On 25/09/2018 21:16, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 07:26:58 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:03:48 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Why is it unlikely to have no opinion about something you've
realized
is unknowable?

Why should knowability influence opinion? I think it is likely that
the true nature of reality, the underlying "why" of universal laws
are
unknowable.

So what is your opinion about this unknownable "why"? Why are the
universal laws as they are, according to your opinion?

My view is that without the constants of nature being rather close to
what they happen to be we would not be around to wonder about it. The
weak anthropomorphic principle. How other alternative universes might
have looked had things been different are spelled out fairly clearly in
Martin Rees's book "Just Six Numbers".

Much like Conway's game of life derives from very simple rules but turns
out to be Turing complete. Complexity is something that can arise as an
emergent property of what is in essence a very simple model system.

It does not stop me from believing with high confidence
that the mechanisms we can observe accurately describe these things.
Theologically, I can easily argue that the existence of gods is
likely
unknowable (unless they reveal themselves), but nevertheless
believe,
on the face of the available evidence, that they do not exist.

Compared to that bowl with sand and the question about whether the
number of grains of sand in that bowl is an even number or an odd
number. That too is, in practice, unknowable, and it would be
quite
natural to have no opinion about that.

The answer in that case is perfectly knowable. I can count the
grains
and know for certain.

I would like to see you count several billion of grains of sand. One
single miscount would make you producera the wrong answer. And during
the counting process some grains are likely to split into two or more
parts, changing the number of grains. Finally, if you would count one
gran every second, 24 hrs per day every day all year around year after
year, one human lifetime would be insufficient to count a few billion
grains.

Indeed. In practice the number of grains of sand is unknowable because
manipulating them to count will invariably split some into pieces.

I cannot examine the Universe for a god that has
the power to hide itself.

Sure you can examine it, but you may of course fail to find any deities.
But who knows, maybe you are able to outsmart god?

I am reminded of a Douglas Adams quote about bizarrely improbable
coincidences:

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/now_...ce/345641.html

For those who have realized that the question about the existence
or
nonexistence of deities also is unknowable it would be just as
natural to have no opinion about that question. After all, your
opinion about it would say something about you but not anything
about
our universe.

I've certainly never met anybody who had no opinion on the question
of
gods.

True, you haven't met me...

I am interested in the question but I don't believe the answer to it is
knowable in this universe.

Pretty much for the same reason I've never met anybody with no
opinion on the shape of the Earth. Nobody is that poorly informed on
either issue.

To have no opinion about the existence of God is no stranger than to
have no opinion about why the laws of nature are like they are.

In the latter case there is a requirement that the laws have to be
sufficient to allow matter to arise, stars to form and burn for long
enough for interesting chemistry to occur. That is quite a few fences to
be jumped over. Multiverse theories get out of this bind by allowing the
entire parameter space to have been tried with only the interesting ones
having observers or things to observe. The rest are sterile and boring.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown