> people need to learn they shouldn't trust apps made by these giant adzillas.
I do wish life were that simple. Users (including myself) get value out of natively installed apps. Until that changes, this suggestion is impractical.
Moreover, Firefox makes it super easy to screenshot individual elements on a webpage, such as photos, by automatically determining the screenshot boundaries, which means I don't have to manually drag the screenshot area.
> sealing changes the lifetime of a mapping, i.e. the sealed mapping won’t be unmapped till the process terminates or the exec system call is invoked. Applications can apply sealing to any virtual memory region from userspace, but it is crucial to thoroughly analyze the mapping’s lifetime prior to apply the sealing.
> We invented the concept of right and wrong, for a reason. Or true and false, same thing.
Ah morally that's correct. But in general, such thinking is giving up too much.
Capital T Truth exists irrespective of humans, no? For instance, Quantum Mechanics was True before it was discovered, and would have remained True whether or not there were ever any humans to investigate it. The same for whatever base reality is.
> The experience of my own existence - and the assumed irrefutability of it - is based on features beyond my control. How do I make my heart beat?
The way we experience it, sure. The fact that we experience something, be it a true reality or an illusion in a matrix, is irrefutable. That's exactly "what cogito, ergo sum" [0] is talking about. In fact, thinking along these lines is what led Descartes to come up with this principle. In a world of uncertainty where we cannot even trust our own senses, how can we arrive at any Truth? And he realized: everything else we think and experience could be false, but the fact that I am something that is able to think and exist is itself a truth that no one can take away! It's history is pretty interesting.
> our brains are inherently limited, hence cannot be trusted.
Yeah I agree with this in general. When it comes to logic though, it is hard to see how for instance the law of the excluded middle could be wrong. But then that may be just the limited brain talking :)
> Cogito, ergo sum is a meaningless statement in this context.
Not sure how. The fact that I exist is irrefutable. Everything else could be just a dream, say if base reality is that I'm a brain-in-a-vat, but my own experience says that I exist, and no one can deny that, not even God.
> Take quantum mechanics for example. Makes all our logic go away.
That doesn't sound like the right way to think. QM, and science in general, is based on observations, and those are always subject to revision. Tomorrow, all laws of physics could flip, making all our current science moot. The only role of logic here is to make sure that our techniques and conclusions are consistent and not affected by the arbitrary whims of human thoughts and desires. Logic actually helps humans go beyond the biological limitations.
We may not be able to probe the system directly, but we can take guesses at some of its properties using a powerful tool: logic.
For instance, if it is true that something cannot come out of nothing (ex nihilo nihil fit), and its clearly true that something exists (cogito, ergo sum), then it must be the case that whatever base reality is, it must have always existed. This base reality could be god or some base physical laws or something else, but unless someone can show that the premise is incorrect, we can surmise the eternal nature of reality.
Thank you sticking to it for so long! It was a refreshing perspective on natural theology. And I will have to think about "can there be a reason for base_ruleset" quite some more.
> base_ruleset is not true in and of itself in the way 2+2=4 is.
Also, my claim is these are exactly the same. 2+2=4 is only true because of the axioms of number theory. Maybe geometry is more illustrative where different axioms give rise to euclidean or hyberbolic geometry, etc. base_ruleset is similarly an axiom of reality.
My usual example of the rules of Conway's Game of Life applies. The rules don't have any reason to exist, but once posited, the board generations naturally follow.
> A1 must fail unless one is prepared to assert that things happen without reason (in which case the 'chocolate cake' argument applies)
To be explicit here, things happening without a reason (positing an axiom) is in no way the same as things being illogical. Axioms are part of logic.
> rather than attempting a full defence of God=existence in a combox.
Your argument depends a lot on this claim, but it's fine.
> "God wills it" is one such reason: in fact, it's the only reason we have had so far in this discussion.
> Your alternative, of asserting that something can happen without a reason,
> do you agree that my position -- that God willed base_ruleset but not hypothetical_ruleset -- is at least internally consistent and does not fall to the same objections that I think your position falls to?
This is the key claim of theism that I don't understand. On one hand, you're claiming base_ruleset needs a reason to exist, and on the other hand, you're willing to accept God just existing "as His own cause". No matter words you want to use, you cannot evade the fact that you're positing a very complex being (despite the book describing Him as simple) as an axiom: one who can process and understand multiple possibilities across eons of timesteps and then somehow can actively choose to actualize some possibilities based on some internal criteria.
So you claim, God is existence and thus logically necessary. My question is: what happens if God did not exist? Yes, there would be no existence. "I" wouldn't exist. The universe wouldn't exist. Nothing would exist. There would just be logical possibilities "floating around". Is this not logically valid? My claim is that existence itself not necessary. The fact that something does exists does not invalidate the claim that it could have been otherwise and nothing could have existed. And if that is established, then God also has the same status as base_ruleset, didn't have to exist, but does exist, but we cannot ask why because it's an axiom, a brute fact.
