My journey into atheism and theories on life

[Binky]

From a pragmatic point of view, it's all very well knowing how everything came to be (assuming this can be solidly determined), but the important question is What can we do with that knowledge?

Once upon a time, some Greek bloke wondered how many times you could divide something before you were left with a fundamental building-block. Now we have MRI machines in hospitals and nuclear-derived electricity running our lights.

If there is a superbeing in charge of the universe, can we converse with him/her/it (and get clear, meaningful answers)?
If this is all a simulation, can we hack it to our advantage? (or if we're already doing that, can we do it better?)

At the moment, there are hundreds of world-origin stories out there, and none of their adherents have convincingly used their understanding to achieve measurable goals. Given humanity's perpetual dissatisfaction, that implies that either that understanding is useless, or it's wrong...

 

[rygD]

The purpose of knowledge is not always practical application. I know why the sky is blue, but knowing that hasn't really helped me do anything. Knowing/understanding the origin of the universe is simple curiosity for most of us.

 

[FBnil]

3 is quite plausible, where rich people get to live forever in a simulated reality. However, option4: scientists trying desperate to escape our current simulation.
I can add a new variable to your quest/believe: There is only 1 black hole in the universe, and all matter IS that (same) black hole. The strongforce does not exist, it is the gravity of that black hole. We see different protons/electrons/etc ... but it is only the same black hole (fractalic). All is one. Search for: Nassim Haramein - The Schwarzschild Proton. Think of it as an old TV: there is only one beam
[doublepost=1506288406,1506288024][/doublepost]

I know why the sky is blue, but knowing that hasn't really helped me do anything

Could be, but an engineer could know which light frequencies are better for solar panels here on earth, and in space (where the light frequencies are not scattered, and reach the solar panels).

Also, knowing the sky is blue can determine when the sky is NOT blue (for example: cloudy, night, fog or smog). So it DOES give you info. Blue sky -> sunny day -> better put on swimming trunks. It determines the whole roster day for farmers too. If it is rainy (ie not blue) then you bring an umbrella... things like that.

 

[ible]

as a very coarse-grained description (and one that many religious people might not agree with), i've come to think of science as answering "how" questions, and religion as answering "why" questions (though of course, people in general have the tendency to apply their limited understanding too liberally...). this has the effect of making even atheistic interpretations of the universe also "religious" (in the sense that "there is no why" in fact answers the "why" question), though i'm not sure how many atheists would like being called religious.

the "universe is a simulation" approach seems to me a bit like moving goalposts -- just as "life appeared elsewhere and then earth was seeded" is not a valid explanation of how life came about in the universe; even if it was true for this planet, it wouldn't be satisfactory for how life came about elsewhere. but as always, we can follow the evidence.

do you think the universal algorithm is racing the beam?

 

[levi]

Quantum theory makes the idea of a simulated universe interesting. They mean that by observing the current state of the universe you can't predict the future reliably. But maybe the way quantum theory is discovering that everything is based on odds (e.g. there's a 50/50 chance a photon will reflect from a proper half-silvered mirror, but you can't predict beforehand which way it'll go) as well as well as spooky entanglement (as per Einstein's description) are revealing implementation details of the simulation. Hopefully they won't hit the galactic Alt-F4 by mistake and simply delete all of us.

Of course, Decartes had something to say about the ghost in the machine, although since that disappears whenever we're in non-dream sleep it's probably an artefact of brain activity, and could therefore be simulated as well.

 

[SNESFAN]

3 is quite plausible, where rich people get to live forever in a simulated reality. However, option4: scientists trying desperate to escape our current simulation.

Now, that's not quite the simulation I was suggesting, I mean uploading your consciousness into a simulation could easily fall into option 3, in which case there could or would be those among us that might be aware of the 'outside' possibly even able to play outside the rules. That would actually be rather unsettling, the same way a conspiracy theory if true is unsettling. But so is the idea that someone/thing else is controlling our reality... so I don't know how unsettling it really would be. I don't know.

So within the possible scenarios as to the 'why' of the simulation theory. Interesting idea, and goes back to the philosophical idea that we exist as part of another being's dream. We would be good to not awake the dreamer, or allow the 'main character' of the simulation to terminate or else it terminates for all of us. That's actually a pretty frightening idea.

