What are the Benefits of Theism?

[bahman]

The degrees of freedom are X/PL^3 where PL is Planck length.

No, the degrees of freedom are (Y/X/PL)^3

And if the universe (Y) is infinite then that's... (∞/X/PL)^3. Which is ∞^3 so... ∞

The degrees of freedom are 3*(Y/PL)^3. And this becomes infinite if the size of the universe is infinite.

Unreachable.

Ok, but then you have to give me a value for Y.

Because a massive object in a box of the size Y has half the degrees of freedom than if it was in a box of size 2*Y.

The physical universe could be finite or infinite. The whole is infinite though.

Infinity.

So you have infinite degrees of freedom on each axis?

Awkward.

It is what it is.

[Skepdick]

The degrees of freedom are 3*(Y/PL)^3. And this becomes infinite if the size of the universe is infinite.

OK. So what is the size of the universe?

The physical universe could be finite or infinite. The whole is infinite though.

Lets say that it's not infinite. How big is it? Give me its size In Planck lengths.

It is what it is.

That it is.

[tillingborn]

Yes Skepdick, I know. I know I am making the aesthetic choice that we are living in what might loosely be called a 'real' world and not in the mind of God or a simulation in the way that Nick Bostrom suggests.

OK, but you SAY that you don't call that "a theory", but then you also say that you know you are theorising.

No. What I have said I don't call a theory is apples fall to the ground and something makes apples fall to the ground. Those are not theories, because in the context of the world in which we live, and the rules of science as they apply in that context, apples fall to the ground. That apples fall to the ground only becomes theoretical if you question the context in which we live. It is theoretically possible that we live in the mind of God or in a simulation. In either case we would have to adjust our understanding and accept that at any time, God or the game player could change the rules on a whim. Unless or until that happens, there is no testable difference between an ideal world, a simulated world or a real world. My favourite option is that the world is real, so I choose to believe it in the current absence of counterfactuals.

Which is precisely why I am calling you a theist. A theists' reasoning is exactly the same as yours.

You can call me a theist if you like, but you've got my thinking back to front:
Apples fall -> something makes them fall. No idea how it works, but I'll call it gravity, like everyone else.
Reality exists -> something made that happen. No idea how it happened.

[Immanuel Can]

this is a generation that has been taught by Disney and the like that they should dream, and they are entitled access to the fulfillment thereof. heck they are convinced that because they dreamed it, it must be good.

Boy, is that ever true!

thing is if you what socialism there are counties that proport to live by such, why don't they go there?

Because those places are all hellholes. That's what Socialism creates. But the next Socialists will always tell you, "That wasn't real Socialism."

Yes, yes it was.

[bahman]

The degrees of freedom are 3*(Y/PL)^3. And this becomes infinite if the size of the universe is infinite.

OK. So what is the size of the universe?

We only know the size of the observable universe which is about 93 billion light-years.

The physical universe could be finite or infinite. The whole is infinite though.

Lets say that it's not infinite. How big is it? Give me its size In Planck lengths.

The plank length is 1.6 x 10-35 meters. So the diameter of the universe is 93*10^9*3*10^8*/1.6*10^-35~5*10^61 PL.

[Skepdick]

No. What I have said I don't call a theory is apples fall to the ground and something makes apples fall to the ground.

"Apples fall to the ground" is not a theory.
"Something makes apples fall to the ground" is a theory.

Those are not theories, because in the context of the world in which we live, and the rules of science as they apply in that context apples fall to the ground.

Science rests upon an implicit theory.

The theory upon which science rests is that the universe operates based on rules. And that the rules of the universe are describable by; or even EXACTLY like the rules of formal languages like Mathematics.

Science rests upon the theory that the universe is "logical".

That apples fall to the ground only becomes theoretical if you question the context in which we live.

Indeed, quantum physics does that. It's quite literally called Quantum contextuality.

It follows from the Kochen–Specker theorem

It is theoretically possible that we live in the mind of God or in a simulation.

The claim "we live in a simulation" is equivalent (up to isomorphism) to the claim "The universe is logical".

This is underdetermination in action.

In either case we would have to adjust our understanding and accept that at any time, God or the game player could change the rules on a whim.

None of this matters. So long as you believe that the universe operates on rules you are semantically committed to the simulation hypothesis.

