In other words, the improbability that 'an uncreated, transcendent creator of universes' exists (e.g. Plato, Aquinas) is, at minimum, equal to the improbability that 'an uncreated, autopoietic universe' exists — 180 Proof

So you're saying the probability God exists is extremely low?

I don't think "self-hatred," is going to be a good way to explain Trump winning the majority of Latino men at any rate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, but I think they swallowed a lot of abuse to keep a woman out of the Whitehouse.

I should adjust my view a little, for if I am wrong and the idea of a mind coming into being is less problematic a starting assumption than the assumption of a mind that comes into being from nothing, or that somehow brings itself into being, then I will simply make those assumptions instead. — Clearbury

I think that's not a bad assumption. Any theory competing with yours also has the problem of creation ex nihilo. I think mind is a better candidate for eternal existence or uncaused cause than a physical universe. Also, I wonder if this mind you're describing isn't going to eventually turn into a godly cosmic mind, as you shore up the theory.

So we've learned in America that when people are faced with single-digit transitory inflation, all their climate concerns go out the window and they vote for the drill-baby-drill candidate. American leadership is essential to combating climate change, and it's taken a four-year hiatus. I don't think we're going to solve this problem with collective action. We'll have to hope for a tech miracle or some crazy geo-engineering plan.

I now take myself to have been in reality - in and out - for about 50 years. This will go on and on as, with enough time, more and more experiences arise that are adaptive - that is, that fit with the evolving narrative (all others continuing to be considered 'dream').

Interesting implication: we (I) will never die. We (I) will just get the impression we have been in reality for longer and longer and longer. — Clearbury

Why does the mind have a start, but not an end? Shouldn't it be infinite in both directions, past and future?

The color analogy is a good one.

How does the notion of consent factor into your theory?

But NOS4A2 right. The American people had all the evidence in front of them and they didn't care about it. Well, a chunk of Americans cared more about voting against a black woman.

Chat GPT is awesome for helping with Bayes Theorem. What do you guys think?

Here’s a summary of your reasoning and calculations:

The Question: Does the existence of a life-permitting universe make the existence of a universe designer (a god who values order, complexity, and life) probable?

Hypotheses and Background Knowledge:

H: A universe designer exists, specifically a god valuing order, complexity, and life.
¬H: No universe designer exists.
Background knowledge k: There is no multiverse.

P(H)=0.3: You started with a 30% prior probability of such a designer existing.
P(E∣H)=0.99: A god valuing life and complexity is highly likely to create a life-permitting universe.
P(E∣¬H)=0.0001: Without a designer, the probability of a life-permitting universe is astronomically low given no multiverse.

Bayes' Theorem:
Using the formula:
P(H∣E)= P(E∣H)⋅P(H) / P(E)

where P (E) = P(E∣H)⋅P(H)+P(E∣¬H)⋅P(¬H)

Result:

The posterior probability of P(H∣E), the probability of a universe designer given the existence of a life-permitting universe, is approximately 0.9998 (or 99.98%).

Conclusion:
Based on your assumptions, the existence of a life-permitting universe strongly supports the existence of a universe designer with the specified attributes.

So their case is hopeless, i think. It depends upon them mistakenly thinking they're entitled to stack the deck in their favour by inferring personality traits that their only evidence for would be based - queston beggingly - on the assumption that this is the approximately the kind of world an intelligence would design. — Clearbury

Usually the design proponent likens the designer to an all-powerful, omnibenevolent god, who would prefer universes with life in it, but that has problems too when you think about all the suffering that goes on in the natural world.

Still, like I said earlier. Suppose all you know is that a universe designer exists and you're presented with a universe that lasts a trillionth of a second before it collapses in on itself. Out of all the designs it could have come up with, it settled on that one? I would be surprised. Wouldn't you?

where x= the winning set of 6 numbers that were drawn in a powerball lottery
Pr(x/H)>Pr(x)

This suggests that any winning set of numbers is more likely to be due to design (i.e. cheating) than it is due to pure chance - but only if there is a designer (i.e. cheater). It tells us nothing about the probability that cheating is going on. — Relativist

That doesn't follow for the simple fact that there is almost no cheating in lotteries despite the existence of lottery designers. The designers want the games to be fair and so they are.

What is x and H in your equation?