My idea of the simulation is that there is no outside characters on the inside with us, rather that we are in a zero player game if you will, a insanely complex game of the sims with no direct control. Conways' game of life, a true simulation, in which the rules are set, and you just run the simulation to it's outcome. Our consciousnesses are not programmed, nor would they uploaded external from the system, but rather a outcome as one of the eventualities of the system or rule sets. Our questioning and reasoning, idea of self, all necessities as beings of our evolutionary background. You would have to have a bit of a different view of consciousness than the traditional I would think though, one that doesn't much separate us much from other life, ours just being more elaborate versions of the same.

The 'why' there might be more of a reason to see what kind of technologies we come up with, maybe even something more basic as to see what kinds of life emerge and evolve from a predefined dna/rna sequence. Maybe something that makes us special and virtual life was an anomaly in a completely unrelated simulation on thermal dynamics or physics, or a 'ghost in a shell' as was mentioned, similar to an artificial intelligence spontaneously developing its own consciousness due to a random change in a stored bit of data. Who knows, those are all great, and non-terrifying things to ponder =)

Quantum theory makes the idea of a simulated universe interesting. They mean that by observing the current state of the universe you can't predict the future reliably. But maybe the way quantum theory is discovering that everything is based on odds (e.g. there's a 50/50 chance a photon will reflect from a proper half-silvered mirror, but you can't predict beforehand which way it'll go) as well as well as spooky entanglement (as per Einstein's description) are revealing implementation details of the simulation. Hopefully they won't hit the galactic Alt-F4 by mistake and simply delete all of us.

Of course, Decartes had something to say about the ghost in the machine, although since that disappears whenever we're in non-dream sleep it's probably an artefact of brain activity, and could therefore be simulated as well.

some of the above was in response to you as well, felt the point was fitting as responses to both.

The quantum theory, the part of observation of light behaving as both a particle or wave depending on us measuring it or not got me thinking.

Here's the idea, what if it's a simulation, and to conserve computational power of the simulation, things have physical properties when and only when we're directly interacting with it or 'when it needs to', and when we're not, they don't and behave more like an estimate. Think of how a computer processes a scene in a game when it's not actively being rendered by the GPU to conserve computational resources, it knows the wall is there, but doesn't waste the resources rendering it if nothing is paying attention. The old adage of if a tree falls in the woods and if nobody's around, does it make a sound.... well maybe it doesn't.

Maybe things on the very small and very large scale use more of an approximate rather than an absolute. Traditional computers have problems, or at the very least, extremely expensive computationally with absolute precision of very large numbers and quantities, maybe that explains 'dark matter' (basically unobserved mass) where large structures like galaxies moving faster than they should be given our understanding of their estimated mass and gravity.

A deeper correlation between computers and reality, mass/gravity is basically a shit ton of stuff in a extremely small area, maybe the demands on the system in that region of simulated space is literally bogging down the underlying infrastructure and time moves slower in those regions because of that. Maybe the speed of light having an absolute universal maximum is also a side effect of underlying computational power, maybe a rule, maybe a side effect of infrastructure. It's interesting to think there are minimum and maximums with no rational reason as to why other than 'they just are'

 

[Caine]

though i'm not sure how many atheists would like being called religious.

I cannot speak for all atheists, but I can speak for one. It is bizarre. Religion is a belief system. Belief being "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so". I do not believe. I sometimes act on assumptions, but not having absolute confidence in their truth is very important.

In a lot of atheist vs religion debates this topic pops up. For some reasons theists want to label atheism as a religion. I don't really understand it, but perhaps it intends to create the feeling that it is an arbitrary choice. I.e. to somehow validate the position of holding a belief because everyone does so, even the atheists.

There is a common counter brought up against this claim which says: "calling atheism a religion is like calling not skiing a hobby". It comes in many varieties and I do not know whom to attribute it to. It somewhat describes how I experience it, religion defines me just as much as all the other things I do not do.

With regards to existence of life in general, I do not ask the question "why?", I do not think it is an interesting question. But, if you force me to choose a point of view, I would indeed claim that it is highly unlikely that there is a reason why. Besides, we all know the real question is where

 

[Klumpen]

In a lot of atheist vs religion debates this topic pops up. For some reasons theists want to label atheism as a religion.

