Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 130

Author Topic: Atheism/Religion Discussion  (Read 183199 times)

penguinofhonor

  • Bay Watcher
  • Minister of Love
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #285 on: July 25, 2012, 04:37:20 pm »

Does knowledge of something's existence necessitate its existence, though?
Logged

i2amroy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cats, ruling the world one dwarf at a time
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #286 on: July 25, 2012, 04:43:57 pm »

Not only this, but time (in the simulated areas) would also be an illusion, because everything would exist simultaneously (I would imagine it kind of like a 4th dimensional universe in his head existing as a single shape or something (assuming that we only have three space dimensions, we probably have more)).
Of course that's the point when lots of people start to throw around terms like "predestination" or "free will". :P
Logged
Quote from: PTTG
It would be brutally difficult and probably won't work. In other words, it's absolutely dwarven!
Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead - A fun zombie survival rougelike that I'm dev-ing for.

lemon10

  • Bay Watcher
  • Citrus Master
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #287 on: July 25, 2012, 04:53:38 pm »

Perfect knowledge does, the best possible map of a province is the province itself, if you are perfectly accurate, then there is no difference from the real thing.
A simulation is a system. It doesn't matter where it is, or what its made up of, it doesn't matter if its on a computer (or as in the comic, made out of rocks).
Or, in this case, entirely mental.

Imagine that a simulation exists.
A omniscient being would know every single part of that simulation, every frame from start to finish, all existing at once within its head.
And not only that simulation, every single possible simulation as well.

Not only this, but time (in the simulated areas) would also be an illusion, because everything would exist simultaneously (I would imagine it kind of like a 4th dimensional universe in his head existing as a single shape or something (assuming that we only have three space dimensions, we probably have more)).
Of course that's the point when lots of people start to throw around terms like "predestination" or "free will". :P
Free will makes no sense with a omniscient god. Any action you would choose would already be known and already determined. You can choose to do something as much as a computer program can choose to print out "Hello World" when its run, humans are just a few orders of magnitude harder to predict.

EDIT: I might not be saying everything perfectly, because its a bit hard to wrap my head around the exact mechanics, and even harder to explain it properly, but I think what I am saying is fundamentally sound.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 05:04:00 pm by lemon10 »
Logged
And with a mighty leap, the evil Conservative flies through the window, escaping our heroes once again!
Because the solution to not being able to control your dakka is MOAR DAKKA.

That's it. We've finally crossed over and become the nation of Da Orky Boyz.

EveryZig

  • Bay Watcher
  • Adequate Liar
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #288 on: July 25, 2012, 05:36:28 pm »

Want to boggle your mind even further? In order to actually be all knowing (rather than just described as such), a being must first exist. If a being is all knowing, then they know about everything about everything that exists. Including itself. So an all-knowing god would itself have no free will.
(Of course, you could say the future is only partly determined and that being all-knowing only encompasses knowledge of current things and the best predictions, in which case you are only left with the problem of a mind containing multiple complete copies of itself.)

(Technically omniescent just means all-seeing.)
Logged
Soaplent green is goblins!

Bauglir

  • Bay Watcher
  • Let us make Good
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #289 on: July 25, 2012, 07:31:06 pm »

Why do you not have free will if choosing to do something means you always were going to choose that? Surely you still chose it.
Logged
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
“What are you doing?”, asked Minsky. “I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe” Sussman replied. “Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky. “I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes. “Why do you close your eyes?”, Sussman asked his teacher.
“So that the room will be empty.”
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

Graknorke

  • Bay Watcher
  • A bomb's a bad choice for close-range combat.
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #290 on: July 25, 2012, 07:49:21 pm »

Why do you not have free will if choosing to do something means you always were going to choose that? Surely you still chose it.
Because there was no possibility of you not choosing it. It's like those things people like Derren Brown where they get people to choose cards at random from a layout, but they are laid out in such a way that most people will be drawn to a certain collection.
The Seance one does it with photographs. 49:45 ish. Basically, people thing they're choosing what they do, but it doesn't really matter. 17:20 or so for the actual card thing. Viewer instructions were obviously rigged, but for the actual participants it was entirely based on the layout of the cards that made them choose the same thing Darren wanted them to choose.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 07:54:55 pm by Graknorke »
Logged
Cultural status:
Depleted          ☐
Enriched          ☑

MagmaMcFry

  • Bay Watcher
  • [EXISTS]
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #291 on: July 25, 2012, 10:16:41 pm »

On the topic of free will: If you include enough things, the system in which you exist is always deterministic. Even assuming souls existed, then the system consisting of the universe and the souls would be deterministic. If you also believe in quantum indeterminism, then the system consisting of the universe, the souls, and the universe's RNG would be deterministic. Simple as that. So there is no free will, no matter the reality, and the only thing that matters is essentially that you are conscious, and that's good enough for me.
Logged

Osmosis Jones

  • Bay Watcher
  • Now with 100% more rotation!
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #292 on: July 25, 2012, 10:52:44 pm »

On the topic of free will: If you include enough things, the system in which you exist is always deterministic. Even assuming souls existed, then the system consisting of the universe and the souls would be deterministic. If you also believe in quantum indeterminism, then the system consisting of the universe, the souls, and the universe's RNG would be deterministic.

