From: hal@finney.org
Date: Thu Nov 04 1999 - 11:05:19 MST
Robin Hanson, <rhanson@gmu.edu>, writes:
> In the space of all logically imaginable observations, the
> dead universe theories have, as a whole, assigned a relatively
> high likelihood to data we observed, relative to the data
> we did not see. In Bayesian terms, relative to theories which
> don't assign as high a likelihood to to observed data,
> our posterior that the right answer is in this theory class
> should rise.
>
> In contrast, the class of living universe theories has not,
> as a whole, assigned a very high likelihood to the data we
> actually observe. For every more specific theory that predicted
> that, say, the allies would win World War II because God is
> on their side, another nearly equally plausible theory in
> this class predicted the opposite.
The way I am applying this Bayesian argument is with regard to reports of
events which would seem to imply a "living" universe, i.e. one in which
intelligence intervenes to apparently circumvent natural law, in the
form of events which have been described in terms of miracles and magic.
Given the success of dead-universe predictions, we come to believe
that these reports are very likely to be incorrect. The reason we
disbelieve these reports is exactly because of the evidence that the
universe is dead, and therefore natural law holds in a relatively simple
and straightforward manner. (Of course, natural law holds in a living
universe as well, but the point is that Powers would be able to use
their technology to give the illusion of violating virtually any laws.)
Now if we develop new reasons to believe that the universe may be
living, such as the Fermi paradox or Robert's attempts to explain our
cosmological observations in terms of widespread alien activity, then we
have to re-evaluate our earlier decisions regarding miraculous events.
To the extent that we come to believe that the universe is living, it
very likely would have been so throughout recorded history. And therefore
we can no longer interpret history as occuring in a dead universe.
In the context of a living universe, our reasons for disbelieving in
miracles no longer apply. Miracles are no longer impossible, as they
would be in a dead universe.
Strictly speaking, Bayesian reasoning merely forces us to raise the
probability that miracles may be real, given new reason to believe in
a living universe. By itself this is a weak statement, as it may be
argued that the necessary increase in probability is trivial, from one
in a quadrillion to two in a quadrillion, or some such.
I am arguing though that the fundamental reason for disbelief in
miracles is that the universe is lawful, and therefore if the universe is
living this fundamental reason no longer applies. Therefore the whole
issue of miracles must be reevaluated from the beginning, without the
preconceptions and mindset which we carried over from when we thought
the universe was inherently lawful.
Now, you can still disbelieve in miracles, as we have seen here: people
can create explanations in terms of the apparent motives of the Powers
which (we stipulate) are present. But any such argument is far weaker
than one based on natural law. Judging the psychology of unknown
super-intelligences can be at best a highly uncertain enterprise.
There is no way that I can see to justify a strong disbelief in
miraculous intervention given a worldview that includes godlike aliens
in our vicinity; at least such disbelief can be nowhere near as strong
as that which would hold in a dead-universe model.
My basic point, therefore, is simply that to the extent that you come
to believe that a local alien presence is a real possibility, you should
accept that divine and magical and mystical events reported in the past
(and present) may be true. The same thing would hold, BTW, if you came
to believe that time travel from the future were possible, or that we
were part of a Tiplerian simulation where there could be intervention
from the outside.
The lessons to draw from this are more ambiguous. I do not mean to
say that we should refuse to accept local Powers because it forces us
to believe in religion. We should follow our beliefs whereever they
take us, courageously, and let the chips fall where they may. However,
we have to let the chips fall! No one here should be bashing religion,
or even be especially skeptical of religious reports, pseudo-science,
Big Foot, UFOs, or any of the other phenomena which seem to defy the
laws of nature, if they are seriously entertaining the possibility of
a localized alien presence. It is inconsistent to adopt a position
of extreme skepticism with regard to one set of reports while openly
exploring the other possibility.
Furthermore, I think it is important to recognize a possible emotional
component which may be driving beliefs in alien Powers. There are many
commonalities between such beliefs and those of traditional religions.
Throughout SETI literature you can find similarities between the appeals
to the wisdom, benevolence, etc. of the aliens, and traditional appeals
to God. I'm not saying that all believers in the value of SETI are
looking for God, but I do think that in some cases there are similar
motivations involved, perhaps subconsciously. We should all try to be
aware of our emotional motivations so that we can make better decisions.
To the extent that SETI efforts represent a sublimated search for
God, hidden beneath rationalism, then my arguments will be especially
unwelcome. Some SETI believers think they have cast off the chains
of religion, and are likely to be an extreme skeptics with regard to
classical religious stories. They will abhore any suggestion that they
have inadertantly adopted a doctrine which requires them to be open to
the possibility of the truth of biblical miracles.
The emotional aspect goes in the other direction as well. I personally
experience tremendous emotional resistance in accepting the possibility
that Biblical miracles may be true. I do think this is a component of my
skepticism towards the suggestions by Robert and others that aliens may
have a widespread presence in the galaxy. I tend to be impatient and
disdainful of the SETI enterprise; it seems only slightly removed from
praying at the temple. The recent "Welcome to ETI" web page serves for me
as practically a reductio ad absurdum with regard to the quasi-religious
nature of SETI efforts.
In either case, then, there can be a significant emotional component in
our attitudes towards SETI, whether supportive or skeptical. Hopefully
we can all try to make ourselves more aware of them and thereby gain
clarity in our judgements.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:42 MST