This is a very interesting proposition and I would like to know if Musk has thought about the theological implications of his claim. I mean, his idea (which is apparently just a stronger conviction about one of three possibilities proposed by an Oxford professor) presupposes the existence of a being or group of beings (let's call it 'realm') 'running' this simulation so, unless he adheres to some form of infinite regress (every realm up the ladder from ours is itself a simulation, ad infinitum), there must be a realm that is not itself a simulation, or 'base reality' as he calls it. Here is a competing claim: "Then God said: 'Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness.'" Is this the kind of simulation he has in mind? :)

Juanfer

I would respectfully disagree. While it is true that a certificate by itself does not indicate whether a person excels in the matter, an honest candidate would follow a course of study that leads to the certification and benefit in the process by gaining not only knowledge but also an increase in quality of the knowledge he/she already has. In general our experience provides knowledge in certain focused areas that widen as we have to solve more problems, but theory fills in the gaps and provides hints on better approaches for future challenges by showing what goes on behind the scene and how it works. I have met people on both sides, most of them favoring experience over a theoretical foundation, but also the other way around. In reality, a professional approach does not rule out either one of them, and hiring managers draw conclusions from our opinions on them as well. An experienced developer who is able to give examples of his proficiency shows them he is willing to go the extra mile by producing a related certification. In some cases, it can also expedite the hiring process. In summary, a certification could potentially be a good thing, but never a bad one. The question would then be: why not get it if you can?

Juanfer

Thanks for your link to Dawkins' article, which I had not read until today. It is great to quote atheists because, as Greg Bahnsen said, you won’t have to wait long before they supply the rope with which they hang themselves. I actually agree with Dawkins' approach: we should track down a problem and fix it. With that said, I must say also that this approach can only be consistently applied from the Judeo-Christian worldview, which presupposes the existence of God. Why? Simple, let's apply Dawkins’ principle to his own worldview and check for inconsistencies: He says “we laugh at [Basil’s] irrationality”, and “As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics”. Here are some problems I find: Unless Basil’s brains are the exception, how can Dawkins justify anybody laughing at the actions produced by a brain that is governed by the laws of physics? His laughing at Basil’s irrationality suggests that he presupposes the value of the laws of reason in the proper functioning of the brain. Now, giving Dawkins an undeserved higher ground and not asking him to account for the material aspect of any kind of ‘law’ (which he will still have to do), I would like to nominate him to teach a new college course: The Physics of the Laws of Reason and then enroll in it to get enlightened in the matter. In summary, a materialist like Dawkins has to be utterly (even though not necessarily consciously) convinced of the reality of the immaterial, universal and transcendental laws of reason, in order to argue against the existence of anything with these characteristics. If he is right, then the laws of reason do not exist, but in this case he would have no grounds to ‘laugh’ at anybody that does not conform to what does not exist, would he?

Juanfer

Thanks. I will post as soon as I get a chance.

Juanfer

Oops. I will need a little help here from you. Where is it and how do I create the thread over there? Thanks.

Juanfer

I see what you mean; I just realized this. Funny.:laugh:

Juanfer

Kent, Thanks for taking the time to address comprehensively the issues I presented in my first post. Please bear with me as I have to confess I am somewhat slow and it will take time for me to cover the amount of information you provided. If I may ask, please check my other response about our worldviews and then we can start examining each one of your answers to find out whether they meet the definition of ‘observations’, ‘assumptions’, ‘rational conclusions from observations’, or rather ‘requirements’ for the evolutionary worldview to be believable. In the process I intend to adhere to our principles of avoiding inconsistencies and arbitrariness. Thanks.

Juanfer

Kent Sharkey wrote:

We can never use absolute language, just as I could never say, "When I flick this switch, the light will always come on.”

