler and less correct explanation.
  - the_af 2y ago
    > No evidence helping it? Not a single thing that’s ever happened supports the idea that our current reality was constructed? I'm curious. What evidence do you see?
jcul 2y ago
Have you read the dark forest trilogy?
- travisjungroth 2y ago
  I haven’t.
  - jcul 2y ago
    OK, it deals with some of these subjects. But even saying that much is kind of a spoiler. It's a great read, IMO.
- broscillator 2y ago
  Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy, The Dark Forest is the 2nd book.
  - jcul 2y ago
    Ah my mistake, thanks.
the_af 2y ago
Re: your "creator beings", I think we cannot say for sure, but where is the evidence? It's an extraordinary claim with almost nothing backing it. You make a point here: > What’s the relationship between a Petri dish of bacteria and a person? Imagine a culture of penicillin reasoning how it came to be. But the difference between ourselves and bacteria is that we can reason about things other than our immediate surroundings; and about magnitudes other than those we live in. If bacteria in a Petri dish developed intelligence, curiosity about the world, and some sort of scientific method, might they not discover there is a world outside their Petri dish? Maybe they would get many things wrong, but wouldn't they be able to indirectly determine at least some things about the wider universe (the lab!), even if they never get to meet us? And wouldn't they be able to develop some tools to finally observe the human beings in the lab, at least partially? And finally, wouldn't they be able to think "hey, these scientists are not the gods of the sacred Protozoan Book, they must be made of the same building blocks as we are!". We're talking intelligent bacteria who go to university and publish papers, mind you. I don't think there is any evidence about the hypothesis that life is a single occurrence, like a basket woven by Travis Jungroth. It could still be true, but I think it's one of the least interesting starting points to think about the universe. It's somewhat like solipsism; maybe it's true, but it leads nowhere -- and we cannot tell, anyway.

zolland 2y ago

I suppose there could be a distinction, but that is the idea of God, and that is the rational foundation for God's existence in Abrahamic religions. Funny to think that scientific development could invoke faith in some ways.

travisjungroth 2y ago
I’m specifically not invoking faith. This doesn’t support Abrahamic religions more than any other. The line of reasoning here applies just as much to Hinduism, simulation theory, many creation stories, zoo theory, etc.
- zolland 2y ago
  The idea that the universe was created by a higher being applies to every religion, but does not invoke faith? If you were to believe that theory at all it would require faith. How else could you believe it? No matter what you call it, there is a leap of faith.
  - travisjungroth 2y ago
    Just to make sure we're on the same page, here's the definition of faith from Merriam Webster that I think applies: a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust The first thing is you don't have to "believe" in the idea I outlined to use it. It's just a condition under which a probabilistic explanation doesn't account for the lack of observed intelligent life. And, it hasn't been disproven. So that's a way any probabilistic model is incomplete. Second, we could come to seriously believe in this theory through consensus direct interactions with these higher powers. That wouldn't require a leap of faith at all. If robots showed up and were like "we were sent by your creators, they say you're doing great" and gave us a second moon as a present, that would be very strong proof of more powerful beings.
    - zolland 2y ago
      Yes, if we had direct contact with the higher being that created our universe, or any proof of their existence, humans would no longer require faith regarding the existence of God... How would you use this theory if you didn't believe it held any truth? You certainly can't draw any corollaries from it. If it is actually a relevant condition worth considering, then you must believe it to be tenable to some degree. There's a condition where when I kick a ball, just before I touch it, the ball actually invisibly flies to the moon and back and then moves forward. It would be a condition under which Newton's laws fail... but I would have to actually believe in that condition to some degree to use it. It is also similarly unfalsifiable. With current observations it is scientifically untenable, and believing in that condition would require faith. Any model can be proven incomplete if you conjure up unfalsifiable conditions that exist outside its domain and believe in them. > b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof For you to use the theory of creation in any meaningful way you must believe it is tenable. For you to believe it is tenable, without being faithful, there must be proof. Proof of this existence comes in many forms, where is your proof? Morality? Reason? Those aren't entirely scientific proofs... Just to be clear, I'm not trying to censure or disprove creationism and the metaphysical systems built upon it, they are very important and super interesting... but I don't think any of them are without a bit of faith, and they are certainly beyond science's capabilities. This is why I was saying it was interesting that science could invoke faith in some way.
the_af 2y ago
I think it's not the same. Religions are usually not mainly about more powerful beings creating other beings. There's always a whole set of prescriptive rules, "this is how you're supposed to live your life" that doesn't apply here. This is not a nitpick, it's actually the main thing about religion. Giving meaning and purpose to life. The hypothesis of some beings creating the rest of life in the universe doesn't provide this.