For an analogy, to allow the proponent of intelligent design to rig the personality of the designer at the outset is no different from the proponent of chance rigging the odds so that it turns out that the chance of a universe like this one arising is 1. — Clearbury

I think they would argue that the personality of the designer is an extrapolation of the designers we know and there is some basis for assuming a universe designer would prefer non-boring universes. If all you knew was that there was a universe designer, and you were shown this universe, would you be surprised by it? Not surprised at the particulars (e.g., the moon is that exact size and Saturn is exactly X amount of miles from the sun), but rather surprised the universe the designer designed is full of complexity and life?

I think there is another, quite independent, way of undermining the argument from fine-tuning.

First, for any number of ways the universe could have turned out to be, the intelligence could have designed the universe in that way. So if there are 10 trillion ways the universe could have turned out, then there are 10 trillion different designs an intelligent designer could have been working to. For any given way the universe could turn out, is a way an intelligent designer could have wanted it to turn out.

Well, now the odds that there would be a designer who wanted the universe to turn out the way it actually did, is 1 in 10 trillion. — Clearbury

I don't think that last part follows. I think the intelligent design proponent can claim that the designer is a living intelligent being. As such, the designer will probably be interested in universes with complex structure and life and stars and galaxies and all that. There is a high likelihood a designer will design universes like ours, with lots of interesting stuff and life in it, instead of boring universes where, for example, atomic nuclei never form. In Bayesian terms, the probability of a universe like ours (E) given the existence of an intelligent designer (H) is very high: Pr (E/H) > .9

The last (and only) time US had migration levels (i.e. share of the population that is foreign born, or, alternatively, share that is either foreign born or has at least one foreign born parent) this high was was in the early 20th century. Then, the migrants were overwhelmingly from Europe, particularly Germany, Ireland, Italy, and later Eastern/Central Europe. The same sort of rhetoric prevailed then and massive draconian restrictions were put in place on migration that were designed specifically to not only disallow non-European migration, but also migration from much of Europe (particularly non-Protestant regions). — Count Timothy von Icarus

That is true, but that is not where Trump and MAGA are now. Trump has made it clear he does not like brown and black people. They eat pets. They're rapists. They're from shithole countries. They're vermin, poisoning our blood.

Also: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/01/12/577673191/trump-wishes-we-had-more-immigrants-from-norway-turns-out-we-once-did

But now imagine that a pregnant woman is about to kill herself by jumping off a building onto an empty street below. Would a third party be entitled to shoot her dead if by doing so this will stop her jumping off the building? My reason says 'no'. — Clearbury

I have the same intuition. I'm partial to thought experiments where a person must save a child or x amount of zygotes. No matter what x is, a rational person will always save the child. That, to me, is decisive.

Not a single word from Trump or his people either, about the change in policy. What are you expecting Trump to do about Ukraine?

Did anyone win the money yet?

Except that Hillary Clinton, an unimaginable hag of a woman, won the popular vote by a comfortable margin in 2016. But keep coping, I suppose.. — Tzeentch

Look who she ran against. If she had been a white male, she would have clobbered Trump. Women and minorities are underrepresented in all aspects of leadership in this country. A minority woman running for president is like a sprinter starting 20 yards behind the starting lining. You don't live in this country, do you?

The way Democrats can win an election is not run a woman again for the next ten years. Harris lost the battleground states by a heartbreakingly small margin. If she had been a white male, Trump would have been toast. This sexist country just can't stand the thought of a woman leader.

For instance, to the average Repub, the issue at the border has nothing to do with the nationality of the people on the other side of the border. No conservative republican cares where you are from (including Trump); if you want to respect America’s laws, apply and enter the country legally, great, welcome aboard from wherever you are from. The border issue is simple: to say “America” and mean it, you need a border so you can point on a map to what you mean. We need a border first to be the country everyone can find on a map so they can leave their country’s borders and come here for a better life. We need to build a better America so that when they cross the border they find the hope they seek. Borders are real and matter for the sake of Americans and the rest of the world. Race and nationality of an individual person has nothing to do with this issue, save for one nationality - American - which nationality only exists inside a border (once there is a border). Republican policy at the border is for the sake of people of ALL nationalities creeds and colors who are legally American. — Fire Ologist

Nope.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-country-biden-campaign-liken-rcna130141

Poisoning the blood? Where have we heard that before...If all these illegal immigrants were lily white people from Norway, you think you'd be hearing that kind of rhetoric from Trump? And his supporters love it. And the non-racist Republicans turn a blind eye to it. That's just Trump being Trump. Trump has dinner with Nick Fuentes and there's not a peep of protest from MAGA world. They like it. That's a feature, not a bug.

