The Ultimate Purpose of Life

[mccoy]

On 1/13/2020 at 8:04 AM, Ron Put said:

Those are facts. The gospels are not facts.

Ron, I wonder why you refute so drastically the gospels. They tend to be hagiographic, but any hagiography is known to have its basic truth, even though the details may have been reshaped.

Besides, that's not even the point. The hypothesis of the existence of a supernatural, impersonal intelligence that created the cosmos does not need any historical or scientific evidence. That's a hypothesis that cannot be proven nor disproven by physical science, which is by definition impotent in the metaphysical field. 

The relevant context is another one, it's based on logic, ontology, philosophy, inference, observations and extrapolations from the physical reality.

 

 

 

 

[mccoy]

 

25 minutes ago, Clinton said:

Conan’s purpose of life:

”to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentation of their women“

That was a memorable film! Although Schwarzenegger's role I liked best was by far 'the terminator'. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by mccoy

[mccoy]

To link all the reasonings to the ultimate purpose of life, the hypothesized existence of a supernatural being (SB) may not even grant a clear purpose in life. That requires further reasoning. Our purpose may be to play the simulation as desidered by the SB, which would require to know the intent of a SB. Our purpose may even just be random. Everything can be hypothesized and discussed, but simply dismissing the hypothesis as fairy tales may be interpreted as a sign of intellectual arrogance.

[corybroo]

Suppose some SB did create us, wouldn't it be fair to ask what is the purpose of the SB?  And the SB's creator, etc.

[mccoy]

21 hours ago, corybroo said:

Suppose some SB did create us, wouldn't it be fair to ask what is the purpose of the SB?  And the SB's creator, etc.

First and foremost, if we assign to the SB the attributes of the more familiar GOD, then it is by definition 'non-created'. Otherwise, we may be stuck in the concept of an infinite regression of creators.

The purpose of the SB may be diverse: simple entertainment, scientific experiment, whatever. Even reasons unfathomable to us. Other relevant questions would be: what are we supposed to do (rules of the game or of the simulation), is there a way to contact the SB, has  our logic been injected by the SB with a degree of  similarity to it, what happens when a layer of the simulation (our physical body) ends its cycle, and so on and so forth

 

[Gordo]

Always fun to think about these things, there is no use getting worked up about various ideas out there.  Quite a few smart people currently think our universe is a simulation. They say the probability of this being "base reality" is mathematically near zero.  This of course means we were created, and not only that, but created by something which gave our universe rules. This is compatible with the idea and scientific consensus, that our universe basically instantly sprang into existence out of essentially nothing like something flipped a switch one day or said "let there be light" 😉  I think its kind of interesting that the Bible also talks about the earth being completely destroyed by fire, considering this was written nearly 2000 years ago, long before we knew that our sun will eventually go supernova and our planet will in fact be destroyed by fire.  But beyond that event, our universe is very slowly winding down, eventually all suns will burn out, there will be nothing but darkness everywhere, planet hoping / traveling to other star systems, isn't going to help, the great wheels of entropy pretty much ensure there will be no life/light in our universe one day - so what happens after that?  Is there something that then leads to a "reboot"?  Again I find it kind of fascinating that the Bible even chimes in on this topic - apparently the same entity that created our current "simulation" in the first place, is going to do it again after this one dies out.  Apparently in the new "simulation" this creator dude is going to take on a more interactive role, the new Earth simulation will have some interesting differences compared to the current one as well, like there will not be an ocean anymore, or a sun, so that's going to be kind of strange (there will however be a new, different, kind of light source) - and there will be all sorts of other benefits, like no more death or pain, so that's pretty cool! Everyone will also be vegetarian, which is kind of interesting, might as well switch over now so you can get used to it, haha.  😉

 

 

 

 

But lets be real, you are probably going to end up like this guy:

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Gordo

[corybroo]

A different philosophy was voiced by a comedian.  He said did not fear death because he thought it was like being stupid – you don’t know it.  It may bother people around you but you’re in a state where it doesn’t bother you.