How? If the universe is maybe up of quantumly probabilistic things, then the sum is likewise probabilistic.

Yes, massive things like the universe are generally going to look pretty similar, but quantum probabilistic effects could conceivably have a pretty huge effect in human terms; consider radioactive decay -> interacts with DNA -> mutation or cancer, for example.

That said, yeah, that doesn't mean conscious free will exists; I ultimately believe that the way our brains work is a determinstic result of our initial inputs, but that those inputs can be set probabilistically. So, the universe isn't fixed, but once it's decision are made, we will act on them in a reproducible way.

So, anyway, let's say we have a potential for *quantum* free will. Now, as a thought experiment, how is this compatible with omniscience?

One option is an omniscient being could see all alternate paths, branching constantly, possibly (:p) weighted by the probability. Still wouldn't be able to change it's path (at least, not if it's a rational being), but it could see how unlikely it was.
Logged
The Marx generator will produce Engels-waves which should allow the inherently unstable isotope of Leninium to undergo a rapid Stalinisation in mere trockoseconds.

EveryZig

  • Bay Watcher
  • Adequate Liar
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #293 on: July 25, 2012, 11:04:36 pm »

Why do you not have free will if choosing to do something means you always were going to choose that? Surely you still chose it.
I was talking in the context of a deity who knows a set future, which would mean that their future choices will remain unchanged by their knowledge of the complete consequences of their every decision. Once the deity considers anything they wish to change about the future, the only thing that can stop them from doing so is a lack of free will.
What I had not considered in my previous post (which is odd because I have speculated about this subject a lot previously) is the possibility that the deity doesn't ever want to change the future, through every action of theirs already being optimized for their purposes. (Basically, they will have the knowledge to have effectively save-scummed their entire life.)

As such a scenario is implausible outside of speculations, I think it is fairly safe to say that a system can not both be deterministic and have its outcome known by people inside the system.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 11:06:48 pm by EveryZig »
Logged
Soaplent green is goblins!

lemon10

  • Bay Watcher
  • Citrus Master
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #294 on: July 25, 2012, 11:14:07 pm »

On the topic of free will: If you include enough things, the system in which you exist is always deterministic. Even assuming souls existed, then the system consisting of the universe and the souls would be deterministic. If you also believe in quantum indeterminism, then the system consisting of the universe, the souls, and the universe's RNG would be deterministic. Simple as that. So there is no free will, no matter the reality, and the only thing that matters is essentially that you are conscious, and that's good enough for me.
Personally, I don't believe in true randomness (and anything but perfectly random isn't random at all), but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, unless you can come up with some logic or evidence, we can't just say it doesn't exist.

Why do you not have free will if choosing to do something means you always were going to choose that? Surely you still chose it.
According to some dictionaries:
Quote
Wiktionary: Philosophy, The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions, without predestination, fate etc.
Dictionary.com: Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
Merriam Webster: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
Now according to every dictionary that I checked, if god knows what you are going to do, or if physical circumstances perfectly control it, then you have no free will.
Yes, you still make a choice, just like a rock makes a choice to get picked up when you pick it up, or a electron makes a choice to orbit around an atom E:nucleus, they don't orbit around atoms, since they ARE part of the atom.

Want to boggle your mind even further? In order to actually be all knowing (rather than just described as such), a being must first exist. If a being is all knowing, then they know about everything about everything that exists. Including itself. So an all-knowing god would itself have no free will.
(Of course, you could say the future is only partly determined and that being all-knowing only encompasses knowledge of current things and the best predictions, in which case you are only left with the problem of a mind containing multiple complete copies of itself.)

(Technically omniescent just means all-seeing.)
(Nope, the commonly accepted definition is all knowing, all-seeing is acceptable, but all knowing is the primary one).
Yeah, a omniscient being would have no free will, it would know everything that would happen, well, it would simply wouldn't be under any illusion that it had any free will at least.
Actually, if it knew everything about itself perfectly (including exactly how it worked), wouldn't that mean that there is a recursive and infinite set of omniscent beings?