Moreover, note that even God is not free from the "it could have otherwise" argument. For instance, God can either be omnipotent or just have enough power to create our universe. When we walk around New York looking around at the high rise building, we don't think, wow, someone with infinite power must have created these building. No, we only need conscious creatures with intelligence and raw materials much smaller than infinity. Similarly, maybe God only has the power to actualize this particular universe. So then the question is why omnipotent and not limited, or vice versa? Is there any answer better than, that's a brute fact?
--
> Do you agree base_ruleset might have been otherwise? Do you agree that you have given no reason for base_ruleset actually existing, and hypothetical_ruleset not actually existing?
Okay let's address this other keystone of your argument. I've been accepting this for simplicity but I don't actually agree this is established. Here's why:
Let's take the example of a universe with unicorns and without. Yes these are 2 possibilities, but I hope you agree that they cannot be true at the same time. A universe can either have unicorns or not. The same object can either be here or there. And so on. We as conscious creatures will necessarily experience only one of these infinite possibilities from our individual vantage points. So let's say the 2 universes exist, the humans in one universe will see unicorns and think, it could have been the case that unicorns didn't exist, and the humans in the other universe think the opposite. But they won't know if the other universe also actually exists or not.
By which I mean to point out that we can only experience our own universe. But can we really claim the other universes don't exist? We don't have access to all of reality. There could exist another universe with unicorns. There could exist another universe where I'm typing this from a cafe instead of at my desk. And the same for every possibility.
Yes, base_ruleset might have been otherwise. But we don't know the ontological status of these other possibilities. If it is a key argument for a personal God, then I'm happy to posit that all possibilities exist. Just not at the same time and not at the same place, as that is illogical. We live in one universe and that is what we experience. That doesn't rule out these other possibilities.
So if it could have been otherwise, maybe it did, just not in our local vicinity. We don't need to reason why just this one possibility. Instead, all possibilities exist. To me this is more reasonable that positing a willing thinking being who just exists as His own cause.
Note that is not a multiverse from physics' perspective. I'm saying whatever "otherwise" you can think of, it just exists. In the same way what we experience exists. The "God" I'm positing doesn't have to choose. He actualized all potentials.
--
> probability also assumes that things will continue to behave as they have in the past.
Aside: this is not exactly correct in Bayesian reasoning. It has priors that get stronger and stronger as more data comes in, but that never turns into certainty. If the next new data falsifies everything before, then Bayesian reasoning demands from us that we throw away everything and start again.
And that's pretty much the only way for us humans to reason about our sensory reality. Just as an example, you must have a high degree of belief in Christianity, but if tomorrow the Hindu god Shiva reveals Himself, then you'd have no option other than to discard your earlier beliefs (and vice versa).
This is a good comment as it explains much more about your perspective than before.
---
Alright. We've to first get into the meaning of the word existence.
From my perspective:
There is a property of reality called existence. And clearly the existence of 2+2=4 is very different from the existence of lions. Thus existence is of two kinds: potential existence and actual (ontological) existence. Concepts of both a universe with gravity and a universe with anti-gravity exist potentially (what I called ghost universes). But only the universe with gravity actually exists, but universe with anti-gravity doesn't.
Is is possible for there to be no potential existence? No, there is always potential existence in the form of all logically valid possibilities, because logic (potential existence) necessarily exists. It is illogical for logic to not exist.
But is it possible there were no actual existence? Yes, because we see some concepts exist and other don't. To paraphrase your words, there is nothing inherent in the concepts of something that can turn them into actual existence. Actual existence could have been otherwise, including there being nothing actualized.
Reality also contains some mechanism by which potentials can become actualized. This mechanism consists of "stating a purely actual axiom/FC" after which the rest of Reality follows. Theists state FC=God who then chooses which of the many potential existence to actualize. Naturalists state FC=base_ruleset out of which the rest of reality emerges.
Hopefully this clarifies my position in a different way.
---
>> I'd love it if you could show that P1 isn't a valid possibility.
> Sure. Logic exists.
Haha okay that's on me, I set the bar too low [0]. But as per above, I was talking about actual existence, not potential. Of course logic exists, but logic needs an axiom to start with. The question then becomes, is there necessarily some purely actualized axiom/FC? I think the answer is no. There could have been no actual existence. No "I", no FC, no God, nothing. Only potential existence, but nothing to actualize any of it.
---
> Hopefully I have shown that, FC=rules is not logical, while FC=Personal God is.
Detailed responses below, but briefly, FC=Personal God still needs to be taken as an axiom, same as FC=rules. You've tried to use existence as the logical basis, but as I show above, on clarifying the definition of the word existence, "it is impossible for God not to exist" fails.