[mccoy]

I've just been watching this interesting scientific panel on the idea of a cosmic simulation. The host is Neil deGrasse Tyson. The famed theoretical physicists James Gates says that concealed within his model of Adinkra mathematics (dealing with supersymmetry and string theory) he and collaborators discovered an error code, in binary language. The guys go on elaborating on the possibility of Matrix-like (the film) simulation. in rigorously scientific concepts.

Interestingly enough, the Hindu model of cosmogony hints at a cosmic game (Lila, the simulation) produced by Brahma, the creating principle, the supernatural being. The SB is the original reality, whereas everything else is illusion, or Maya (the code beyond the simulation). and this simulation would be contained within two more simulations (the astral and the causal universes). Of course I amply simplified the philosophy

Many concepts discussed in the video are interesting, like the possible reverse-engineering of the simulation, the simulations within simulations and so on....

 

 

 

 

[Ron Put]

9 hours ago, Gordo said:

... This of course means we were created, and not only that, but created by something which gave our universe rules....

Actually, it doesn't mean anything of the sort :) Just like there is no need for Zeus to explain lightning and no need for Yahweh to explain the result of 2+2.

As Stephen Hawking quipped, there is simply no need for "god." "Matrix-like," as in the rather lame trilogy, is a pop misunderstanding.

For a really simplified, no gods needed, explanation of the mathematical concepts (which are falsifiable, unlike the beliefs in transcendental deities), watch this relatively short lecture:

Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram
 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Ron Put

[Dean Pomerleau]

Ron,

Susskind clearly argues that events and characteristics of the early universe (and possibly even the multiverse) can be described using math. Perhaps as Susskind suggests, the universe is a 3-dimensional projection of a far distant 2D surface, which BTW sounds an awful lot like a form of simulation.

But I think you are mischaracterizing Susskind's perspective on the origin of it all. In particular, Susskind isn't nearly as dismissive of the possibility that the universe is the product of an intelligent creator as you seem to be implying.

"I don't reject the possibility that there was an intelligence that one way or another was involved with the creation of the universe. I don't reject it. Not at all. I simply ask, if it's true, how do you describe it? What are the rules? How did it get there? It just provokes more curiosity. And until I can answer, or at least attempt to give a hypothesis about that, I lose interest. I simply lose interest. I lose interest in questions that are so far beyond me that I'm quite certain I can't answer and this appears to me to be one of them."

Leonard Susskind starting at 4:26:

--Dean

[Dean Pomerleau]

More from Leonard Susskind on the possibility there is a creator and/or we live in a simulation:

 

[Ron Put]

2 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

... "I don't reject the possibility that there was an intelligence that one way or another was involved with the creation of the universe. I don't reject it. Not at all. I simply ask, if it's true, how do you describe it? What are the rules? How did it get there? It just provokes more curiosity. And until I can answer, or at least attempt to give a hypothesis about that, I lose interest. I simply lose interest. I lose interest in questions that are so far beyond me that I'm quite certain I can't answer and this appears to me to be one of them."

But of course. Just as I cannot absolutely "reject the possibility" that the universe was made by Father Christmas as a version of SimCity for some transcendental CES (the equation with a "simulation" is quite wrong, in this context).

But untestable stuff like that is the stuff of fiction, not science. And scientists generally do not subscribe to it, although many do not wish to offend the believers (which ultimately impacts funding, unfortunately). Stephen Hawking said pretty much the same thing, but added that while he cannot reject the notion of a "creator" outright, everything works just fine without one, thus there is no need for "god."

But hey, again, gods hide in the gaps of knowledge, so for the foreseeable future, there will be many, many believers.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Ron Put

[Dean Pomerleau]

Ron,

13 hours ago, Ron Put said:

Just  as I cannot absolutely "reject the possibility " that the universe was made by Father Christmas as a version of SimCity for some transcendental CES...

But hey, again, gods hide in the gaps of knowledge, so for the foreseeable future, there will be many, many believers.

What fascinates me about the simulation hypothesis is the fact that, unlike other notions of a creator god, scientific advances could very well make the idea that we may be living in a simulation more plausible, not less.