As I understood it, that is the case, because actually religious (not necessarily spiritual) people usually can't handle insecurities and want everything to be clearly laid out while an atheist mind doesn't bother with theories about absolute truth when there's no evidence and is aware that we know next to nothing and can just try to see how things might possibly be/work.
Those are two mostly mutually exclusive mindsets that fail to understand each other.

Imho religion gives people with insecurity issues a hold in life, of course working on those issues might be preferable but that's the same discussion as the one whether taking anti-depressants or working on the sources of the problem is preferable at the time and yes, religion has a lot in common with anti-depressants.

 

[Caine]

I think you are over generalizing and painting it too black and white.

There are plenty of religious scientists which have a very evidence based mindset in their field yet a "religious mind-set" (whatever that is) outside-of-it. Boxing things into absolute categories makes it easy to reason about stuff, but reality rarely has such sharp edges. People are too multi-dimensional for such simple labels. Nothing wrong with makes models for understanding reality, but it is important to keep in mind that models simplify reality otherwise falsehoods can no longer be detected. The map is not the territory.

As for the anti-depressant part of it, it does seem like it from the outside. I wonder how religious people experience that.
It is something I sometimes envy. In my mind all problems are my own, I cannot defer it to anything higher and I need to face it head on. That can be hard at times. Religion seems to make it easier to deal with such hardships. Though it would feel like self-deception to me, which I personally resent, even if it "works".

 

[Binky]

There's also an element of what you might call intuition, I suspect. At least one religious person I know has talked of how they 'feel' an external presence in their lives. Religion provides an explanation for this feeling.

Personally, I've never felt such a presence, and I know that the human brain is almost as good at externalising emotions as it is at spotting patterns that aren't there. Still, that explains why the blatant lack of objective evidence for an all-seeing, all-loving deity fails to sway so many people...

 

[Klumpen]

I wouldn't call those scientists religious. They are usually rather spiritual and I can't imagine one going to church for anything else than family and habit and I've never even heard about that.

 

[Caine]

True, most religious scientists which I encountered tend to have a very nuanced interpretation of their beliefs. Most often not your typical interpretation or at least not full conviction of it.

As for simulated universes. The universe is too big to simulate accurately, you could only do a very small section of it. You need a concept of locality in it to avoid an exponential need for computing power. E.g. you would need to place other planets and galaxies unreachable far away and as technology progresses over time you need to move them out further and further to avoid more and more chunks from being loaded.

Something like a universe than expands at an increasing rate. You would also expect silly programming/math errors, such as summing all natural numbers overflowing to -1/12 or silly stuff like that.

Some videos on simulation:

Spoiler

Part1:
Part2:

 

[FBnil]

things have physical properties when and only when we're directly interacting with it or 'when it needs to'

There was somewhere a test where a person was hypnotized, and told person X was not in the room, then, the tester did put out fingers behind the person X and asked how many fingers he held up. The test subject was able to see the fingers.
Another example was a substance that had not been crystalized yet. Different labs were trying to be the first, when suddenly, as if it decided which crystal form it would take, all the labs were able to crystalize the substance.

maybe the demands on the system in that region of simulated space is literally bogging down the underlying infrastructure and time moves slower in those regions because of that.

Wow... will have to think about that one a bit. Very nice idea.

For some reasons theists want to label atheism as a religion

The problem is the unknowns. For example: When you boil and electrocute primal soup (elements that supposed to be on proto-earth), you get amino-acids. So the conclusion is that these amino acids are stable components.
But then suddenly, the conclusion is that it formed a cell! No empirical evidence given. (In fact, solar light would be needed, and thunder.... but those would destroy the membrane and components inside. So the evidence is against it)

Thus we have: a membrane, an atrophic cell inside (mitochondria), a RNA/DNA sequence, a reader, a duplicator, DNA cutters, receptors, etc.
And there is not any evidence for that, the chances of that happening is a practical zero.