Kent, This is a good start to apply the laws of reason to test the internal consistency of our worldviews, as I proposed in a previous post. I would say that I disagree and agree at the same time, but in a different sense. Let me explain: The statement “We can never use absolute language” is itself absolute and, therefore, contradictory or absurd. If it is true then it is false and, if it is false then it is true. How is it then that I can agree and disagree and still be rational? First, I can agree if we both assume the existence of an external context from which the affirmation can be made about the object of it. For example, I would agree if you say “We can never use absolute language” to refer to the level of certainty we can achieve from within the limited realm of our observations. But this makes sense for the Christian; this is the realm of the unseen or invisible things we call laws, which are nothing more than the impersonal name we give to what we cannot observe but neither deny. Talking about Jesus, the letter to the Colossians describes Him as: "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible", "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." You may not believe this or consider it preposterous but, is this not internally consistent and also with our own experience and reason? What would be a rational alternative? On the other hand, I would have to disagree if we consider the whole realm of reality, simply because we have just used an absolute statement showing our belief in such things, haven’t we? As a Christian, the use of absolutes is perfectly acceptable and thus we can make sense of mathematics, proofs, physics, etc., even if our understanding of them is open to discussion. How do they make sense for a non-Christian? If we deny absolutes, rational consistency would demand from us to stop using ‘=’ and similar symbols, along with any declarative statement containing words such as ‘is’, ‘does’, ‘causes’, ‘becomes’, ‘evolves’, etc. and replace or modify them with terms like ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’, ‘probably’ and the like. In conclusion, faith has to be necessarily exercised regarding any affirmation about absolutes, either to deny or to accept them.

Kent, I completely agree with you: inconsistencies should not be allowed in a rational exchange. Let me just add to it that the same applies for arbitrariness; would you agree? If this is the case, I think we have a workable framework to scrutinize our worldviews. You should be already excited then, for if ‘Special Creation’, which is what I advocate, is merely a conjecture, I must be at a great disadvantage after I decided to take on evolution if it is such a well established scientific theory. Consistency and the preponderance of evidence would be on your side, making my task titanic and yours very simple. I consider it fair for me to start with the grounds of my worldview to avoid confusion, so you don’t have to guess where I am going. Throughout any subsequent exchanges I will try to show how the worldview I hold to is internally consistent and rational, and this is not contingent upon our own psychological or personal preferences. In other words, the fact that I believe it does not make it real if it isn’t, and the fact that you don’t believe it does not make it unreal if it is. Of course, I have to grant that our beliefs have a psychological effect on us, but this matter is not relevant for this discussion. I will also try to be ready to acknowledge and correct any violation of the laws of reason or ambiguities that you may find in my posts. Here we go: I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and the reliable foundation to account consistently for the various aspects of human knowledge and experience, which is not the same as saying that I expect to find in it a description of every conceivable personal affair or scientific observation. In consequence, I believe its affirmation that we have been created in the image of God and thus share some of His attributes but not all, according to the fundamental creator-creation distinction. From God’s revelation I learn that faith “is the evidence of things not seen” and that “through faith [I] understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear”. Even though I did not see the worlds as God created them, I find that faith, as defined here, continues to be the key to understand my own experience and the way I interact with the environment. From the premises above I find it perfectly reasonable to observe the world around me and hope that the events I observe follow a set of rules or laws that, though invisible, allow me to predict fut

Given your willingness to accept that an external agent ‘drives’ evolution I see no need to determine whether or not Pasteur’s and the chemical views of spontaneous generation are really different in principle. I would just say in passing about Fox’s experiment that we must critically examine any statement suggesting that, just because we can manufacture something using our will and aligning the process with the results we expect, it will necessarily follow that it must have happened naturally, especially without those necessary conditions! For the problematic assumptions in Fox’s experiment: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=79 I consider this more foundational, though:

Kent Sharkey wrote:

I'm willing to accept the belief of some people that an external agent "drives" evolution.

