Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by joshuamcginnis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

joshuamcginnis

Here is the argument for a singular cause vs a plurality of causes:

1. Occam's Razor favors explanations with the fewest entities.

2. A single cause requires fewer assumptions than multiple causes.

3. Therefore, a singular cause is more parsimonious than a plural cause.

4. A singular cause ensures consistent intentionality and unified purpose.

5. Multiple causes would necessitate coordination and could result in conflicting intentions.

6. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be singular.

View on HN

Okay, accepting these new criteria (actually somewhat reasonable, if you accept the universe has a creator), intentionality restricts the objects that are acceptable, but if you accept extended Occam's priors that have the capability to contain God [0], then every "object" that meets the requirements and is simpler than God is a better explanation.

[0]: Not the same as the previously mentioned simplicity priors, as you brought up Occam's you must think God fits into logic.

I accept the universe has a cause because of the logic I presented earlier. Humans have no reason to believe there is existence without cause (if you can find a single example of something being created without a cause, you would change the course of human history!)

You deleted the other comment I was trying to respond to, but I'm interested in a response to the idea that an "object" that meets all the requirements you've given could be simpler than God, and therefore more likely by Occam priors.

Maybe the name is what you're hung up on? Whatever this simpler thing is would still need to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, possess intentionality, and decision-making capabilities.

Yes? But I assume you aren't arguing for God-as-in-any-object-or-idea-that-meets-a-list-of-criteria, I assume you're arguing for God. God that's described in any book I've read appears to have a lot of complexity, and I don't think it's likely that nothing else that would meet the criteria would be simpler.

Ah, great question. OK, if there is a "God" explanation for creation and its a logically sound argument, then how do we know who or what this God is? Many religions claim to know, but how we can differentiate them and use logic, reason, science, etc to find this one true God. Is that the question you're after?

Not exactly, my argument there was that there would be a huge number of individually more likely (due to being simpler) candidate objects for your criteria, that in combination entirely swamp every conception of God that has ever been written down in any book anywhere.

But wait a minute, by that logic wouldn't the fewest assumptions be that there was no cause that created the universe and that universe is a timeless, cause-less entity. Isn't that fewer assumptions than positing another entity that has those attributes.

The logic posted was in answer to _what_ is the cause, not _if_ there is a cause. I already made the case for there being a cause in my original post. Nothing comes into existence without a cause. The cause being a singular timeless eternal entity requires fewer assumptions than the multi-modal explanation theory the other user suggested.

Maybe "alternative explanations" is better wording. If you don't think God fits into a simplicity detector, could a simplicity detector of some sort that's external to God and every other member of the set of God-like objects complete at least a stochastic (probabilistic) scan?

That would in theory give priors for the probability of the "object" that fits the criteria given.

The logical error in your question is in the "that's external to God". Going back to my first post, the "cause" must be eternal (since it was what started time in order for existence to begin). And because this eternal cause was not affected or constrained by physical space, it had to be all-encompassing. Because of this, there could be nothing external to the cause (God).

I don't think your argument follows. Assume there's an uncreated universe that is very suited to running simulations. Assume someone in that universe creates our universe, fully contained inside theirs. Yes, that person is outside our time, and started our time, but in their universe, they are 1) constrained by physical space 2) not all-encompassing at all 3) have a whole lot of stuff in there with them that is external to them.

Sure, you can go into infinite regress arguments, but they hit both of our arguments just as hard.

One cannot just "assume there's an uncreated universe". There's no evidence for that. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if we're going to use it to make conclusions, there's has to be some logical or observable basis for it. My arguments are based on logic and observation. It would be impossible to find the truth if we just dream up any possible scenario without actually drawing conclusions from the evidence in front of us.

Assuming it only as part of that hypothesis, not assuming it for all reality. If it's not impossible, since we can't observe the evidence, its only detriment is complexity by either hypercomputational Simplicity priors (if we don't think we can fit it into logic) or extended Occam's priors (if we think we can).

As well as all the other hypotheses we can't meaningfully differentiate from it, almost none of them recognizable as your "God".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com