Friday, April 29, 2016

Is Neil Degrasse Tyson an ID supporter?

The ID in question would be computer simulation. Still.....Here. 


SteveK said...

From the article:

"One of the main arguments that physicists use to talk about what's known as the "simulation hypothesis" is that if we can prove that it's possible to simulate a universe — if we can figure out all the laws that govern how everything works (which physicists are trying to do) — that makes it much more likely that it is actually simulated."

If something is possible, it's more likely to be the case??
To your question, Victor, I think this argument belongs on the ID side of the ledger.

William said...

If you watch Neil's subtle eye rolls at the start, during the first few minutes, you can tell he's rather double minded about the hypothesis at the least. I think he gets more certain-sounding later in the discussion in order to get more of a rise from the panelists. In other words, he trolls a bit.

John B. Moore said...

Doesn't Christianity pretty much say we're living in a simulation? I expect my apologetics friends will start using this as another reason to believe in God.

By the way, Nick Bostrom's original simulation argument is here. He lays it out in a careful, straightforward way.

Ilíon said...

some materialist fool: "But "if we can figure out all the laws that govern how everything works (which physicists are trying to do)" that would demolish the AFR."

... they just can't stop begging the question, can they?

Ilíon said...

"Doesn't Christianity pretty much say we're living in a simulation?"

No. Christianity says that human beings really are persons/agents; the "people" in a simulation are no more persons/agents -- nor can they be, definitionally -- than the "people" in a novel are persons/agents.

"I expect my apologetics friends will start using this as another reason to believe in God."

That rather depends upon what you mean by "this", doesn't it? And it's not as though we/they have only today heard of this strange-and-desperate grasping-at-straws that some materialists are attempting.

Ilíon said...

"If something is possible, it's more likely to be the case??"

Of course not, but that is one of the steps in materialistic/atheistic "thinking".

It goes something like this --

* If I can imagine it, it is conceivable.

* If I can conceive it, it is possible.

* If it is possible, it is likely.

* If it is likely, it is probable.

* If it is probable, it is certain.

* If it is certain, than your showing that it is logically impossible only means that you're "reasoning" illogically (even if I never can identify where you made a mistake, or even attempt to do so).

* Plus, you're a H8er! to deny my "reasoning", and you need to be silenced.

Once one understands *how* they are "reasoning", one can see why they so quickly display their despite of logic ... even as they try to parage around as the Paragons of Reason, for logic immediately identifies the disconnect between the two clauses of each sentence and between each sentence and the following.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I've seen that kind of reasoning among atheists on message boards for years. l've written blog pieces about it. It is most often employed in God arguments. If there is the slightest possibility that some scenario might be, then it must be as long as it's an alternative to belief oim God.

jdhuey said...

The materialist that is arguing in lion example only needs to go as far as to show that something is possible, then if if someone 'proves' that it is logically impossible then there must be a flaw somewhere in the "proof". The other steps listed would be important only if the materialist wanted to make a positive argument for the alternative.

In my experience, the argument that there is a possible alternate explanation is simply a counter to the arguments that are made that employ the argument from ingnorance: we don't know how X happened, therefore Jesus. QED. But, if there is any possible alternative explanation, then our ignorance is proof only of our ignorance but not for any diety.

Gyan said...

"Simulation hypothesis" is again a species of idealism and like all species of idealism, it is destructive of knowledge.

Knowledge can only begin with the affirmation of the external world and the particular concrete objects therein.

evangelism said...

just watched the video-
"2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?"
Very interesting. They are discussing 'ID' (intelligent design) without the acceptance of the already existing Intelligent Designer. His possible existence was hinted at however.
Some of them are tolerant of the idea of a God 'superior intelligent designer being existing' but one philosopher said the reason he does not accept the proposed Christian God is because the Old Testament portrays a malevolent God. They imply though that they would accept a God creator of a simulation and would not question his morals I believe its because his morality is not important to pursing their belief towards proving the simulator's existence.
So whether God is malevolent or benevolent is not an argument that he does not exist and therefore they should conclude that God exist but according to the book of Romans "its not that they don't believe God exists it is that they deny or refuse to accept his existence".