More importantly, the fact that God has free will is still not proven. Maybe God can only create the universe we see, but no unicorns, no anti-gravity. The choices God has might be limited to 1.
---
> rather, the claim is that all existence of anything and everything, including logic itself, proceeds from God. (Actually, God, in a sense, is logic [...])
This is a main point to discuss, because I don't understand what you mean by "God, in a sense, is logic". I get that God is traditionally defined that way, but I am not able envision what it would mean to say that an entity that has "free will" is logic or the basis of logic.
How can God, who is claimed to be purely actual existence, be logic, which is purely potential existence?
Logic works on axioms. Logic by itself doesn't have any say on the axioms. It can say: if axioms, then something. But it cannot itself state the axiom. There is no such "will" in logic to posit axioms. But for each "stated" axiom, the logical truths contingent on that axiom automatically manifest. These truths are absolute and indisputable and not even God can change them.
So to me, logic precedes everything. Even God would be bound by logic, not the other way around. Can you explain why you think otherwise?
---
> God is existence. Existence doesn't need a reason outside existence for existing; in fact, it is illogical for such a reason to exist.
I am not sure which existence you're talking about. Clearly concepts like lions or unicorns need an external reason for existing. You may mean potential existence, for which the statement is true, but then God is not potential but purely actual existence. And the statement doesn't generally apply to actual existence.
> Given that God is existence, it is impossible for God not to exist, so He is the reason for His own existence. He needs no reason outside Himself for existing. It is illogical for Him not to exist.
> while FC=Personal God is [logical].
This is a making a logical leap though. First we have to define God appropriately before we can equate God to existence. Because see, the point of contention is that God has a free will or not. So if you say God is existence, then aren't you by definition circularly proving God?
To show how, let replace God with Blob. Then, given that Blob is existence, it is impossible for Blob not to exist, so He is the reason for His own existence. It is illogical for Him not to exist. Therefore Blob has free will. Yes silly, but my point is God or Blob are just words at this point. We'll have to do more work to prove the other properties of God, especially free will.
Similarly, when you say, "[logic] proceeds from the FC; it is an expression of the FC's being. (The FC is not the FC if something, namely logic, is independent of it.)", then it seems to me you're just defining FC to have this property and calling it God who is of course personal. As I mention above, to me logic is separate and supreme to God, as it has a different kind of existence than God.
---
> Do you agree that reference to brute facts is illogical?
You already clarified this statement. But I was thinking about axioms. They are the free variables. There is no logical precedence to axioms. They just are posited as priors, and logical reasoning proceeds from the axioms/brute fact. Thus, it is all part of logic and hence not illogical.
And this "stating of axioms" is what the discussion is about. Why this axiom and not that axiom? Why a personal God and not a base_ruleset or vice versa.
> if you say one thing can happen without a reason (brute facts), you are thereby forced to say anything can happen without a reason, and that therefore you have no reason to think (say) that a chocolate cake can't start doing calculus, or some other bizarre idea.
Well no, because brute facts are also bound by logic. A "chocolate cake" as usually defined, does not have the capability to do calculus, otherwise it is not a chocolate cake, but say a cartoon character in the shape of a chocolate cake. The meaning of the words obviously matter. Unstoppable force and immovable object are "defined" to be impossible at the same time. Thus, bizarre ideas are ruled out by definitions/properties and rules of logic.
In particular, FC=base_ruleset is a brute fact. But base_ruleset has to be consistent with our observations W.
--
> P does not imply N because there is no logical connection between the two
> As stated above, if P (empirically-observed) and !P (empirically-falsified) are both compatible with N, then N cannot be said to be empirical.
> Not probabilistic or logically implying, but simply irrelevant and disconnected.
Perhaps the disagreement is that my approach is from Bayesian reasoning, asking the question: given W, which of A1 or A2 is more likely relative to each other. And seems like you're coming from the perspective of proving M or N with 100% certainty?
> Therefore, non-willing, non-free FC is compatible with unicorn events.
But if you want to talk about certainties, then yes, non-willing FC is definitely compatible with unicorn events, as I also showed with the Game of Life example.
And since N has a non-zero probability, that actually a proof against the 100% certainty of a FC with free will, no? As in okay, let's forget W. Just from logic, everything CAN be explained by "programming" (=N), so how can one logically posit M with 100% guarantee?
---
> There is no claim that God actualises base_rules
> it is change, not regularity, that the book uses as the starting point
Right yes, not explicitly in the book. I'm just extending it from what the books imply. FC has to explain everything we see (W). And I hope you agree that we do observe regularity (as part of W). Everything that we look at follows deep regular rules. In other words, the change we see is regular. It is thus implied in the book, even though it is not explicitly mentioned.
And that is also why we don't need to explain the change of everyday objects like lions. We have to explain the base_ruleset that gives rise to the regularity that explains the changes. Hence, A1 or A2.