Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Glad it wasn't just my brain glitching (this time.)
Well, you can get out of this by saying that the initial conditions (or infinite regress) are either necessary or a brute fact, and that seems to be symmetrical with saying that God is either necessary or a brute fact. If the initial conditions are necessary, then they are true in every (metaphysically) possible world. Or if they are a brute fact, then they are true with no further explanation, so trying to ask for an explanation for a brute fact would be to miss the point of what a brute fact is.
Either way we don't have to say anything was created ex nihilo. Further, if we want to say that things popped into existence ex nihilo, we can posit that this must necessarily be the case.
Where did I say it counts as evidence? I said it’s consistent with the simulation hypothesis. Do you know the difference between those things? If not, something being evidence of a theory means that it raises the probability of that theory being true over other theories. Something being consistent with a theory means that it doesn’t rule out the theory.
Most scientific models based on logic or math are going to be consistent with the idea that the universe is a simulation, because these scientific models transform information through set rules. Since that is also largely how a simulation works (as we know them), these scientific models will behave in a way that seems consistent with the idea of a simulation.
This is not profound and does not tell us anything about the universe.
It is like noting that a water balloon and a watermelon both contain water. You still shouldn't throw watermelons at people, nor should you eat water balloons.
Most scientific models based on logic or math are going to be consistent with the idea that the universe is a simulation, because these scientific models transform information through set rules. Since that is also largely how a simulation works (as we know them), these scientific models will behave in a way that seems consistent with the idea of a simulation. This is not profo
Reminds me of the quip about the difference between knowledge and wisdom:
"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing that a tomato doesn't belong in fruit salad."
'Creation' is a purposeful action, by definition imho:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/create
created, creating
1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.
Synonyms:
invent , contrive , devise , initiate , originate
3. Theater. to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first production of a play.
4. to make by investing with new rank or by designating; constitute; appoint.
to create a peer.
5. to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to.
The announcement created confusion.
6. to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design.
to create a revolution; to create an opportunity to ask for a raise.
A lot of things are created without any animate actors at all. Oxygen reacts with hydrogen to create water, water erodes land to create streams and rivers etc.
You could take this reductio ad infinitum and ask "who created the oxygen?", or "who created the protons and electrons?" or "who created the quarks?" but that's just begging the question that there is an ultimate creator at the end of the chain, if there is in fact an end to the chain. Turtles all the way down.
The definitions you've provided suggest that this isn't always the case.
Tell you what, why don't you read the list carefully and then ask a grownup for help if you can't figure it out on your own.
A lot of things are created without any animate actors at all. Oxygen reacts with hydrogen to create water, water erodes land to create streams and rivers etc.You could take this reductio ad infinitum and ask "who created the oxygen?", or "who created the protons and electrons?" or "who created the quarks?" but that's just begging the question that there is an ultimate creator
Given that 'creation' seems to imply purposeful action (at least based on the dictionary dot com definitions), perhaps it might be more accurate to say that oxygen reacting with hydrogen becomes water.
What thinketh thou?
Pretty weak. You couldn’t come up with a better argument after all those years of street preaching?
Given that 'creation' seems to imply purposeful action (at least based on the dictionary dot com definitions), perhaps it might be more accurate to say that oxygen reacting with hydrogen becomes water.
What thinketh thou?
Seems like semantics, but sure, if you want to define "creation" as a purposeful act, then "creation" is indeed a purposeful act, and everything else "becomes" or "produces" or whatever. In which case, there is no reason to say the universe was "created" rather than "produced" or "became" or whatever other word someone cares to choose.
Seems like you want to stipulate that universe was "created" rather than some other word, then rely on the specific definition of that word to argue that it must have been a purposeful act. I am somewhat sceptical of the validity of this sort of circular reasoning, to put it mildly.
Most scientific models based on logic or math are going to be consistent with the idea that the universe is a simulation, because these scientific models transform information through set rules. Since that is also largely how a simulation works (as we know them), these scientific models will behave in a way that seems consistent with the idea of a simulation. This is not profo
Where did I say it was profound or tells us anything about the universe? I don’t think it’s particularly profound to propose skeptical scenarios. Some skeptical situations may be profound depending on how they are presented, but to just say that such and such state of affairs is consistent with a skeptical scenario is pretty much always going to be the case.
The only reason why it was noteworthy that it’s still consistent is because the paper said it wasn’t possible (logical possibility), which I was denying.
Given that 'creation' seems to imply purposeful action (at least based on the dictionary dot com definitions), perhaps it might be more accurate to say that oxygen reacting with hydrogen becomes water.
What thinketh thou?
Debatable. I don't think this is improper usage of the word "created."
Fold mountains are created where two or more of Earth’s tectonic plates are pushed together, often at regions known as convergent plate boundaries and continental collision zones.
Given that 'creation' seems to imply purposeful action (at least based on the dictionary dot com definitions), perhaps it might be more accurate to say that oxygen reacting with hydrogen becomes water.
What thinketh thou?
In the OED, the verb 'create' has a number of definitions, only some of which imply intention (on the part of a 'divine agent', for example, or an artist, performer or designer). Completely inanimate and impersonal forces can perfectly well create effects.
Seems like semantics, but sure, if you want to define "creation" as a purposeful act, then "creation" is indeed a purposeful act, and everything else "becomes" or "produces" or whatever. In which case, there is no reason to say the universe was "created" rather than "produced" or "became" or whatever other word someone cares to choose.Seems like you want to stipulate that unive
Since we are literally discussing the correct (or incorrect) uses of words, obviously this discussion is one of semantics.
You can ofc use the word any way you want. If you are sitting at a poker table and want to say that the dealer or the cards 'created' pocket rockets for you, go for it.
Debatable. I don't think this is improper usage of the word "created."
Point well taken.
I think in practice words like 'create' are often used interchangeably with words like 'formed' or 'developed' or 'evolved.'
But in the philosophical context that this whole discussion came from, I am using the term 'created' more technically in the philosophical context.
In the OED, the verb 'create' has a number of definitions, only some of which imply intention (on the part of a 'divine agent', for example, or an artist, performer or designer). Completely inanimate and impersonal forces can perfectly well create effects.
I think, speaking loosely, you are correct.
I am using the term in a technical philosophical context.
I had a friend who used to say things like, "The lawn wants to be mowed" and "The car wants to be washed." I of course knew what he meant and that he wasn't ascribing conscious agency to the lawn or his car.