A large segment of Republicans is incredibly racist.

As far as I see, anything that the West doesn't like. China, Iran, North Korea, Russia. — Manuel

There are very good reasons for the West not liking those countries and trying to contain them.

I see little problem with aborting pregnancies due to rape or concerns for the wellbeing of the prospective mother or child. Those are just unfortunate situations. — baker

How does that square with: ""If someone is willing to kill even their own unborn children, then how can they be counted on that they won't kill other people?""

Why should the rape victim be allowed to kill their child? How can she be counted on to not kill another person? Are you making some exceptions to your rule here? If you're allowing rape victims to have abortions, what about women who's husbands have died and they can't afford the child?

"If someone is willing to kill even their own unborn children, then how can they be counted on that they won't kill other people?" — baker

Other people? This implies that the fetus is a person. And what if the mother's life is at stake or we're dealing with a rape victim? You would prohibit abortion in those cases too? After all, if a rape victim will kill her own child, who knows what she's capable of in the future, right?

But you can the see the appeal of such a brain replacement thought experiment.

we gradually remove their brain without interrupting their consciousness
— Clearbury

Good luck. — AmadeusD

If a neuron dies, you won't lose consciousness. So, if we replace your neurons, one by one, with functionally equivalent mechanical neurons, you wouldn't lose consciousness during the process. Why would you? And now you, who have been conscious the whole time, has a mechanical brain. Your original biological brain is no longer a factor in who you are as a person anymore.

Biden didn't get the most votes in 2020?

It's stupid policy to have 11 million undocumented people living in this country. It's stupid politics on the Democrats part to tolerate/enable that and label anyone who disagrees as racist. It's also evil to let people stream into the country illegally so we can benefit from their exploitation.

A pundit once said if Americans are faced with a choice of a Democrat who won't enforce borders and a fascist who will, they'll pick the fascist. I hope Democrats learn from this shellacking.

Sam Harris said voters don't like seeing women boxers punched in the face by men. He's right. Biological men in women's sports is a minor issue in the scheme of things, but it's indicative of a mindset Americans find abhorrent. It's also stupid policy. Biological men should not be in women's sports.

What is to stop large companies from erecting barriers to entry and price-fixing, colluding, and predatory pricing?

I was very surprised so many women would swallow the insults from Trump/Vance and vote for the pro-life sexual predator. If Harris had talked about protecting men whether they like it or not and bragged about grabbing dick, she would have gotten about 0% of the male vote.

Women got pro-choice amendments passed in Kansas and Ohio, of all places. I think they're going to turn out in droves to put one of their own in and send a message to the pussygrabber and his mouthbreathing supporters.

:up:

Long term, virtually everyone would be better off under an anarchy. Apart from criminals and power-hungry war mongers. — Clearbury

There is no such thing as long term anarchy in this world. If something depopulated 99% of the world, maybe, but not in the world we live in. If government disappeared people would start organizing immediately. Surely you must realize that.

I am making the point that anarchy is just and all governments are unjust. I don't think that's a trivial point. That seems highly significant, if true. — Clearbury

I'm a consequentalist. I don't think anarchy is just. It's one of the worst states of affairs, which is why it never lasts long.

:100:

It's a nine ketchup packet storm for sure.

The signs look good, and I think Trump will lose, but he should be losing women by 90 points. I don't understand women who would vote for him. Is it brainwashing?

But then you're making a trivial point. Would you rather live in Heaven or Hell? Which is a more moral state of affairs? Heaven, on both counts, of course. But Heaven (and anarchy) is impossible, so what are you going to do?

I would love to live in anarchy if I could maintain my current lifestyle and not have to worry about people murdering me and taking my stuff, but that's not an option, so now what?

Yes, though I don't think you took it anywhere at all. — Clearbury

OK, let's say you're granted a wish and you wish all the governments away. It's anarchy. You're living on your own in your cabin in the woods and Humungus and his road warriors discover you living your idyllic life and want to kill you and steal all your stuff. Now what?