Imagine if one day, 100 or 200 years hence, we've figured out consciousness and how to create it in a computer. Couple this with almost inevitable (if we don't kill ourselves first) advances in computer games, graphics and physical simulation. Then you get the real possibility that we could create artificial conscious entities having very realistic experiences inside virtual worlds in our computers. 

Wouldn't that make it much more plausible that we are living in such a simulation ourselves? Here I'll give a(nother) plug for one of my favorite short stories of all time, David Brin's Stones of Significance (pdf).

--Dean

[mccoy]

Ron,

ruling out a priori the idea of the existence of a superior Being, an Active Agent, A Creator/Simulator seems to me more like a cultural or political issue rather than a scientific attitude. It is an old heritage from the scientific world of the 19th. That idea may be discouraging, like in the case of Susskind, and we may choose to ignore it. Our choice will not impact the truth, of course, if such a truth exists. Again, I just do not understand the rejection. I do not reject the principle of supersymmetry, even though the mathematics is totally abstruse and the symmetric population of particles has never been observed so far, even after decades of theoretical postulates. Nor I reject the possibility that strings do exist, even though I understand nothing of the theoretical mumbo-jumbo and, by what I know, all the string theorists may be simply crazy, having pursued for decades what may just have been the fruit of their sick mathematical fantasy. I do not really believe that, but if I were a total skeptic, I might have a right to think so.

Of course, the idea of an Active Agent does not imply a theistic, or personal attribution of such an abstract Intelligent Being. We're not speaking about theology nor religions, here, which are cultural expressions of the idea of a supreme creator and unfortunately have often suffered degradation and corruption over the times. 

Edited January 22, 2020 by mccoy

[mccoy]

Excerpt from the wiki voice 'conflict thesis'

Quote

Scientist and public perceptions[edit]

This thesis is still held to be true in whole or in part by some scientists including the theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking, who said "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."^[44] Others, such as Steven Weinberg, grant that it is possible for science and religion to be compatible since some prominent scientists are also religious, but he sees some significant tensions that potentially weaken religious beliefs overall.^[45]

A study done on scientists from 21 American universities showed that most did not perceive conflict between science and religion. In the study, the strength of religiosity in the home in which a scientist was raised, current religious attendance, peers' attitudes toward religion, all had an impact on whether or not scientists saw religion and science as in conflict. Scientists who had grown up with a religion and retained that identity or had identified as spiritual or had religious attendance tended to perceive less or no conflict. However, those not attending religious services were more likely to adopt a conflict paradigm. Additionally, scientists were more likely to reject conflict thesis if their peers held positive views of religion.^[46]

Science historian Ronald Numbers suggests the conflict theory lingers in a popular belief, inclusive of scientists and clerics alike, and that while history reflects an intrinsic and inevitable intellectual conflict between (Judeo-Christian) religion and science, it is perpetuated by the surrounding controversies involving creation–evolution, stem cells, and birth control.^[47] Many religious groups have made statements regarding the compatibility of religion and science,^[48] urging, for example, "school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."^[49] The Magis Center for Reason and Faith was founded specifically to apply science in support of belief in a deity and the Christian religion.^[50] Some scholars such as Brian Stanley and Denis Alexander propose that mass media are partly responsible for popularizing conflict theory,^[51] most notably the myth that prior to Columbus, people believed the Earth was flat.^[52] David C. Lindberg and Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge Earth's sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".^[52][53] Numbers gives the following as mistakes arising from conflict theory that have gained widespread currency: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences".^[47] Some Christian writers, notably Reijer Hooykaas and Stanley Jaki, have argued that Christianity was important, if not essential, for the rise of modern science. Lindberg and Numbers, however, see this apologetical writing which lacks in careful historical study and overstates the case for such a connection.^[54]

Research on perceptions of science among the American public concludes that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science, and that they have no differences with nonreligious groups in propensity to seek out scientific knowledge, although there are often epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.^[55][56] The Pew Center made similar findings and also noted that the majority of Americans (80–90 per cent) strongly support scientific research, agree that science makes society and individual's lives better, and 8 in 10 Americans would be happy if their children were to become scientists.^[57] Even strict creationists tend to express very favorable views towards science.^[58] A study of US college students concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than vice versa.^[59]

 

[Gordo]

On 1/21/2020 at 5:42 PM, Ron Put said:

Actually, it doesn't mean anything of the sort 🙂 Just like there is no need for Zeus to explain lightning and no need for Yahweh to explain the result of 2+2.

