Why would you care about mental paths if they lead to the same place?
Because the different paths may be of independent interest (e.g., creationism-in-the-usual-sense relates to questions of religion; the simulation hypothesis to questions of technology and fundamental physics). Because if one of these paths seems like a good path but its final destination is uninhabitable, the place you back off to may be different depending on what path you took.
They are literally the same.
Only if you define “creationism” or “simulation” in an unorthodox way.
“Creationism” is universally[1] understood to mean the idea that the world was created by a god, and that term “god” has a whole lot of other baggage; if it turns out that our world was made in some other-universe hacker’s basement, and that the hacker has no idea we even exist, no particular interest in how his pet universe comes out, no extraordinary mental capabilities or moral perfections, etc., then no one would call him a “god” and this would not be a scenario to vindicate the creationists.
[1] Near enough.
“Simulation” is universally[2] understood to mean the idea that our world’s existence is as a pattern of information inside something very computer-like. If, e.g., it turns out that everything we see around us is ideas in the mind of God a la Berkeley, that would be highly un-computer-like and this would not be a scenario to vindicate the simulationists.
[2] Near enough.
The two ideas are certainly closely related. They are both special cases of the same general idea (that our universe is a thing that has been made by someone else). But no, they are not the same idea.
“Creationism” is universally[1] understood to mean the idea that the world was created by a god, and that term “god” has a whole lot of other baggage
If you drag in the baggage, there will be baggage. If you don’t, there won’t. A lot of smart people thought for a long time about what it means for the world to have been created.
“Simulation” is universally[2] understood to mean the idea that our world’s existence is as a pattern of information inside something very computer-like.
Simulation universally[0] means that our universe is part of a larger system outside of it which works by different rules; and that some entity constructed our world and by that virtue has supernatural powers over it.
[0] Near enough.
They are both special cases of the same general idea (that our universe is a thing that has been made by someone else). But no, they are not the same idea.
If you drag in the baggage [...] If you don’t [...]
The baggage is part of the meaning of the word. Look it up in a good dictionary. Look at how it’s actually used.
They are that same general idea
I’m not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that you agree that they’re different special cases of a single general idea, then I think we are in agreement (and I just don’t understand why you’re so determined to call them “the same” when they are in fact not the same). But if you mean that they are not merely different special cases, but that each in fact has the exact same meaning as (what I’m claiming to be) the more general idea, I think that’s flatly wrong.
(The best answer I can see: our universe is being simulated by the Mind of God. No, says the traditionalist Christian, our universe is not a part of God, it is not a mere mental creation; it is an actual separate thing.)
Suppose traditionalist Christians are right in every detail. Then creationism is correct; if creationism and simulationism are the same thing, then simulationism must also be correct. In that case, please tell me what is simulating our universe.
Suppose our universe was made by a hacker in another universe who set his unthinkably powerful computer simulating universes with random simple-ish physical laws and has since then completely forgotten the program is even running. Then simulationism is correct; if creationism and simulationism are the same thing, then creationism must also be correct. In that case, please tell me what being plays the role of God in this scenario.
(The best answer I can see: the hacker is God. But he doesn’t even know our universe exists and certainly has no idea what’s going on within it. In principle he could discover the program running on his computer, find a way of inspecting its state, and figure out what that means in terms of in-universe events; but as it happens he has nowhere near the brainpower or the patience for that. Neither is he supremely wise or good or anything of the sort. He just happens to have a really fast computer.)
So, within the framework of the simulation hypothesis let us consider the entity which made our universe and runs it. Why is it not a god? Which necessary attributes of godhood does it lack? What makes it not belong in a class denoted by the word “god”?
I’m not sure what you mean by that.
I’m pointing at abstraction levels.
Are a Ferrari and a Hummer the same thing? They are both cars. But they are different “special cases” of cars.
Are a Ferrari Spider and a Ferrari Lusso the same thing? They are different “special cases” of Ferraris.
Are Alice’s Ferrari 488 Spider and Bob’s Ferrari 488 Spider the same thing? They are different “special cases” of Ferrari 488 Spiders.
please tell me what is simulating our universe.
