What is the probability there is NO higher power?

[CrypticVillain]

I usually try to avoid threads like these, but I could help it this time......

I don't understand how anyone can answer anything other than 0, 50-50. or 100%.

[PeterMP]

I do not know what you are talking about.

Are you talking about an omnipresent omnipotent intelligent being? I still have no idea what you are talking about... and frankly, I do not think you do either. It's just a bunch of attributes thrown together. What is it made of? What does it eat? What color is it?

"For the purposes here, we'll define higher power very broadly and vaguely and could be anything from the god of the Abrahamic religions or Hindu, but other things like some sort of "nature" based force (what my understanding of many wiccans would hold as a belief), to an Einsteinian belief is a sort of non-active creative force for the Universe and even to the possiblity that we are a simulation and therefore the simulators would be a higher power."

So no we aren't necessarily talking about an omnipresent or omnipotent intelligent being because many of the categories listed in the OP don't include that.

[alexey]

So ne we aren't necessarily talking about an omnipresent or omnipotent intelligent being because many of the categories listed in the OP don't include that.

Maybe you are talking about advanced intelligent aliens? I think chances of those existing are pretty high because the universe is huge. Would those qualify under the question?

[No Excuses]

I don't understand how anyone can answer anything other than 0, 50-50. or 100%.

Why are varying levels of skepticism not acceptable for this question?

[alexey]

"For the purposes here, we'll define higher power very broadly and vaguely and could be anything from the god of the Abrahamic religions or Hindu, but other things like some sort of "nature" based force (what my understanding of many wiccans would hold as a belief), to an Einsteinian belief is a sort of non-active creative force for the Universe and even to the possiblity that we are a simulation and therefore the simulators would be a higher power."

Broadly and vaguely, got it. Some kind of something that could be called "higher power". Of course something like that exists. We already discovered tons of things that we can call "higher power".

---------- Post added September-24th-2012 at 10:09 AM ----------

I get a strange feeling that somehow we are supposed to know what does and what does not qualify under the question.

Broadly and vague does not cut it.

If you are asking a question that makes sense, you should be able to actually ask it in a way that makes sense.

[PeterMP]

Broadly and vaguely, got it. Some kind of something that could be called "higher power". Of course something like that exists. We already discovered tons of things that we can call "higher power".

---------- Post added September-24th-2012 at 10:09 AM ----------

I get a strange feeling that somehow we are supposed to know what does and what does not qualify under the question.

Broadly and vague does not cut it.

If you are asking a question that makes sense, you should be able to actually ask it in a way that makes sense.

I thought the examples I gave were enough for it to make sense, and everybody that has responded befor you answered in a manner that made sense based on what I was thinking.

However, in order to help you, I have edited the OP:

"To be clear, the idea of that higher power I mean is generally expressed in the examples given. In each case, said higher power did (e.g. created the universe we live in) or does interact in a manner that has/does substantially affected humans (i.e. if there is no universe, we wouldn't be here). I do want to limit it to what I'll call purposeful actions though so things like the laws of physics are not valid as things like physics don't have purposes in of to themselves."

Is that clear enough for you?

[alexey]

I thought the examples I gave were enough for it to make sense, and everybody that has responded befor you answered in a manner that made sense based on what I was thinking.

However, in order to help you, I have edited the OP:

"To be clear, the idea of that higher power I mean is generally expressed in the examples given. In each case, said higher power did (e.g. created the universe we live in) or does interact in a manner that has/does substantially affected humans (i.e. if there is no universe, we wouldn't be here). I do want to limit it to what I'll call purposeful actions though so things like the laws of physics are not valid as things like physics don't have purposes in of to themselves."

Is that clear enough for you?

Flowers have a purpose of attracting insects, but they do not know it.

Does your question require the higher power to know the purpose, is it necessarily intelligent?

[Botched]

I'm pretty confident in saying that there is a 58.3% probability.

Fascinating tri-modal distribution (though with a tiny sample size).

thatswhatshesaid

[Corcaigh]

**EDIT**

I am going to try and speed this conversation up some based on making some assumptions on the conversation.

By all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

You will make some point about the the number of different possibilities and probabilities.

Borrowing from a recent thread, I will point out that there are cases where we essentially assume high probabilities of exsistence where there is little to no evidence of them existing. I will point out that the evidence that stars are real physical things where real physical nuclear reactions happen is based on assumptions for which we have little real data.

You will talk about our ability to measure things from stars.