EDIT: missed the last two replies in my post, because I wanted to have mine down before I got further behind.
Logged
And with a mighty leap, the evil Conservative flies through the window, escaping our heroes once again!
Because the solution to not being able to control your dakka is MOAR DAKKA.

That's it. We've finally crossed over and become the nation of Da Orky Boyz.

Grek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #295 on: July 26, 2012, 03:07:34 am »

How? If the universe is maybe up of quantumly probabilistic things, then the sum is likewise probabilistic.

Depends on which interpretation you use. If you're using one of the many-worlds variants, where there are multiple worlds and you find yourself in a world with probablity equal to the squared modulus of the amplitude, then the sum across all of the many worlds is deterministic. It's deterministic in a way where everything that can happen, quantumly speaking, does happen, but that's still determinism - stuff is just happening where you can't see it, giving the superficial appearance of nondeterminism. On the other hand, if you're a goober that prefers collapse postulates, where the wave fuction collapses into a single world, selecting between 'possible' worlds with probablity equal to the squared modulus of the amplitude, then the single universe that exists + the RNG for the universe's "which way does the waveform collapse" function (which may just be a string of numbers that cannot be discovered from within the universe), then that is also deterministic, since if you had both, you could write a deterministic Turing machine to perfectly simulate the universe.
Logged

Osmosis Jones

  • Bay Watcher
  • Now with 100% more rotation!
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #296 on: July 26, 2012, 04:44:03 am »

Depends on which interpretation you use. If you're using one of the many-worlds variants, where there are multiple worlds and you find yourself in a world with probablity equal to the squared modulus of the amplitude, then the sum across all of the many worlds is deterministic. It's deterministic in a way where everything that can happen, quantumly speaking, does happen, but that's still determinism - stuff is just happening where you can't see it, giving the superficial appearance of nondeterminism. On the other hand, if you're a goober that prefers collapse postulates, where the wave fuction collapses into a single world, selecting between 'possible' worlds with probablity equal to the squared modulus of the amplitude, then the single universe that exists + the RNG for the universe's "which way does the waveform collapse" function (which may just be a string of numbers that cannot be discovered from within the universe), then that is also deterministic, since if you had both, you could write a deterministic Turing machine to perfectly simulate the universe.

That's just it though; there isn't a hidden variable for some universal RNG!
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 04:45:52 am by Osmosis Jones »
Logged
The Marx generator will produce Engels-waves which should allow the inherently unstable isotope of Leninium to undergo a rapid Stalinisation in mere trockoseconds.

Graknorke

  • Bay Watcher
  • A bomb's a bad choice for close-range combat.
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #297 on: July 26, 2012, 05:00:31 am »

That's just it though; there isn't a hidden variable for some universal RNG!
The interactions themselves are inherently undeterminable. To reiterate; according to our best understanding of quantum physics, the world does not operate like Dwarf Fortress, where you plug a seed into some black box and get the same result everytime (well, macro scale it almost does, but not on the quantum scale).

Well, those understandings aren't really based on anything. They're pretty much just guesses that could be right. There would be no way to actually know without inventing time travel and watching the same experiment over and over again. Really most of the understandings of quantum physics are just plausible explanations that would result in the observations we see.
But that's the sort of thing that can easily end up with big horses in the sky pulling the sun along in a chariot.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 05:23:16 am by Graknorke »
Logged
Cultural status:
Depleted          ☐
Enriched          ☑

Osmosis Jones

  • Bay Watcher
  • Now with 100% more rotation!
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #298 on: July 26, 2012, 05:15:01 am »

Except we can make testable predictions with the current theory that explicitly require there to be probabilistic interactions, but making it a deterministic model breaks it, so yes, they are based on something. Yes, it's not knowable if that model is absolutely correct, but if our best understanding of something suggests something, why disregard it? (Oh hey, we're back where we were two pages ago! :P)
Logged
The Marx generator will produce Engels-waves which should allow the inherently unstable isotope of Leninium to undergo a rapid Stalinisation in mere trockoseconds.

Grek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« Reply #299 on: July 26, 2012, 04:08:38 pm »

I'd say that you're not quite groking what the many-worlds theories are saying. According to many-worlds, here's what actually happens:
Spoiler: Quantum Physics (click to show/hide)

The key thing to keep in mind here, and this IS actually on topic for the religion thread, is that that The Map Is Not The Territory and, while your map (ie. your understanding of reality) can be uncertain and have probabilities in it, the actual territory (ie. reality itself) cannot be. Reality is exact, unambigious, non-fuzzy and, well, real.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 130