Sociopath Community

Perfect design 

That's the most compelling argument I've heard so far for the existence of a Divine Being.

However, it still does jack shit to explain why I should subscribe to some form of patriarchal monotheism.

AliceInWonderland said: 

I had this idea last night so its still in its infancy but logically it’s like the simulation hypothesis because it can be presented as a trilemma under similar terms.

1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of artificially or biologically producing high-intelligence beings) is very close to zero OR
2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in producing high intelligences is very close to zero OR
3. The fraction of all beings with our level of intelligence created by other intelligences is close to one. 

From here, like Bostroms’ reasoning implied by his simulation hypothesis, it can be said:

If the third proposition is the one that is true and almost all intelligences are created by other intelligences, then we are most probably created by an intelligence.

No we are not because there's no evidence of intelligent design. Even if the prior odds favored the design hypothesis, there's no evidence favoring it. Everything we understand points to life through natural evolution which clearly disfavors intelligent design.

Xena said: 

That's the most compelling argument I've heard so far for the existence of a Divine Being.

The being doesn't have to be divine, it could just be a civilization that has reached technological maturity. 

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

I had this idea last night so its still in its infancy but logically it’s like the simulation hypothesis because it can be presented as a trilemma under similar terms.

1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of artificially or biologically producing high-intelligence beings) is very close to zero OR
2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in producing high intelligences is very close to zero OR
3. The fraction of all beings with our level of intelligence created by other intelligences is close to one. 

From here, like Bostroms’ reasoning implied by his simulation hypothesis, it can be said:

If the third proposition is the one that is true and almost all intelligences are created by other intelligences, then we are most probably created by an intelligence.

No we are not because there's no evidence of intelligent design. Even if the prior odds favored the design hypothesis, there's no evidence favoring it. Everything we understand points to life through natural evolution which clearly disfavors intelligent design.

Right, unless we actually do create an intelligence i.e strong artificial intelligence. In such an instance suddenly the only empirical evidence we'd have of a high intelligence being created would be an instance of intelligent design and that empirical evidence would pile up as more intelligences prop up from intelligent design.

Proposition 3 becomes true if we create an intelligence via intelligent design and in turn 1 and 2 become false. Notice proposition 3 is "The fraction of all beings with our level of intelligence created by other another intelligence is close to one". That is,  if an intelligence is created via intelligent design then the majority of all intelligences are created via intelligent design. The reason being that with the continued creation of intelligences you reach a point in which the number of ones created via intelligent design greatly outnumber the number created through evolutionary processes. So it's more likely that you are one of the ones created via intelligent design. 

Having said this, yes there is no evidence as of now which is why the first two propositions are provided. 

AliceInWonderland said:

Right, unless we actually do create an intelligence i.e strong artificial intelligence. In such an instance suddenly the only empirical evidence we'd have of a high intelligence being created would be an instance of intelligent design and that empirical evidence would pile up as more intelligences prop up from intelligent design.

Proposition 3 becomes true if we create an intelligence via intelligent design and in turn 1 and 2 become false. Notice proposition 3 is "The fraction of all beings with our level of intelligence created by other another intelligence is close to one". That is,  if an intelligence is created via intelligent design then the majority of all intelligences are created via intelligent design. The reason being that with the continued creation of intelligences you reach a point in which the number of ones created via intelligent design greatly outnumber the number created through evolutionary processes. So it's more likely that you are one of the ones created via intelligent design. 

Having said this, yes there is no evidence as of now which is why the first two propositions are provided. 

If you're a doctor and you're testing for a rare disease and someone tests positive, does it mean that it's impossible that only 1/10000 people have the disease?

We've tested positive for "natural design"

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said:

Right, unless we actually do create an intelligence i.e strong artificial intelligence. In such an instance suddenly the only empirical evidence we'd have of a high intelligence being created would be an instance of intelligent design and that empirical evidence would pile up as more intelligences prop up from intelligent design.

Proposition 3 becomes true if we create an intelligence via intelligent design and in turn 1 and 2 become false. Notice proposition 3 is "The fraction of all beings with our level of intelligence created by other another intelligence is close to one". That is,  if an intelligence is created via intelligent design then the majority of all intelligences are created via intelligent design. The reason being that with the continued creation of intelligences you reach a point in which the number of ones created via intelligent design greatly outnumber the number created through evolutionary processes. So it's more likely that you are one of the ones created via intelligent design. 

Having said this, yes there is no evidence as of now which is why the first two propositions are provided. 

If you're a doctor and you're testing for a rare disease and someone tests positive, does it mean that it's impossible that only 1/10000 people have the disease?

Read over the propositions - you're alluding to us living in a proposition 2 reality which does not negate the argument, it is in fact a part of it. 

We've tested positive for "natural design"

This can not be said with certainty and as it is related to the thought experiment, none of the propositions as of yet have been proven true. 

Proposition 1 - Inconclusive given we've not wiped ourselves out prior to technological maturity

Proposition 2 - Inconclusive given we've yet to reach technological maturity

Proposition 3 - Inconclusive given we've yet to create general artificial or biological intelligence nor have reached technological maturity

AliceInWonderland said: 

Xena said: 

That's the most compelling argument I've heard so far for the existence of a Divine Being.

The being doesn't have to be divine, it could just be a civilization that has reached technological maturity. 

 

 Yes. I'm rather fond of the "Children of Space Dust and Time" hypothesis. 

It holds that around 2/3 of the way through our planet's 14 to 15(?) billion year history, a meteor carrying DNA from some other part of the galaxy smashed into her, and impregnated the primordial ooze with what would evolve over the next 5billion years or so into every type of life we know, and many that we don't.

However, when scientists recreated the chemical reaction that would have eventually become living phytoplankton and such, they determined that the odds that the 'accident' of life was truly an accident were infinitesimal. Add to that the fact that there have been at least 3 major extinction events where life miraculously returned, and my skepticism doesn't know which way to turn.

Then again, a whole lot can happen in the unfathomable number of aeons that add up to 5 billion years...

Or if you prefer...

;D