As Stephen Hawking quipped, there is simply no need for "god." "Matrix-like," as in the rather lame trilogy, is a pop misunderstanding.

For a really simplified, no gods needed, explanation of the mathematical concepts (which are falsifiable, unlike the beliefs in transcendental deities), watch this relatively short lecture:
 

I enjoyed the lecture, but it has nothing at all to do with this discussion, I think you have confused "hologram" with "simulation", if the two have anything to do with one another at all, it is merely tangential.

This quote from Suskind sums it up: "People ask me, am I an atheist? NO.  Am I a religious believer?  NO. Oh, that must make me an agnostic... NO I'm not even that! Haha... I just feel totally at sea. Totally at a loss for what to make out of the existence of the universe."

I reject the idea that if we are in a simulation, it is impossible to know it.  I think science can conceivably determine this, thinking otherwise is anti-science.  And if we ARE living in a simulation, it seems very likely that there is in fact an intelligence behind it (although I can't rule out the possibility that there isn't), just as there is an intelligence behind every simulation humans have ever created, I don't know of any that have spontaneously arisen out of nothing.

Does the universe seem to work fine without a designer?  Or does it seem to work fine without a designer BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT WAS DESIGNED?  Hahaha.  If minecraft ever becomes so sophisticated that its characters become like us (you could say 'in our image'), what would they think about the existence of their creator?  I'm sure many of them would think their universe works just fine without a creator.
 

Edited February 4, 2020 by Gordo

[mccoy]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Fascinating topic. The embedded code in DNA and biological mechanisms would suggest the existence of a programmer, some agent which created the code which appears to underlie so many natural phenomena. Even as James Gates discovered error-correcting codes behind his Adinkra mathematics, error correcting codes seem to exist in the mechanism of DNA replication.

Excellent talk by Stephen Meyer, packed full with reference to modern developments in biology. Which seems to veer far away from Neodarwinism, as proposed by Dawkins.

By the way, I was not aware of the nanomachine ATP synthase, or the flagellar motor studied by Mark Behe.

 

 

ATP synthase, a nanomachine whose development by random mutation seems mathematically very close to impossible.

 

 

[Ron Put]

On 2/4/2020 at 9:12 AM, Gordo said:

I enjoyed the lecture, but it has nothing at all to do with this discussion, I think you have confused "hologram" with "simulation", if the two have anything to do with one another at all, it is merely tangential.

...

I am not confusing the two. The simulation nonsense kind of came out of mixing the holographic principle (part of string theory) with Bostrom's philosophical musings and made it into pop culture through the rush of movies like the Matrix (and the much better Dark City).

But while the simulation concept may be a little less absurd than the fables of the Abrahamic religion and other mythologies, it's still basically a non-scientific anthropomorphization of the universe.

As to "intelligent design...". It's a lame attempt by religious minds to adapt their delusions to the state of current knowledge. If I recall, it started in the 1980s and it took a life of its own, even among some in the US Congress. The above video posted by mccoy is essentially a more convoluted version of the banana argument:
 

 

[Dean Pomerleau]

4 hours ago, Ron Put said:

But while the simulation concept may be a little less absurd than the fables of the Abrahamic religion and other mythologies, it's still basically a non-scientific anthropomorphization of the universe.

Ron,

You keep claiming the simulation concept is non-scientific, but several people including me (discussed here) and scientists (discussed here) have proposed scientific observations that could lend credence to the hypothesis. 

Here is another scientific approach that could bolster the simulation hypothesis (and at least one version of Intelligent Design), which I haven't seen proposed elsewhere. 

