Moderation Questions

IIRC pretty much all the fundamental constants can be derived from the fine structure constant and the speed of light (or to be more precise, the speed limit of causality, which is also the speed at which massless particles travel). I guess they are arbitrary, but they had to be something didn't they? I don't see how that's an argument for a sentient creator at all.

What you are ignoring is that there was only slightly over three minutes left in the game. If there was five or more minutes left then knowing what you need to do makes more sense. You are correct, the Eagles knew what they had to do after failing the conversion. They had to go for an onside kick which has a 5% chance of success. The Eagles quickly found out they were gonna lose. If they kicked the extra point they now would have hope. They could try to force the Bears to make a mistake. They could possibly not have to kick it onside at all. All of this was taken away by going for two early.

The points from the safety are counted towards your same possession.

This is now a logical contradiction with how you’re using the term one possession, because the way you are using it, when you score and bring it within eight points, the “one-possession game” refers to either when you or your opponent has the ball. So forcing the stop is not considered an extra possession. Likewise, the safety is a forced stop that gets you two points plus the ball. So technically if you’re within 9 or 10 points you can get it all back on one possession, right?

It’s just a stupid concept that dumb jocks came up with, which is why people are razzing you over it.

Well the point of fine tuning arguments is that physicists think that if they were just slightly different by relatively minuscule amounts that nothing “interesting” would happen (meaning the universe would just fizzle out within a few moments of the initial conditions). If we assume an infinite range that those constants can fall under, then it follows that the chances of those constants falling in that range is likewise infinitely small. Therefore the fine tuning argument concludes that a life-permitting universe is more expected under a world where the constants were determined by some kind of all powerful deity.

There’s responses to that of course but that’s the general idea. I’m not referring to the crass “hurr durr human can’t come from no puddle” intelligent design argument.

Well there's always the anthropic argument - if they weren't that, then we wouldn't be around to ask these questions. There is a theory that there is an infinite loop of expanding and contracting universes with different initial conditions, for example, so it's an inevitability that some of them will have values conducive to producing some sort of intelligent life forms. I certainly find that theory much more persuasive than "hurr durr someone made a watch ergo someone made a universe".

Anyway, the point is, the fine tuning argument is not much of an argument for anything, it's an an as yet unexplained observation.

Aren’t Craig’s philosophical musings a form of projectile diarrhea?

Fair point.

The ol’ “potty mouth” counter.

Good one fellas..

I think the point for the designer hypothesis is that if in order to bring the data on parity with the designer hypothesis you have to posit a multiverse, then having it as a plausible candidate explanation is enough for the believer. Then when it’s time to assign probabilities they think that the probabilities are weighted towards the perfect being hypothesis.

I have my doubts about that but that’s how it’s supposed to work. So in that sense if you’re using the term argument as a synonym for a deductive argument (one where if the premises are true the conclusion couldn’t be false), then yeah it’s not that. They’d rather say it’s an inductive argument.

Lazier than everything happens according to Gods plan or my God is all powerful, all knowing and benevolent? I don’t think so.

Gotta luv, "I pray for x."

If x doesn't come true, "It's God's will;" if x does come true, "The power of prayer."

Craig's going to explain to us how some scrubs praying for things influences an all powerful deity.

I don’t pray. I complete the mission.

So you're saying there is nothing God can do for you that you can't do for yourself? That could be true.

You should pray.

Craig, do you hang around on street corners delivering the good news to passers-by like lagtight?

Why? Do as I say and not as I do?

Torture chamber. Unceasing. Year after year.

For the passers-by, right?

Chez, you seem to be obsessed with this simulation bollocks, you bring it up at every opportunity. I have a suspicion you're confusing it for a similar word with a second "t" in it.

It's a very good way to understand the logic for obvious reasons. I wouldn't expect you to be keen.

Th difficult bits are where/if the universe isn't simualtable.

I mean I like where this is going. Just put every hypothesis into the bucket of “designed” or “not designed” and then see what the theoretical virtues of each side are. The one with the most theoretical virtues wins out in my mind. I think the not designed side has more theoretical virtues for reasons that are just way too long to explain and I’m probably not the right person to do it.

But for the similar reasons I’d prefer atheism to theism I would also prefer not simulation to simulation. Although some people say the opposite route and think that you need the theism to oppose the simulation. Which I find funny because who could make a better simulated reality than an all powerful God? That’s why I always found Descartes's answer to skepticism puzzling.

For me it depends what you mean by 'atheism'. If it's the absence of belief then I'm with you. I'm just in it for the philosophy/logic and stuck with the politics. The idea that people are worshipping some child who long neglected their sim toy to play with the box amuses me. I'd quite like it to be true but can't have belief it is.

Long time ago but from class I recall a suggestion that the god stuff from Descartes was there more to appease the oppressors of the time than because he believed it to be correct (something to do with a letter to Huygens). Novel proofs may have also been like an intellectual sport of time. I'm skeptical about all this as well.

The world being a simulation is in most ways identical to the idea of the world being the result of a creator.

Thousands of years ago someone notes that powerful rulers have the ability to mold the world around them to their desire, and they go from that to imagining that everything they see was made the same way. Today we see developers with machines capable of modelling small worlds to their desire, and you from that to imagining that everything you see is made the same way. These are appealing ideas, because they are simple, elegant and easy to shape to your own preferences.

Of course, on the more advanced side of things there are a lot of pop scientists out there who argue that in certain ways the world behaves like a simulation and that various phenomena behave like information. This isn't strictly speaking true. It is when you put observation into models and phenomena into calculations this happens, and that models behave like simulations and calculations behave like information is actually not particularly noteworthy.

Simulation theory does at least offer an explanation for the problem of spooky action at a distance.