What is this agent exactly external to? Is it just external to the earth but still part of the naturally observable phenomena, a transcendent being like God, or something else we cannot know anything about? Moreover, if we believe that this external factor, which we can call A for convenience, was required in the origin of life, and that arbitrariness is not an option in our scientific approach, when do we and what would be the reason for us to remove A from our subsequent equations? Where A's location after the kick-off?

Juanfer

Kent, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I understand what you mean. On the other hand, it is precisely the nature of those 'selective forces', their source and the direction in which they operate what is in question. These 'forces' along with the use of terms like 'could', 'maybe', 'probably', etc. are ubiquitous in almost every statement I have found in favor of evolution; these terms could easily be associated with eastern mysticism. If we try to make a case for evolution as science, we must be ready to apply the full rigor of the term to it. In other words, the fact that we can conceive of something does not make it real. If we assume (again, by faith) that such 'selective forces' exist, we still need to answer our belief about how 'easy' it really is for them to cause beneficial changes, particularly in spite of Haldane's Dilemma, which has yet to be satisfactorily resolved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma Walter ReMine seems to have found a clarification to the dilemma, but his paper is apparently rejected on unscientific grounds: http://saintpaulscience.com/a_tale_of_peer-review.htm Regards,

Juanfer

Kent, It looks like the conversation between you and Ilíon is a little heated at this point and I was at first hesitant to reply, but I hope you take it as it is intended. Before talking about one possible proof, please consider first my previous post on the foundational faith required even for requesting one. Mathematics and physics are no exception to this principle. Take for example this statement from a discussion about set theory: "There is a further, very serious obstacle, which is that, as Gödel showed, it is impossible to prove the consistency of ZF within ZF. This means that we have to take the consistency of our axioms on faith". http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/settheory.html Now to the proof. Nobel Prize winner George Wald (1906–1997): "There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can't accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution." (George Wald, "Origin, Life and Evolution," Scientific American (1978). Quoted in Joe White and Nicholas Comninellis, Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take the Heat (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 46.)

Juanfer

Kent,

Kent Sharkey wrote:

If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data.

I think this is what I did in my original post. In consistency with your premise you should at least acknowledge that evolution is not the best explanation for the data. Other evolutionists have done it, like Prof. Jerome Lejeune, internationally recognized geneticist: "We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…" -- modified at 10:25 Saturday 17th March, 2007

Juanfer

Kent,

Kent Sharkey wrote:

The scientific method does not require any practices, values, etc. other than the endless cycle of observation, hypothesis, proposal, test, theory.

I understand how we have come to assume this to be the case, but this is not accurate for these disciplines require the exercise of our faith in the principles of causality and induction. Please follow this link and the interactions that followed to identify a few core beliefs upon which any scientist builds up the practice of his profession (note that Chris avoided the point by accusing me of trying to remove causality): http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?msg=1901714#xx1901714xx

Kent Sharkey wrote:

I give you my old Molecular Evolution professor. The professor I had for that final year course at University was a devout Mennonite. He believed in evolution, as science as observed and tested and refined the theory for > 100 years. He believed, however, that it was a mechanism of God. For him, and many others, this is a perfectly rational explanation.

I cannot question the sincerity of what your professor believed, but truth is independent from our particular opinions and these must be tested in some way to see if they conform to it. Even though any kind of test will necessarily start with faith (which I hope you have already accepted), it must be consistent with reason and evidence. In his case, I would present the same challenges about his worldview and how he can rationally and consistently arrive to a conclusion different from his God's revelation.

Kent Sharkey wrote:

Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis.

Please note from my original post that the attack was not on 'some facet' but on several points (not at all an exhaustive list) of the evolutionary theory. These points should make evident to any rational individual that the whole package is an exercise in philosophical absurdity, a castle built on thin air. The alternate hypothesis has already been presented in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. This hypothesis is perfectly consistent with all the available evidence and does not contain any of the inconsistencies I pointed out. You may disagree with this but, if t

Kent, I apologize for the delay in replying to your e-mail. Thanks for the clarification about the definition of species. Talking about the gulls, could this be an example of evolution, taken in the sense of gulls slowly becoming something else than gulls? Is their DNA gaining or loosing information if it is confirmed that they are going through a process of change? Regards, Juan

Juanfer

Thanks. I'll send you my e-mail address. You may delete your previous message if you want, to avoid spammers! :)

Juanfer

Ilíon, Please check the following from Bahnsen: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa001.htm Do you have any IM account? Regards.

Juanfer

Chris, I apologize for the tone of my latest posting and do indeed want to continue talking with you about all these issues if you agree. Please let me know and I will send my personal e-mail address. Best regards.

Juanfer

Ilíon, Please bear with me and read again my reasons to use Scripture with the unbeliever. It is true that we use reason and it is because we have grounds for it; that is why I started this whole debate, with the ultimate purpose of showing what has become evident all along. The materialist claims to trust in his senses and whatever can be shown, proven or measured, rather than anything immaterial or invisible. But, lo and behold! It turns out that they have built their whole edifice upon the... immaterial and invisible laws of logic, reason and the ethical duty to defend their views; a big castle in the air. I trusted what the Bible already claims to be true about unbelievers. The fact that they deny God does not mean they don't know Him at all; they are supressing this knowledge in unrighteousness. Why trust them in this affirmation? Aren't we all liars in our nature, even more claiming to be atheists? I rather take what the Bible says at face value and then put it to the test with the unbeliever; voilá! he does very well the rest of the job by refuting himself. It is not just that most atheists do not want to become Christians. Chris Losinger thought I was suggesting that he 'wanted' Jesus, when the Biblical statement is that 'nobody' wants God (Rom 3:10) and he has to change the heart, as He did with yours and mine, for anybody to come to Him. I agree that intellect played a key role in the expansion of the Christian church; it could not be otherwise if Christ claimed properly to be The Truth. However, I would disagree in affirming that reason was its sole pillar, as unbelievers can see whether we live up to the standards we claim to hold. The debaters were few, while the witnesses of Christian care, love, meekness and integrity were many, spread throughout the whole Roman Empire. Moreover, the advancement of the church rests first and foremost in the promise of Jesus that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, for He is its solid foundation. Finally, you seem determined not to start with what the Scriptures claim to be what everybody knows: God. My question is not why the unbeliever does not trust the Bible, the answer has already been given. My question is why you choose not to follow it on this. Blessings.

Juanfer

Ilíon,

Ilíon wrote:

quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic

Being the Bible our trustworthy source of knowledge, my purpose in using it with the unbeliever is twofold: it is targeted directly to him not as a proof of the argument (this may become evident if you read those posts again with this explanation in mind), but as a confrontation with content he may otherwise never see again because of his natural rejection towards the Scriptures, which also happen to be the grounds for the philosophical challenge he still has to answer; but it is also targeted indirectly to me as a reminder of who really is the ultimate authority whenever I try to make any truth claim, to keep me away from the ever present tendency towards arrogance, self-praise and reliance on my own 'unaided reason'. With the believer I use the Bible as proof, as I am intending to do here:

Ilíon wrote:

to be logically consistent, one's denial that God exists *must* entail the denial that oneself really exists. But, this is absurd; one *knows* that oneself exists. Therefore, one *knows* that the denial that God exists is false; therefore, one *knows* that God exists.

To prove the existence of God, shall we start with our 'self' or God's? Biblical perspective "In the beginning God" (Gen 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1) "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Pr 1:7) "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Ps 14:1) There is a natural tendency for us, as I usually experience, to meet the humanist in his own unchallenged terms without realizing that, in so doing, we are conceding a terrain they cannot claim as theirs, as we have done to this day with science. This approach, nevertheless, can be taken if our purpose is to show how their position leads only to absurdity, because the truth has nothing to fear from exposure to the light. What is the biblical approach? "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Pr 26:4,5) "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2Cor 10:5). "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven ag