The not-created. Traditional Christian ontology starts with the basic divide between the not-created (=God) and the created (=our world).
please tell me what being plays the role of God in this scenario
The hacker. The fact that he’s absent at the moment makes him an absent god, not not-a-god. Notice that he can shut down his computer or twiddle the rules of the universe. Or just reach in and change things directly which would look awfully like a miracle.
The usual reason for laughing at the idea of looking in a dictionary would be because the meaning of a word is really determined by how it’s used and dictionaries merely report that. But in this case, the sentence immediately after the one you quoted (which you mysteriously didn’t quote) was “Look at how it’s actually used”. So could you explain, please, what you found so funny?
Why is it not a god? [...]
I think all those questions are answered quite well in the last two paragraphs of the comment you were replying to.
I’m pointing at abstraction levels.
Yes, I understand that. But words come with particular (rough) abstraction levels built in: “thing”, “asset”, “financial instrument”, “financial derivative”, “option”, “call option on an equity”, “American call option on Apple shares”, “American call option on 100 AAPL shares at a strike price of $500 per share and maturity date 2016-09-01″. The abstraction levels implicit in the words “creationism” and “simulationism” are lower than the abstraction level at which they turn into the same concept.
The not-created [...] (=God)
So, that’s the answer I remarked was the best one I could see, and I explained why I don’t find it a good answer, and you ignored that without comment.
The hacker.
Well, at least in this case you did make some comments that kinda engage with my comments on that answer, so let’s see.
an absent god, not not-a-god.
I think it’s the combination of his absence with the other features I mentioned that make him not-a-god.
he can shut down his computer
Yup. I don’t think the ability to destroy the universe is sufficient for godhood. (Suppose some clever physicist discovers a way for us to destroy the universe—but it doesn’t enable us to do anything else. Does that make us gods?)
or twiddle the rules of the universe
Except that he has no idea which of the bazillion universes his computer is simulating is ours, and he’s lost the source code for his universe simulator and isn’t smart enough to make sense of the object code. He could reach in and twiddle things at random, but that wouldn’t (e.g.) enable him to make any specific change, and the most likely consequence would be that the simulation would crash.
which would look awfully like a miracle.
Given the details I laid out, it would look like an awfully hamfisted miracle; he would have no actual control over what he did.
It only looks weird when expressed in the language of computers.
The simulation hypothesis is better known as creationism.
Although I appreciate the parallel, and am skeptical of both, the mental paths that lead to those somewhat related ideas are seriously dissimilar.
Why would you care about mental paths if they lead to the same place?
These ideas are not “somewhat related”. They are literally the same.
Because the different paths may be of independent interest (e.g., creationism-in-the-usual-sense relates to questions of religion; the simulation hypothesis to questions of technology and fundamental physics). Because if one of these paths seems like a good path but its final destination is uninhabitable, the place you back off to may be different depending on what path you took.
Only if you define “creationism” or “simulation” in an unorthodox way.
“Creationism” is universally[1] understood to mean the idea that the world was created by a god, and that term “god” has a whole lot of other baggage; if it turns out that our world was made in some other-universe hacker’s basement, and that the hacker has no idea we even exist, no particular interest in how his pet universe comes out, no extraordinary mental capabilities or moral perfections, etc., then no one would call him a “god” and this would not be a scenario to vindicate the creationists.
[1] Near enough.
“Simulation” is universally[2] understood to mean the idea that our world’s existence is as a pattern of information inside something very computer-like. If, e.g., it turns out that everything we see around us is ideas in the mind of God a la Berkeley, that would be highly un-computer-like and this would not be a scenario to vindicate the simulationists.
[2] Near enough.
The two ideas are certainly closely related. They are both special cases of the same general idea (that our universe is a thing that has been made by someone else). But no, they are not the same idea.
If you drag in the baggage, there will be baggage. If you don’t, there won’t. A lot of smart people thought for a long time about what it means for the world to have been created.
Simulation universally[0] means that our universe is part of a larger system outside of it which works by different rules; and that some entity constructed our world and by that virtue has supernatural powers over it.