I will tell you that those are based on the underlying assumptions of science having a certain state (i.e. they exist) and the evidnece for that is weak, and you can't boot strap evidence from assuming an assumption is true as evidence that the assumption is true. And that the reasoning used in your link would force you to conclude that the probability that stars are made up of real matter and there are real nuclear reactions happening there is something less than 1E-6 because they can't have a higher probability than the probability of the underlying assumption.

From there, you will make a point related to the statements being meaningless philosophical pondering.

And I will either ignore your response or tell you I don't care what you think, depending on my mood and what else I am doing.

But what probability do you give for such an outcome?

[PeterMP]

I usually try to avoid threads like these, but I could help it this time......

I don't understand how anyone can answer anything other than 0, 50-50. or 100%.

I don't understand the insistence that 50-50 is necessarily a "good" answer (not that I think 50-50 is necessarily wrong either).

If you state there are multiple possible higher power secnarios (as laid out in the OP) and that there are possibly multiple non-higher power scenarios, then we can have a non 50-50 case.

Is there any reason to believe to that the number of cases on each side MUST be equal (again, I'm not saying that they can NOT be) or that the probilities must be smeared out equally amongst them on both sides.

Related to this, I think standing in 1950 when computers were very new that saying that there is a relatively high probability (relative to the other possibilities) that we are a computer simulation would have been incorrect.

Today, I think that probability is higher.

If 100 years from now, computer technology has continued to improve and AI technology has become more common place and easily to maniuplate, the probability has to go up even more.

Where is the increase in that probability coming from (i.e. something else must be going down)?

And if you insist that it must be 50-50, why does it make sense to mantain equality on each side? You'll have to take more from the other higher power baskets than the non-higher power baskets to mantain that 50-50.

---------- Post added September-24th-2012 at 11:15 AM ----------

But what probability do you give for such an outcome?

I'd say it is pretty low since I went ahead and sped it up.

If I hadn't, I would have put it somewhere over 85%.

---------- Post added September-24th-2012 at 11:18 AM ----------

Flowers have a purpose of attracting insects, but they do not know it.

Does your question require the higher power to know the purpose, is it necessarily intelligent?

I have a feeling this might lead to a conversation on the definition of intelligent.

For the purposes here, I'd say we should not include flowers since I don't really think they are higher powers (equals from an evolutionary stand point, but not higher). I would include any other evolutionary living system on Earth in the same manner.

Do you have other examples?

[CrypticVillain]

I am just saying that you should either be 100% sure there is not, 0% sure, or you don't know (50-50) . That is just the way I am thinking, if somebody is 75%, that is cool and I am pretty sure they will explain it and I will have no problem with it.

[alexey]

...

Related to this, I think standing in 1950 when computers were very new that saying that there is a relatively high probability (relative to the other possibilities) that we are a computer simulation would have been incorrect.

Today, I think that probability is higher.

If 100 years from now, computer technology has continued to improve and AI technology has become more common place and easily to maniuplate, the probability has to go up even more.

...

Actual probability that we are in a computer simulation does not change.

[PeterMP]

Actual probability that we are in a computer simulation does not change.

Okay, our calculation of the probilities should change as a function of the evidence we have changes (i.e. what we say the probability is " I think standing in 1950 when computers were very new that saying").

As our ability to simulate complex and seemingly inteligent systems increases (which it has), then the probability that we assign that we are one should go up.

As we gain evidence that it is possible to do so, we should assign a higher probability to possibility that we are one.

Assuming all knowledge, there is a real probability, which we don't know.

[Corcaigh]

I have a feeling this might lead to a conversation on the definition of intelligent.

Does the higher power even have to be sentient?

[alexey]

Okay, our calculation of the probilities should change as a function of the evidence we have changes.

As our ability to simulate complex and seemingly inteligent systems increases (which it has), then the probability that we assign that we are one should go up.

As we gain evidence that it is possible to do so, we should assign a higher probability to possibility that we are one.

Assuming all knowledge, there is a real probability, which we don't know.

Which means that we pull these probabilities out of our behinds.

(a.k.a. talking about something based on 0 actual evidence)

[PeterMP]

Does the higher power even have to be sentient?

I know of no case where something that is not sentient acts in a manner that most people would consider purposeful.

So I would say I don't think that would be possible.

Can you give an example of such a case?

[alexey]

I have a feeling this might lead to a conversation on the definition of intelligent.

For the purposes here, I'd say we should not include flowers since I don't really think they are higher powers (equals from an evolutionary stand point, but not higher). I would include any other evolutionary living system on Earth in the same manner.

Do you have other examples?

I do not want to do the "i know it when i see it" thing.

Could you please summarize what we have so far for the definition of this "higher power" we are talking about?