Rule-following IS computation by Turing's definition.

Unless or until that happens, there is no testable difference between an ideal world, a simulated world or a real world.

We aren't even up to testability here. There is no semantic difference between the two theories. They mean the exact same thing, they are just saying it using different words.

The real world is logical, and the real world is a computer simulation.

They are identical claims.

My favourite option is that the world is real, so I choose to believe it in the current absence of counterfactuals.

Obviously the world is real. That doesn't preclude it from being a simulation.

I never understood this notion of mutual exclusivity.

You are just using different language to describe the same damn thing.

You can call me a theist if you like, but you've got my thinking back to front:

I didn't. i got it back to front AND front to back. That's what isomorphism means in Mathematics.

Apples fall -> something makes them fall.
No idea how it works, but I'll call it gravity, like everyone else.

Reality exists -> something made that happen.
No idea how it happened.

You left out ... "but I call it God, like everyone else".

You know. To make it symmetrical with your previous paragraph.

[tillingborn]

We have different ideas about what a theory is. In my view gravity is not a theory.

Well, it is. Scientists don't actually understand, even, what the force in question actually is.

The force in question is called gravity. As I have acknowledged many times now, there are different theories about what causes that force, but in all those theories that force is called gravity.

[Immanuel Can]

We have different ideas about what a theory is. In my view gravity is not a theory.

Well, it is. Scientists don't actually understand, even, what the force in question actually is.

The force in question is called gravity. As I have acknowledged many times now, there are different theories about what causes that force, but in all those theories that force is called gravity.

Well, slapping a label on a phenomenon is not the same as being able to say what it is. Labels are free. The real achievement is to be able to explain the nature of the thing one has labelled.

[Skepdick]

The plank length is 1.6 x 10-35 meters. So the diameter of the universe is 93*10^9*3*10^8*/1.6*10^-35~5*10^61 PL.

That's the size of the observable universe.

I asked you about the size of the universe.

[tillingborn]

"Something makes apples fall to the ground" is theorising.

I disagree.

The theory upon which science rests is that the universe operates based on rules.

Again, I disagree. In my view science doesn't assume rules, it just looks for patterns.

"we live in a simulation" is equivalent (up to isomorphism) to the claim "The universe is logical".

I disagree. In fact that is true of the rest of your post. They're your points of view and I respect them, but they are in my view precisely the sort of aesthetically based choices that simply don't interest me. One thing that is factually wrong is this:

You left out ... "but I call it God, like everyone else".

You know. To make it symmetrical with your previous paragraph.

I left it out for the obvious reason that I don't call the explanation of reality God.

[tillingborn]

Well, slapping a label on a phenomenon is not the same as being able to say what it is. Labels are free. The real achievement is to be able to explain the nature of the thing one has labelled.

That is what scientists are trying to do with the dozen or so ongoing research projects aiming to explain the force called gravity.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, slapping a label on a phenomenon is not the same as being able to say what it is. Labels are free. The real achievement is to be able to explain the nature of the thing one has labelled.

That is what scientists are trying to do with the dozen or so ongoing research projects aiming to explain the force called gravity.

And?

[Skepdick]

I disagree

Disagreement is cheap.

Show me this "something".

Again, I disagree. In my view science doesn't assume rules, it just looks for patterns.

Pattern-matching is just looking for regularities in data.

That's why we have machine learning. It's just statistics/information theory. It has rules. Try again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition

I disagree. In fact that is true of the rest of your post.

Disagreement is cheap. In fact, my hypothesis for why you disagree is the same as it always was - you don't understand why my words are true.

Logical proofs are EQUIVALENT to computer programs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

They're your points of view and I respect them, but they are in my view precisely the sort of aesthetically based choices that simply don't interest me.

It's not about aesthetics. Isomorphisms are not "aesthetic" they are mathematical equivalences.

They are equivalent despite your disagreement.

I left it out for the obvious reason that I don't call the explanation of reality God.

Oh, OK. What do you call it? It doesn't really matter what you call it for me to call you a Theist

[tillingborn]

And?

Gravity is not a theory.

[Skepdick]

Gravity is not a theory.

Nobody is going to stop you from believing that.

But you have to concede to theism the moment you suspend your skepticism.

That is, only IF you care about consistency.