Then that the unicellulars became multicellular. Again, no evidence for that, but the believe that it happened. The chances of that happening, again practically zero. (you would need: new intercellular communication, thus holes/gateways that let hormones through, extra receptors to read and act upon that data)

Cell specialization: a way for a stem cell with the same DNA to become different things (bone, muscle, heart, liver, etc). It is like those 80-games-in-1. Sure. Start with one game, and by randomly changing bytes, you get 80 games (you can insert or replace random bytes). And those games need to be able to activate in a similar way, and reliably by deactivating portions of the binary code. Implausible? Practically Zero chance.

Asexual to sexual replication. Now that is another tough one. Not only cell specialization, but gender specialization. Now we have hermaphrodites, and self-insemination in some species. So I give it a maybe.

Then the evolution theory, the chances of that happening are practically zero. You see, DNA has certain lengths... so in order to merge into a new being, you get half of the genes from your mom, half from your dad, and like a zipper they join. So That means that for new species to been born, you are able to zip DNA of different length. And we know the mule, liger, manape etc but they are sterile. So, the same mutation needs to be produced multiple times before you get a liliger.
Slow evolution already has been proven false because intermediate state organs are not viable and the subject dies (example: gills to lungs). They need to be there in one go. I call this one very hard, but not impossible. (more on genotype and fenotype)

It would be easier to randomly change bytes in DOS code and get a working Windows NT. The chances for that to happen are not zero... but many times more than having the sequence of 4 improbabilities happen.

Thus: 0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1 = 0.000001 It means that a sequence of improbable things makes the result practically impossible less than 1 star/(stars_in_universe*stars_in_universe)... so believing that chain of events... is faith.

 

[Klumpen]

Thus: 0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1 = 0.000001 It means that a sequence of improbable things makes the result practically impossible less than 1 star/(stars_in_universe*stars_in_universe)... so believing that chain of events... is faith.

For me, the main difference between belief and faith, which is particularly important here, is, whether one sees his conclusion as absolute unquestionable truth or rather as something likely.

 

[levi]

Here's the idea, what if it's a simulation, and to conserve computational power of the simulation, things have physical properties when and only when we're directly interacting with it or 'when it needs to', and when we're not, they don't and behave more like an estimate. Think of how a computer processes a scene in a game when it's not actively being rendered by the GPU to conserve computational resources, it knows the wall is there, but doesn't waste the resources rendering it if nothing is paying attention. The old adage of if a tree falls in the woods and if nobody's around, does it make a sound.... well maybe it doesn't.

Yeah, the only trouble is not everything in Quantum theory looks like a simplification of the maths. The dual slit experiment that proved the wave/particle duality of atomic particles back in the day means individual electrons or photons actually potentially pass through both slits at the same time. The probabilities that particles hit the screen either here or there seems to depend on the integral of all of the probabilities of the ways an electron could get to the observed point, which if you try to do it mathematically is rather more complicated than classical theories of motion, and computationally more intensive at least for the computers I'm familiar with. I don't think quantum computers, as I understand them, will help much with this.

 

[rygD]

3 is quite plausible, where rich people get to live forever in a simulated reality. However, option4: scientists trying desperate to escape our current simulation.
I can add a new variable to your quest/believe: There is only 1 black hole in the universe, and all matter IS that (same) black hole. The strongforce does not exist, it is the gravity of that black hole. We see different protons/electrons/etc ... but it is only the same black hole (fractalic). All is one. Search for: Nassim Haramein - The Schwarzschild Proton. Think of it as an old TV: there is only one beam

I frequently think variations of this, and other closely related things. Has it been mentioned here that each blackhole could be a universe? With that line of thinking, our universe could be a blackhole. Not sure how the original source of the original blackhole would be dealt with. I don't really expend much thought or effort into such things, or have anything to back them up. Too often I fall into Last Thursdayism (the basic idea, not anything more specific or any of what has developed or been added on, and in my head it makes some sort of sense with randomness, which would seem to disprove it, but I mean true randomness, so...). The White Queen has nothing on me. Oh, and faith has nothing to do with that. Most of the time it comes from doubt.

Could be, but an engineer could know which light frequencies are better for solar panels here on earth, and in space (where the light frequencies are not scattered, and reach the solar panels).

Also, knowing the sky is blue can determine when the sky is NOT blue (for example: cloudy, night, fog or smog). So it DOES give you info. Blue sky -> sunny day -> better put on swimming trunks. It determines the whole roster day for farmers too. If it is rainy (ie not blue) then you bring an umbrella... things like that.

