Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshuamcginnis | Hacker News Reader

I'm more than willing to volley these ideas with you but I'm not following. I didn't once use the word "object" so I don't follow your refutation here. Could you elaborate? Are you saying that my conclusion collapses to a single "cause" (which I'm calling God and you're calling an object?)

View on HN

No, by the Principle of Multiple Explanations, every "object" that satisfies your conditions is equally viable, everything being equal.

You can slap a hypercomputational simplicity prior on that if you want, but that probably militates against the object being God, because I wouldn't expect God to be "simple" under that definition.

It's possible there are multiple explanations, I give you that. No one can know for certain. The argument against it; however, is more logically coherent and parsimonious than the multiple theory. Happy to dig into why that is if you want to go deeper.

I'm not arguing against a single "actual" cause, just that you don't know what the "actual" cause is to the extent that you can exclude all but exactly one explanation. Multiple hypotheses fit the data (or in this case the criteria I accepted for the sake of the discussion).

I'm not claiming to know to an infinitesimal degree of certainty; I'm simply presenting the evidence and making my case. There are many truths that cannot be proven in the way you'd like. Prove to me that you won't commit a murder tomorrow. Prove to me that George Washington was a real person. Prove to me that you love your family.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com