Imagine we are living in a simulation, and the creator(s) of the simulation actually run several instantiations of the simulation in parallel, which are initially identical but diverge over time as a result of random (e.g. quantum) variations. When the parallel simulations have diverged enough so that one (or a few) is (are) more interesting than the rest (for some definition of "interesting"), the creator terminates the less interesting branches and replaces them with many, initially identical, copies of the interesting one(s). In this model, we are part of a giant genetic algorithm operating over simulated universes to maximize the objective function of "interesting complexity".

How might we discover via the scientific method that we are living in this type of simulation? What if our understanding of evolution improves to the point where we can definitively determine that there hasn't been enough time since life began on earth for the process of evolution by natural selection to discover something complex, like the hemoglobin molecule. In other words, we determine that the likelihood of discovering hemoglobin is infinitesimally small given the number of generations and the population size of each since life emerged - there just hasn't been enough time for random variation (given known mutation rates) and selective survival of the fittest to come up with hemoglobin. 

This seems to me like it would be reasonably strong evidence that while evolution by natural selection may be the force driving progress in the universe, someone or something has her/its "finger on the scale" to accelerate the process in one way or another, perhaps via the kind of parallel search over universes described above.

Conversely, suppose we discover that once through the ~2 billion years since life emerged is plenty of time for all the complexity of life on earth to evolve naturally given estimates of mutation rate, generation size and selection pressure. Such a discovery would represent evidence against a "parallel search over universes" model as well as other versions of Intelligent Design.

Interestingly, the observation of punctuated equilibria is just the sort of phenomena one would expect to observe if an interesting, unlikely discovery is made in one (simulated) universe and then duplicated across the ensemble of parallel (simulated) universes, leading to surprisingly rapid progress after an extended period of evolutionary stasis. From the punctuated equilibria Wikipedia page:

The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.

What if evolutionary biologists determine that the observed discontinuities in the progress of evolution can't be explained by gaps in the fossil record or other natural, linear phenomena? It seems like that would be at least indirect evidence supporting something like the idea of parallel search over universes proposed above.

--Dean

[Ron Put]

Dean, the fact that is has been discussed before doesn't make it any more credible. Bostrom is a philosopher, Elon Musk is a salesman, and neither is a physicist. deGrasse Tyson engages in pop science all too often, but even he has started treating this a joke -- if I recall he noted that it is more likely that if we live in a simulation, it's run by a 15-year old in his mother's basement, than by some deity.

And don't call this nonsense a scientific hypothesis. To be such, it has to be falsifiable, and it is not. It's on par with mythology and fairy tales in its testability.

Apart from all this, it is contradicted by the knowledge we currently have. There are many issues with it, but here is just just one:

"The Oxford team checked by asking what it would take to construct a computer simulation powerful enough to exhibit quantum many-body effects. For those uninitiated in quantum speculation (most of us included), that just refers to physical problems requiring large amounts of interacting particles. Specifically, they tested an anomaly known as the quantum Hall effect using a technique called quantum Monte Carlo — a computational method that uses random sampling to study complex quantum systems.

They realized that to accurately model quantum phenomena occurring in metals, a simulation needs to be extremely complex. The complexity increased exponentially as the number of particles required for full-bore simulation grew. The more larger the simulation, the greater the computing power required. In short, it’s always unworkable. It’s physically impossible — and they only attempted to model a portion of the physical universe." https://futurism.com/sorry-elon-physicists-say-we-definitely-arent-living-in-a-computer-simulation

I am actually rather surprised to see creationism alive and well on a forum like this, with the requisite talking points about "gaps in the fossil record" (it's a poor argument contradicted by current knowledge, the fossil record itself and the fact that only specimens with specific characteristics are likely to be preserved as fossils).