Sure, you could try to use the knowledge, but for those that seek knowledge, acquiring it is the goal. And I never use an umbrella. If I did it would be on sunny days.

 

[Caine]

Thus: 0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1 = 0.000001 It means that a sequence of improbable things makes the result practically impossible less than 1 star/(stars_in_universe*stars_in_universe)...

I cannot verify your math as I simply do not have the numbers, but even with incredibly small odds there should be quite a number of planets to have done so by sheer number of planets in the habitable zone (estimated 100 billion, according to a quick google search). So even with odds smaller than what you state, we would expect so many that we need to seek reasons as to why we have not found any extraterrestrial life yet (refer to the Fermi Paradox).

It is not strange either that we are the case where it happened, because if we weren't then we would not be having this conversation.

so believing that chain of events... is faith.

I do not believe those events, and neither do other atheists (by definition), though the lack of clear linguistic evidentials in at least the indo-european languages combined with certain idiomatic expressions do have a tendency to blur that nuance in everyday speech. It is however, a very important difference.

What you describe is merely a theory of what could have happened. Any better, evidence supported theory that claims something different happened is a trigger to re-evaluate our stance. A book or article written by anyone (and that includes scientists) is not evidence. But a sound theory with predictive power and both measurable and reproducible experimental results builds confidence over time.

While faith lies claims to great explanatory power, it is severely lacking in predictive power. Nor are the explanations measurable and repeatable. Hence, they are not scientific and of only limited usefulness in matters such as e.g. engineering. They can play a role in human-to-human interaction, sense of belonging and feeling good, and that is great if that works for you (it does not for me).

 

[SNESFAN]

I don't think quantum computers, as I understand them, will help much with this.

My understanding of quantum computers is that it deals mostly with probabilities rather than absolutes. Giving you all answers simutaniously as probabilities.

I may be over simplifying my justification as to why I believe what I believe, some of it maybe be completely baseless or flat out incorrect. But the important part its being taken under consideration by the scientific community and people are actually working on ways to prove or more importantly disprove. (I feel attempts to disprove provide much more valuable information to learning than confirming a held belief)

 

[ible]

perhaps related: a resolution of the Fermi paradox is that once life gets sufficiently advanced to communicate interstellar distances, it destroys itself.
https://futurism.com/we-wont-be-hearing-from-aliens-soon-physicist-brian-cox-claims/
if so, "wars and rumors of wars" sort of thing, getting worse, until the end. i suppose then, the best thing for scientists to do is to stop advancing... ("the heart comes first, Eddie!" --Steamboy reference.) but the heart seems pretty corrupted, and easily deceived into thinking it's better than others...

while it may sound a little convoluted, i do think atheism should be classified as a religion, since it does try to answer the hard questions about existence. it's also important to not get too heady about one's superiority over the "religious people," or even "my denomination" over "yours", etc., since "righteous" indignation about someone being backward or wrong doesn't typically end well for either party. not sure how to work that out, since this is the internet.

and while i must say as a (ex-)scientist, "go where the evidence leads," i also prefer simple solutions (Occam's razor), so the universe being a simulation sounds overtly complicated, and a bit like moving the goal posts. we'd still need to figure out what the encapsulating universe was doing, or how it came about, etc. it also sounds a bit more like mythology to talk about a dreamer (the gods???) and waking them up. not that i am opposed to mythology, but Link's Awakening told that story the best already i think

 

[rygD]

I don't know that I would call atheism a religion, but it deals with one aspect commonly associated with religion even down to the term itself, so it kinda fits in that category, although not all religions are theistic. There are other terms that may be more suitable for those that are offended or feel that doesn't fit them in that way. I don't have the terminology right now, but irreligious and related terms fit in some cases, and is also not as confusing as a word that, by its nature, deals with a term closely linked to religion in the western mind. I don't really know how to explain what I mean other than to say that if you have a belief about a religious topic that is a religious belief.

Going back to the nonreligious view, I found it amusing that pantheism is supposedly viewed as the opposite of atheism, or a form of it. Stupid words with their stupid meanings which are meaningless and stupid!