That other thread was a bit of a trainwreck, and I wanted a more clear thread.

I think there is no answer to the "riddle" of the cosmological argument. Physics boils down near the Planck epoch, logic goes into infinite regression and even theology doesn't really agree (creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex deo, creatio ex hylis... they all got names and people have been burned for agreeing with all of them).

But I think there is a more rational "answer" to be found. The creation of universes is theoretically possible (it's certainly conjecture, but it isn't absurd conjecture). And I think if we had the power to design one, we would - because we, as a species, like designing and making stuff.

And the "parent" universe wouldn't necessarily have to conform to our notions of physical laws (like say... causality). Which of course, in the realm of the "quasi armchair philosophers" gives an appealing reason as to why our causality often appears to be anything but causal when we look closely at it. But I digress.

So I see nothing wrong with the notion that a being created our universe, it doesn't conflict with anything I know or see. I don't _believe_ in it, that's why I'm an atheist - but it isn't an idea that strikes me as far-fatched, merely unknowable. And yes, I know the purpose of the cosmological argument is to be _proof_, and this is just guesswork - but hey, I don't think it is possible to go much further than that.

Of course, when we go over to revealed religion, things get more difficult and the beliefs much more open debate. But I think the debate about those religions is best carried out firmly rooted in our world.

Finding the basic thesis plausible (and perhaps finding various fine tuning arguments or the like persuasive) but the specific conceptions of God untenable is perhaps why some people are attracted to arguments that reality is a simulation.

Immediate derail, sorry.

I don't see an immediate connection between the simulation argument and cosmological/fine tuning arguments?

To quote from the conclusion of that paper:

Tame, if you want I can take this to a new thread.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that they were similar as arguments. I was free associating a little bit, you might say. The topic of the thread is "an alternative cosmological argument", and tame_deuces writes:

and this reminded me of the simulation argument. Not because it's a similar argument, but because it's a conjecture about beings creating universes. I might also say that the simulation and fine tuning arguments are vaguely like ontological or cosmological arguments in the sense that people seek for explanations of why we find the world the way it is rather than some other way. They all entail some kind of search for a larger context in which the universe makes sense.

Nono, it's interesting stuff. I was just thinking loudly anyway.

I see analogies to the simulation hypotheticals, though there is also clear differences.

Well as I have experiences of beings like humans. And I have experiences of beings creating things around me like a sculpture. And "a being created this sculpture" is very familiar language. So the syntax of "a being created a universe" is fine. But are we really carrying much meaning here? Like the statement seems reasonable based on my experiences with beings and things not remotely like gods and universes.

I think that is a bit unreasonable. We know that there are beings who like to create things, we know the possibility of "making a universe" is not an unreasonable conjecture (debatable conjecture yes, but it's not fringe science - you can certainly create pockets with different laws of physics) - put those two together and you get the idea.

To go from this to some guesswork about god is of course unknowable, but I don't see it as very problematic. People who believe there is life in other parts of our universe - or follow ideas that there might be such life - do similar thinking. They take something known and spin on the possibilities thereof.

You are claiming that some statement is a logical possibility. In this case, that it could be that being created the universe. For me to agree with you that this is a logical possibility, I feel like there should be some actual cognitive content in this statement. But is there?

I know humans who like to make things like sculptures. I can construct sentences about beings making universes. I certainly agree that the sentence is syntactically correct, and makes use of familiar words I understand in a day to day context. But I'm not sure what, exactly, I'm accepting as a possibility in this other context.


For instance, if someone said to me that "there are a finite number of primes" was a logical possibility, I understand enough about this sentence to agree that yes that could be the possible, even though it has been proven false. But my objection is that "a being created the universe" isn't a statement I understand well enough to really accept or reject as a logical possibility. I don't know what most of the words in that sentence mean in that context, for instance.

Possibility is not the word here. It's extremely conjectural, it isn't a possibility - it is the guesswork that a possibility might exist. You're not saying it is possible the coin will land on heads, you're saying the existence of the coin isn't unheard of.

Suffice to say there are physicists who think one can create universes, small bubbles that operate under other physical laws - and there exists experiments that support that notion. Some disagree, some agree on exactly what has been shown - but that' how theoretical physics go.