[0] Near enough.
They are that same general idea.
The baggage is part of the meaning of the word. Look it up in a good dictionary. Look at how it’s actually used.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that you agree that they’re different special cases of a single general idea, then I think we are in agreement (and I just don’t understand why you’re so determined to call them “the same” when they are in fact not the same). But if you mean that they are not merely different special cases, but that each in fact has the exact same meaning as (what I’m claiming to be) the more general idea, I think that’s flatly wrong.
(The best answer I can see: our universe is being simulated by the Mind of God. No, says the traditionalist Christian, our universe is not a part of God, it is not a mere mental creation; it is an actual separate thing.)
Suppose traditionalist Christians are right in every detail. Then creationism is correct; if creationism and simulationism are the same thing, then simulationism must also be correct. In that case, please tell me what is simulating our universe.
Suppose our universe was made by a hacker in another universe who set his unthinkably powerful computer simulating universes with random simple-ish physical laws and has since then completely forgotten the program is even running. Then simulationism is correct; if creationism and simulationism are the same thing, then creationism must also be correct. In that case, please tell me what being plays the role of God in this scenario.
(The best answer I can see: the hacker is God. But he doesn’t even know our universe exists and certainly has no idea what’s going on within it. In principle he could discover the program running on his computer, find a way of inspecting its state, and figure out what that means in terms of in-universe events; but as it happens he has nowhere near the brainpower or the patience for that. Neither is he supremely wise or good or anything of the sort. He just happens to have a really fast computer.)
LOL.
So, within the framework of the simulation hypothesis let us consider the entity which made our universe and runs it. Why is it not a god? Which necessary attributes of godhood does it lack? What makes it not belong in a class denoted by the word “god”?
I’m pointing at abstraction levels.
Are a Ferrari and a Hummer the same thing? They are both cars. But they are different “special cases” of cars.
Are a Ferrari Spider and a Ferrari Lusso the same thing? They are different “special cases” of Ferraris.
Are Alice’s Ferrari 488 Spider and Bob’s Ferrari 488 Spider the same thing? They are different “special cases” of Ferrari 488 Spiders.
The not-created. Traditional Christian ontology starts with the basic divide between the not-created (=God) and the created (=our world).
The hacker. The fact that he’s absent at the moment makes him an absent god, not not-a-god. Notice that he can shut down his computer or twiddle the rules of the universe. Or just reach in and change things directly which would look awfully like a miracle.
The usual reason for laughing at the idea of looking in a dictionary would be because the meaning of a word is really determined by how it’s used and dictionaries merely report that. But in this case, the sentence immediately after the one you quoted (which you mysteriously didn’t quote) was “Look at how it’s actually used”. So could you explain, please, what you found so funny?
I think all those questions are answered quite well in the last two paragraphs of the comment you were replying to.
Yes, I understand that. But words come with particular (rough) abstraction levels built in: “thing”, “asset”, “financial instrument”, “financial derivative”, “option”, “call option on an equity”, “American call option on Apple shares”, “American call option on 100 AAPL shares at a strike price of $500 per share and maturity date 2016-09-01″. The abstraction levels implicit in the words “creationism” and “simulationism” are lower than the abstraction level at which they turn into the same concept.
So, that’s the answer I remarked was the best one I could see, and I explained why I don’t find it a good answer, and you ignored that without comment.
Well, at least in this case you did make some comments that kinda engage with my comments on that answer, so let’s see.
I think it’s the combination of his absence with the other features I mentioned that make him not-a-god.
Yup. I don’t think the ability to destroy the universe is sufficient for godhood. (Suppose some clever physicist discovers a way for us to destroy the universe—but it doesn’t enable us to do anything else. Does that make us gods?)
Except that he has no idea which of the bazillion universes his computer is simulating is ours, and he’s lost the source code for his universe simulator and isn’t smart enough to make sense of the object code. He could reach in and twiddle things at random, but that wouldn’t (e.g.) enable him to make any specific change, and the most likely consequence would be that the simulation would crash.
Given the details I laid out, it would look like an awfully hamfisted miracle; he would have no actual control over what he did.