Edited February 6, 2020 by Ron Put

[Gordo]

And I am actually rather surprised to see a person so limited in what they think is possible on a forum like this.  So what is your falsifiable hypothesis about the start of our universe "out of nothing"?  I'm also interested in your hypothesis about where it's going (do you agree that at some future point our universe will contain no light and no life?  What then? Eternity of "nothing"?).  Maybe none of us should take these "unanswerable" questions too seriously, hence the prior quote "I just feel totally at sea. Totally at a loss for what to make out of the existence of the universe."  

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Gordo

[Ron Put]

Limited? In what way? In that I have made the effort to study aspects of religious movements and actually know something about the history of some of them?

Or that I don't get excited about an internet-fueled, pop pseudoscientific nonsense, which gives comfort to those who cannot imagine a world without a human-like creator?

There are vast gaps in our knowledge, but there is nothing to indicate that there are deities lurking in there. Hopefully other intelligent life, somewhere, but definitely not Yahwehs, or Jesuses or Holy Ghosts.

The Big Bang hypothesis was falsifiable when proposed and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background provided the first proof, way back in the 1960s. And there is a lot more evidence which came later (stuff like helium and deuterium presence, rate of recession, etc.). So, the Big Bang theory has quite a bit of proof going for it nowadays.

Now, if we are able to measure precisely enough and find a violation of the equivalence principle for example, as I noted earlier in this thread, the Big Bang theory will have to change and give way to a new understanding. But this the beauty of science -- it evolves and changes as we gain knowledge. Unlike religion.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Ron Put

[Ron Put]

And if someone is really interested in "unanswerable" questions about the world we live in and our best efforts at answering them based on the knowledge we have, this is a quite spectacular 30 minute video (I've seen it on a big screen and would recommend watching it on as big of a monitor as you have -- it's mesmerizing).
 

There is also another feature from the Big Bang until the present, by the same creators (pun intended), but I have to run, so can't look for it now.

[Gordo]

As for power sources - again this is showing the limitation of your imagination.  As you noted, this universe may even be a hologram - perhaps our idea of its "power requirement" is greatly misguided, as it likely would be if characters in our simulated worlds became self aware and intelligent, and questioned how their universe could possibly be powered by anything so vast... There may be a much bigger universe outside of our currently known universe and from which we can trace our origins, where we are but a mere scaled down version.  In such a scenario there would be power sources far beyond anything in our currently known universe.

As for your video above, I enjoyed it, but isn't that exactly what I described?  Our universe is on a path toward complete darkness with no life and no light, even matter itself will likely disintegrate and dissipate as radiation, even the black holes eventually dissipate leaving "nothing" which is where we started.  I thought the math at 13:30 was interesting, why do they stop measuring the age of the universe when the last blackhole dissipates? We have no reason to believe the universe would not continue expanding forever (they even state this multiple times later on in the vid). Technically the fraction of time our universe supports life as we know it is 0.0000 repeating with a 1 on the end, which is arguably 0. 😉

BUT THE MOST HILARIOUS THING ABOUT the video you posted is that it seems you didn't actually watch the whole thing?  Remember I asked you for your hypothesis on how a big bang happens - an entire universe springing out of "nothing".

Jump to 24:32 in your above video where it says "We could create simulated virtual universes, or with enough energy, create another one just like our own" !!!

What is this MADNESS?  Creation?  Simulations? Intelligently designed new universes? WOW, this is your response to how a big bang can happen?!  They even speculate on how it might be done and say that ANY universe with intelligent life in it will likely create baby universes.  This is exactly what we've been talking about.   If you believe this portion of the video, then you must believe in the possibility of intelligent design and simulated universes (I guess by your definition this makes you a creationist!)  haha. 

I acknowledge the fact that we have no idea and there are lots of interesting possibilities to think about.  I consider rigid thinking a weakness.

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Gordo

[mccoy]

16 hours ago, Ron Put said:

Limited? In what way? In that I have made the effort to study aspects of religious movements and actually know something about the history of some of them?

Actually, I think that the issue can very well be discussed without any reference to religious movements (theistic hypothesis). We may take traditional religions aside and speak of some intelligence, or entity, or observer, or simulator, or sentient machine, without any a priori attributes. This might be defined as deism but probably goes even beyond such a definition.