As for not knowing stuff. If we go into the deep matter of things (literally) we don't even know what a sculpture is. We can still talk about it via the constructs we use to describe said statue, and it isn't like such thinkings never has taken us anywhere.

Mary and her seven-year-old son Mark were visiting the science museum. Mark who showed a keen interest in astronomy wanted to visit the new universal origins display.

Forty years ago Scientists worked out a way the universe must have started. The end result; the museum now had a create a universe display. A miniature black hole in a box, press the button and watch a new universe bud off. You could then watch your universe's development over the internet. Rather boring as time in the newly budded universe progressed much slower.

Mark took his place at the end of the queue and waited his turn. When he got to the front he pressed a button and our universe was created.

Mark studied geography at college, then got a job as a landscape gardener. He married one of his clients and had two children. He died at age 86 from complications after a heart attack. When he died the universe he created, our universe, was still less than a second old.

I really liked that.

OK. I used possible because that was the word you used in the OP, but sure let's take "guesswork that a possibility might exist". So if I assent to this vague claim, what am I actually doing?

I feel you are stuck between two extremes. Either you are saying nothing at all, you are just making a syntactically correct sentence but not transmitting cognitive content with it. Or you really ARE saying something nontrivial that I'm supposed to assent to, but to which you can't justify.

As in, if I say that I am guessing that it might be possible that god created the universe, what am I even doing? I don't really understand what most of the words mean in this context. I get people creating sculptures, but not beings creating universes. So if I was to agree about the vague maybe possibility guess of the latter being the case, have I actually meaningfully done anything?

You don't understand the words "being", "create" and "universe"? I'm pretty sure I've seen you use all of them on this forum on multiple occasions. Color me skeptical.

Anyway, there is plenty of pop-science material to look up. You can check out "test tube universes" or "universes from black holes" on google, if you are actually interested.

Sure, I've used those words. But that isn't the same as accepting that "a being created a universe" is something I really understand. I get what a being means in the context of a human or a moose or an alien even. I get what create means in a context of creating a sculpture. So sure, at a very vacuous syntax level I "understand" what "a being created a universe" means. We have an object, a verb, and a subject. But at the level of imparting some higher level of understanding, no, not really. What is a being in the context of something creating universes? I don't understand that at all. Again, I htink you are caught between saying nothing at all, or trying to say something nontrivial but without justification. What claim - or guess of a possible maybe - exactly is it you think I should accept? And why should I accept it?

I'm not sure exactly what point googling pop science universes is supposed to convey.

not sure what this is about....my posts were in good faith

I guess I'm at a loss at exactly it is you have trouble understanding. Do you want me to explain what beings in a hypothetical different universe are like? I can't. I can't even explain what said hypothetical universe would be like. I can't even say if said hypothetical universe is describable with terms that are possible in our universe. And even then, we're still in the conjecture. But I know there are beings, I know there is a universe, I know it is a possibility that beings can create universes (because we know from experiments we can create bubbles where the laws of physics behave differently). I extrapolate from there. I don't see your issue and I don't see what is "vacuous" about it.

And yes, of course I have to do caveats, I actually find it somewhat insulting that caveats should imply "vacuousness". If you don't know or can't know, you have to admit it. That's the opposite of vacuousness, that is sound.

You seem to be struggling with the concept of "conjecture", and that isn't really my fault. For example, the hypothesis is a sub-category of conjecture, basically a conjecture that can be tested. Conjectures are ideas, open discussions and notions that doesn't fly in the face of what you know, but often do thread where you can't know.

You begin incredulous at what I don't understand. Then you go on to list all of things that you and I agree we don't understand. You've focused on what we don't understand about "universe" - that's the one I get most even if it is still super unclear - but may I presume you would agree we similarly are at a huge loss when it comes to understanding these hypothetical "beings" and what such a being is doing when they "create" and a universe? If so, it seems we are at a loss of any form of real understanding of all of the operative words in "beings create universes".

Yet at the end you confidently declare that despite all this unknown nature you DO know that beings creating universes is a possibility. I don't even know what that sentence means!

