Here it is: Thought experiment refuting the normal "Occam's Razor" argument against God and creation.
Imagine if we created artificial intelligence and confined this intelligence to it's own virtual universe, giving it memories and etc. Think of the holograms on Star Trek, for example.
Now, the individual AI beings begin to wonder if they are in fact created beings, or if they have evolved. For the sake of argument, let's assume they conclude they have evolved into existence in a universe which evolved into existence.
Now, we clearly see that the AI creatures have reached an incorrect conclusion, and they used Occam's Razor to reach this conclusion.
====
Thus we find that there actually is no place for Occam's Razor in science, because it always leads to fallacious arguments.
Why would these AI beings conclude that they evolved unless there was sufficient evidence that they did?
Unless their creators purposefully planted evidence of their evolution?
In which case would this be to throw them off the scent that they were in fact created?
And it still doesn't answer the question of how their creators got there.
Quantum_Conundrum
9th August 2009 - 06:40 PM
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Aug 9 2009, 01:26 PM)
QUOTE
Why would these AI beings conclude that they evolved unless there was sufficient evidence that they did?
Unless their creators purposefully planted evidence of their evolution?
In which case would this be to throw them off the scent that they were in fact created?
Perhaps because they ignored some evidences, or, as stated, based their conclusions on a fallacy as demonstrated, just as athiests do today.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Why would these AI beings conclude that they evolved unless there was sufficient evidence that they did?
Unless their creators purposefully planted evidence of their evolution?
In which case would this be to throw them off the scent that they were in fact created? |
Perhaps because they ignored some evidences, or, as stated, based their conclusions on a fallacy as demonstrated, just as athiests do today.
And it still doesn't answer the question of how their creators got there.
How did the Big Bang get there? How did the multiverse get there? How did the turtles all the way down get there?
Sinister Utopia
9th August 2009 - 08:16 PM
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 9 2009, 06:40 PM)
Perhaps because they ignored some evidences, or, as stated, based their conclusions on a fallacy as demonstrated, just as athiests do today.
How did the Big Bang get there? How did the multiverse get there? How did the turtles all the way down get there?
Perhaps? How would they even know to consider evolution unless there was some clue or evidence?
If they were sufficiently intelligent AI and they followed the evidence then they would find clues that they were created not evolved.
Unless as stated they only find evidence that they evolved which would've been planted by the creators.
Or if they could not find sufficient evidence either way or anyway and they were intellectually honest, they would conclude that they don't know and perhaps continue the search for evidence.
Big Bang and Multiverse are irrelevant.
buttershug
9th August 2009 - 09:30 PM
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 9 2009, 06:19 PM)
That's ironic, as modern astronomy and biological sciences are both filled with begged questions and circular reasoning:
Example:
Q: Where do species come from?
A: Evolution
Q: How do you know evolution is real?
A: Obviously, evolution must be real, because we have species.
No it's more like there are not distinct species as would be the case if God created evertyhing 6,000 years ago.
Look up ring species.
Evolution started with people who had believed in Creation untill they looked at the evidence.
What evidences have been ignored.
And Occam's razor says "usually".
If you say that things are not as they appear then Last Thursdayism is as valid as any other such arguement.
skepticgriggsy
10th August 2009 - 01:04 AM
skepticgriggsy
17th October 2009 - 12:45 AM
We ignostics find His attributes incoherent and contradict each other as one example appears in the problem of Heaven Also I find that the terms First Cause and the Grand Designer themselves lack meaning as they are begged questions.
Mr. David Ramsay Steele disagrees with me in " Atheism Explained : from Folly to Philosophy," in that he states that whilst incoherent,the attributes are not meaningless. I disagree. Where might I be wrong and he right? Anyway, incoherence rules Him out of Existence!
[B] Drs. Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig to the contrary, the Ockham is not a matter of counting parts of something as they aver that as He is simple ,He's be more simple than the Metaverse theories. Nay, the Razor cuts off those putative theories that add convoluted, ad hoc assumptions as the God-notion so does with His questionable attributes. Mother Nature herself provides the sufficient reason with her natural causes and explanations as the presumption of naturalism reveals [Please see that thread.].
[U] So, the ignostic-Ockham challenges still win!
[COLOR=purple]
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
Ignotism shows that the term God has no significance ," hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf ,' being the unimformative tautology that God wills what He wills . But to grant meaning , O ccam' s razor shows no need for God , for that makes unnecessary ad hoc assumptions .So ,we have in our arsenal the ignotist and the Occam [irony that he was a cleric] arguments as well as the defenitive argument against the free will defense to combat theism .Elsewhere one tries to obviate the razor by saying that while true , it does not rule out God. How then can God function if one does not use Him behind matters ? One wants to use the razor to show that nature is independent of God but somehow is involved in the cosmos . That is inchorent .What can others add to this commentary ? 
Ignotists find that God has no real meaning ,just a play on words . How can one define God in order to mean something that is not mumbo-jumbo ? It is an empty term for us ignotists . Thanks . Please see my other threads where I show no need for God. 
How can one obviate the ignotist charge ? How can one find meaning in God ? How can one establish His attributes without contradictions among them amounting to incoherence ? Yes, His goodness and all that must be establish as coming together as El Machinae suggests?. How can God not be a god of the gaps if He participates in the cosmos with miracles and providing a mind behind natural selection, which itself is contradictory - purpose behind no purpose ,making the new Omphalos argument that God deceives us into thinking that selection has a creative role in life forms.It violates surely the razor . Some revel in their invincible ignorance ! As Kaneda suggests: God did it is just the tautology previously mentioned.Errantists are so smug with their theistic evolution that is an oxymoron ,violating the razor. They think they avoid that by declaring as they ought that selection does the job of making new life forms, yet declaring that God is the creator nonetheless, revealing pareidolia . That is incoherence showing the validity of ignotism . 
Thanks for the positive feed back! I return the favor .
You are thoroughly disrupting several pertinent, ongoing threads by bringing up this deceased B.S. with short nonsense posts. Why? 