---------- Post added September-24th-2012 at 11:49 AM ----------

I know of no case where something that is not sentient acts in a manner that most people would consider purposeful.

So I would say I don't think that would be possible.

Can you give an example of such a case?

Insects having sex.

[Corcaigh]

I know of no case where something that is not sentient acts in a manner that most people would consider purposeful.

An automated machine that we don't comprehend.

[PeterMP]

I do not want to do the "i know it when i see it" thing.

Could you please summarize what we have so far for the definition of this "higher power" we are talking about?

---------- Post added September-24th-2012 at 11:49 AM ----------

Insects having sex.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sentient

having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences

I think insects are sentient based on most defintions (i.e. they perceive and have senses).

You are not required to participate. If you think the OP and even my attempts at clarifications are too vague, you are welcome to not comment in the thread. Everybody else seems to have gotten the concept.

---------- Post added September-24th-2012 at 12:09 PM ----------

An automated machine that we don't comprehend.

I don't believe people generally consider non-AI machines sentinent and I don't think most people would consider an AI machine "automated".

I think an AI machine that we could not understand could be considered a higher power IMO, but I'd be willing to leave that up to the discreation of the individual poster.

---------- Post added September-24th-2012 at 12:11 PM ----------

Which means that we pull these probabilities out of our behinds.

(a.k.a. talking about something based on 0 actual evidence)

I think an reasonable extension of what I stated was that we have SOME evidence and in addition, our evidence has changed with time.

[alexey]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sentient

having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences

I think insects are sentient based on most defintions (i.e. they perceive and have senses).

You are not required to participate. If you think the OP and even my attempts at clarifications are too vague, you are welcome to not comment in the thread. Everybody else seems to have gotten the concept.

OK how about a sweet pea plant sending out those little tentacle thingies to try and grab something to climb on.

I do want to participate by pointing out that you invited people to pull probabilities about an undefined thing out of their behinds and now you are presenting an observation that some people obliged as evidence that you asked a meaningful question.

---------- Post added September-24th-2012 at 12:15 PM ----------

I think an reasonable extension of what I stated was that we have SOME evidence and in addition, our evidence has changed with time.

What evidence to we have about reality being or not being a computer simulation?

[PeterMP]

OK how about a sweet pea plant sending out those little tentacle thingies to try and grab something to climb on.

I do want to participate by pointing out that you invited people to pull probabilities about an undefined thing out of their behinds and now you are presenting an observation that some people obliged as evidence that you asked a meaningful question.

We don't have to worry about sweet pea plants because they aren't higher powers as I've already stated.

I'll leave the issue of it being an a meaningful question up to the individual. What I might find meaningful others might not.

If you don't think it is meaningful, I'll accept that as your opinion, and your welcome to quit commenting feeling certain that your opinion is registered, understood, and not being debated in this thread (i.e. the subject of this tread is not is the question meaningful).

[alexey]

We don't have to worry about sweet pea plants because they aren't higher powers as I've already stated.

We got here because you wanted to include a "force with a purpose" without considering the possibility of purpose without comprehension.

I'll leave the issue of it being an a meaningful question up to the individual. What I might find meaningful others might not.

If you don't think it is meaningful, I'll accept that as your opinion, and your welcome to quit commenting feeling certain that your opinion is registered, understood, and not being debated in this thread (i.e. the subject of this tread is not is the question meaningful).

mean·ing·ful

Adjective:

1. Having meaning.

2. Having a serious, important, or useful quality or purpose.

Maybe I'm talking about 1) and you are talking about 2).

[PeterMP]

We got here because you wanted to include a "force with a purpose" without considering the possibility of purpose without comprehension.

mean·ing·ful

Adjective:

1. Having meaning.

2. Having a serious, important, or useful quality or purpose.

Maybe I'm talking about 1) and you are talking about 2).

By either defintion, I'm fine w/ you saying you don't think it is meaningful.

My attempt is not to debate the meaningfullness of the question based on either defintion.

[alexey]

By either defintion, I'm fine w/ you saying you don't think it is meaningful.

My attempt is not to debate the meaningfullness of the question based on either defintion.

OK, thanks for clarifying... For the record, I consider your question to be a meaningful question that does not have any actual meaning.

I will go away now unless something else comes up.

[SnyderShrugged]

I am just saying that you should either be 100% sure there is not, 0% sure, or you don't know (50-50) . That is just the way I am thinking, if somebody is 75%, that is cool and I am pretty sure they will explain it and I will have no problem with it.

For a while, the distribution fell exactly that way. I agree with you btw, I cant see why anyone would choose anything other than 0, 50 or 100 and be able to explain why.