When I say it is vacuous, it isn't an insult nor a comment about your qualifications on your conjecture. It is that I don't think the phrase you are accepting carries much actual meaning. And it is sort of deceptively so, because we have a clear mental pictures of beings creating things like humans creating sculptures. But just because that mental picture is clear doesn't mean beings creating universes is clear, especially given how I have absolutely no idea about how just about any of the words work in THAT context. So I'm left agreeing with you that it is a syntactically correct sentence, and that's about it.


What experiments, exactly, are you talking about? Because I'm not sure that experiments at CERN or whatever you are talking about really are informing our understanding of "beings creating universes" like our own. And if that is the case - if you are making a case about physics and what that implies - then this seems like the wrong forum.

Uke, that you don't understand it doesn't make it vacuous, especially when you don't see the point of following tips to educate yourself on the issue. Increasingly long walls of text won't make your case better, either.

Put very simply there is an offshoot of string theory that thinks universes can inflate out of black holes. Experiments on a small scale (for example the Lancaster test tube experiment) seems to verify parts of this conjecture, creating conditions which behave very much like a small universe. We also know from physics that it is theoretically possible to create black holes.

Put these two together, and you get what Piers' story hinted at.

Of course even the physics behind this are conjectural, and I'm taking it a step further into a realm best described as fiction - which I have been upfront about the entire time. Nor am I an an expert at neither string theory nor black holes. It is not however, without meaning, as you repeatedly keep claiming.

I would think the ramifications for a discussion on theology should be obvious. Speculative yes, but certainly not a bad fit.

Again, I'm a bit at a loss of where the attitude is coming from here. I've been trying to make a point in good faith. You don't seem to be appreciating how I'm going about it.

If a sentence doesn't come with some conveyed meaning, I'm calling it vacuous. That's the sense in which I am using this word. Normally when we say something like "humans create sculptures" there is a lot of shared context that everyone understands about the words and how they relate; that is, some nontrivial meaning is transmitted here. The point I was trying to get engagement on was that "beings create universes" doesn't have that shared context and nontrivial meaning being transmitted here. I don't think in this contex we have any clue about any of these words and aren't really accomplishing anything by saying that. I'm neither denying or affirming it as a guess as a maybe of a possibility, I'm saying it isn't understood enough to be meaningful.



Ok? There is certainly fascinating physics here. And if this is the domain of discussion then I might be able to get on board. Because something like the lancaster experiment is something concrete we can understand and discuss (ok, i don't really understand it because string theory is hard, but you get the point...that's a different type of not understanding). Like talking about how physics experiments might inform creation of universe theories is an interesting discussion, but I don't think this is what your OP was doing. As I took your OP, it was more about asking us to assent to a much vaguer "beings create universe" type statement that I find - googled physics experiments or not - to be vacuous for the reasons I've described. Are we still not left with beings - which we understand nothing about - creating - through a process we understand nothing about - in a universe - which we understand nothing about - other universes? How am I supposed to agree or disagree with that being a possibility?

I think you're trying to give the concept of justification too much weight for the conversation. It seems you're the one who is stuck between the extremes in trying to force the position into one that's "justifiable."

Think more in the framework of internal coherence and less of logical deduction. Given some set of observations S, is it coherent for proposition P to be true while holding all of S? Since it's possible to conceive of statements P which are NOT coherent with S, the statement is not vacuous.

Have I given it any weight? My position has been that he is NOT really saying anything at all...just using words that make sense in a familiar context "humans create sculptures" but who knows what they might mean in this context of "beings create universes". What cognitive content is being conveyed by this sentence? Certainly I made absolutely zero comment about how me might go about defending his statement were it to mean something nontrivial. If there was any ambiguity at all: I was not in any way trying to force him into logical deductions vs internal coherence.

This seems like a just totally out of left field objection. But while we are out here, at least get it right:

This is utter nonsense. Just because P is demonstrably incoherent with S does not mean statement P' isn't vacuous. It is clear that "Sauron created the universe" is false as we know things about Sauron, like that he is a fictional character and fictional characters can't create anything even in our day to day notion of create. That doesn't imply that "beings create universe" is not vacuous.

Yes, because you've asked about justification when nothing here has to do with justification.

But he *is* saying something. He is contemplating the universe via analogy. There is a TON of philosophical precedent for this. Consider the allegory of the cave. He's just arguing "it might be kind of like this."

When you ask this question, it literally makes you sound like you're an incompetent in the English language.