xandrius 2y ago

Ok, now I see what you are going for. It's a compelling idea but there is no evidence helping it. For me, it's easier to take what we see in our own "lawn" and expand it outwards to the cosmos as a whole. A frog evolved from a single-cell as well as an elephant did, and the geological landscapes we see are the result of physics, time and random fluctuations. I apply that to every other galaxy and that's it. Of course, one could think that single cell to be "planted" like a seed would be but no supporting evidence for now (or ever?).

travisjungroth 2y ago
No evidence helping it? Not a single thing that’s ever happened supports the idea that our current reality was constructed? > For me, it's easier to take what we see in our own "lawn" and expand it outwards to the cosmos as a whole. The uncomfortable thing about reality is that it’s often different from what is easier for us. What you choose to expand out into the galaxy or even the entire universe is a critical choice. You could choose to extend the relationships between plants, or how power structures develop, or the explosion of complexity localized on Earth, or the human tendency to purposefully create environments for life. > the geological landscapes we see are the result of physics, time and random fluctuations Most of them. Not all of them. Bingham Canyon Mine is an open pit 4km wide and 1.2km deep. El Teniente mine is 3,000km of tunnels up to 2km deep. There’s Mount Rushmore and the Hoover Dam. There are artificial islands and nuclear test sites. That’s all just in the last 150 years. Draw the trend of human progress and where does it end up a billion years from now? That’s even just assuming the conditions that created the universe mirror the conditions here on Earth, which is a tremendous assumption. It might be like having a letter dropped through your door slot for the first time and reasoning the postal service is entirely made of paper folded and stuffed into other paper. The actual reality of mail carriers with pensions, trucks with antilock breaks and sorting machines bigger than any animal that has ever existed would be unfathomable. Anyone suggesting it would be easily dismissed in favor of a simpler and less correct explanation.
- the_af 2y ago
  > No evidence helping it? Not a single thing that’s ever happened supports the idea that our current reality was constructed? I'm curious. What evidence do you see?

jcul 2y ago

Have you read the dark forest trilogy?

travisjungroth 2y ago
I haven’t.
- jcul 2y ago
  OK, it deals with some of these subjects. But even saying that much is kind of a spoiler. It's a great read, IMO.
broscillator 2y ago
Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy, The Dark Forest is the 2nd book.
- jcul 2y ago
  Ah my mistake, thanks.

the_af 2y ago

Re: your "creator beings", I think we cannot say for sure, but where is the evidence? It's an extraordinary claim with almost nothing backing it. You make a point here: > What’s the relationship between a Petri dish of bacteria and a person? Imagine a culture of penicillin reasoning how it came to be. But the difference between ourselves and bacteria is that we can reason about things other than our immediate surroundings; and about magnitudes other than those we live in. If bacteria in a Petri dish developed intelligence, curiosity about the world, and some sort of scientific method, might they not discover there is a world outside their Petri dish? Maybe they would get many things wrong, but wouldn't they be able to indirectly determine at least some things about the wider universe (the lab!), even if they never get to meet us? And wouldn't they be able to develop some tools to finally observe the human beings in the lab, at least partially? And finally, wouldn't they be able to think "hey, these scientists are not the gods of the sacred Protozoan Book, they must be made of the same building blocks as we are!". We're talking intelligent bacteria who go to university and publish papers, mind you. I don't think there is any evidence about the hypothesis that life is a single occurrence, like a basket woven by Travis Jungroth. It could still be true, but I think it's one of the least interesting starting points to think about the universe. It's somewhat like solipsism; maybe it's true, but it leads nowhere -- and we cannot tell, anyway.