Except that you tried to characterize his position in terms of "justification" which is precisely about defending the statement. Your comment was that either it's meaningless or it CANNOT be justified. This is a comment specifically that any attempt to justify it would fail, so that there are no successful defenses of the statement.

Then what were you trying to say by portraying his position as being one of two extremes?

LOL -- You're twisted up here.

You said "If a sentence doesn't come with some conveyed meaning, I'm calling it vacuous." But now you're trying to say that vacuous has to do with a truth value. Do you think that only statements with truth value convey meaning? Whether it's true or false is irrelevant.

The question is whether the statement conveys a meaning. And if you can't interpret "Sauron created the universe" in a way that conveys meaning, then you're incompetent in the English language.

My goodness. I forgot how hilariously terrible you are debating things. Just amazing beginning, Aaron as usual. Thank you for the reminder.

Right. Well to be precise he didn't say anything about analogy, but *I* certainly made the connection for him. In particular, I raised the point that we have an understanding of humans creating sculptures. Perhaps the analogy holds that beings created universes. But - on the level tame has described - this analogy is very weak. We have basically no idea of what beings or creating things or universes mean in the context of what he is describing, I can't remotely imagine what this is like the way I can imagine a human creating a statue. When asked to accept that this is a "guess" of a "possibility" that "maybe" this is the case, what can anyone say but "uhh...ok?"



Tame deuces said we had a rational answer. I don't think his claim is all that meaingful, but if we presumed it was, saying he should justify his claimed rational answer is quite reasonable, no? Not quite sure what you are getting a hernia about here...it seems to be because you have made up that I'm ONLY allowing him to defend himself by "logical deducation" and throwing out "internal coherence" as allowed. But since you just made that up and I never suggested anything of the sort, your objection is.....uh....nothing?

Reading comprehension fail. This was exactly my point! You made a hilarious blunder when you suggested that a statement was not vacuous if another statement could be shown incoherent. I demonstrated the ridiculousness of this in the example and your conclusion was to suggest I was making the mistake you made. No, bud, I'm demonstrating your mistake. OF COURSE whether one statement is vacuous has nothing to do with whether other statements are coherent.

No problem. It's a long weekend, and I needed something to kill some time.

One could easily say "That seems consistent with our understanding of creating objects." And that seems to be the outcome.

It depends on which concept of "rational" you're working with. It's "rational" to believe two statements if they are not in contradiction with each other. This is true even if there's no logical connection between the two statements.

You were the one who tried to force the straddle between "incoherent" and "cannot be justified." You've also just established that "rationality" expects that one should be able to "justify" his claim. So you tell me. Is he forced into these two positions, or are you creating a false dilemma?

LOL -- So you really are just pretending you have no comprehension of the English language. You *actually* expect us to accept your claim that the statement carries no content? Good luck with that.

Tame is the one saying a more rational answer has been found. Presumably he means something more impactful than "isn't contradicted by an unconnected second statement".


If someone claims something is rational, you DON"T think they ought to provide any form of justification?



The problem isn't one of english. It is clearly a syntactically correct sentence, with an object, verb and subject. It is clear what those words would mean in a sentence like "humans create sculptures". We have a wealth of contextual information to understand this situation. But if we extend the analogy to "beings create universes", do we have this wealth of contextual information? Do we understand what beings are in the context of universe creating things? Do we understand what "create" is in context where things like time and causality might not make any sense? And so forth. Sounds like a wishy washy utterance of a sentence that makes sense in a normal context, but which we aren't really doing anything meaningful when we utter it in this other context. A vague "consistent with our creation of objects" just doesn't seem all that interesting...but I guess /thread if this is the deep point to be made.

You can disagree - and present a meaningful case to the opposite - but to confuse this as an English language issue is hilarious bad. Even by your standards.

I did? Remember, I said nothing about coherence and how he might defend his statment until you - hilarious - made up that I was imposing justifying by "logical deduction" and rejecting "internal coherence". Then you made your hilarious logical error with the S and P and totally missed when I demonstrated how stupid it was thinking my demonstration of it being stupid was me being stupid. Who knows where you are right now, but I'm sure you will figured out SOME way to interpret somethign I said in a way I didn't imply so as to present some alleged contradiction.