Everything

[Taffer]

'm currently having a (unfortunately slow) discussion with Bri over there, and DavoMan complained that the posts are too long. So it's difficult to tell what it polite and what is impolite.

Your right, it is basically impossible to please all people. Then I suggest we just do what we feel is right on this topic .

It would be foolish to except to meet anything outside our world face to face (it wouldn't be outside our world, if that would be possible; if a god interacts with our world, or if there is an afterlife (not that I'm expecting one), it would, according to my definition, be part of our world). But if you concede that I am actually able to know something about the IPU, that seems to be sufficient. Yes, it's an analytical truth. So what we are looking for might be some kind of analytical argument.

Agreed on every count, except for the last point. You asked "what is the reason something [i.e. the universe] exists?", which, I took to mean, is looking for a synthetic truth. What good is analytic knowledge, except for describing other knowledge? It is (in my view) pointless to say "anything inside our universe exists" and then when asked why something inside our universe exists answer "because it is inside our universe". Analytic truths, when concerning the natural universe, I tend to find uncapable of quenching the humans thirst for knowledge.

But besides that, why and in what way does the simulated world follow our laws? In your example, no matter how often an apple falls down in our world, never ever will a simulated apple ever fall down in the simulated world.

It follows our physical laws because every single atom and every single bit of 'information' exists in side our made from things from our universe. The fact that inside things fall up is only apparent because, when writing the code for it, we decided to simulate this gravity in a different direction. The whole thing is a simulation (to our point of view), and so they are not real laws. Further more, it is still a law of gravity, albeit in a different direction. How about coming up with a new law that does not, in any way, arrise or get effected by any of our current laws.

I wouldn't call it a "board game". How is the rule 2/23 influenced by our laws? Maybe you are indeed missing the point; should that be the case, I suggest you return to my longer post and re-read the text below the second picture

Opps . In a moment of confusion, I thought you meant the game, rather then the computer simulation. You say that:

Unlike the previous example, the physics of this world is not just the physics of our world, with some twist added. Instead, it is built from scratch. Therefore, it is no surprise that fundamental rules of our world, like the conservation of energy, don't hold in this world.

But the world is still within our world. The physical laws are still just a simulation. And these 'new' laws are still not new! Again, give me one example of a law that is not derived from or influenced by a physical law in our universe. You can't, becuase our thinking is based on these physical laws.

Shifting the claim again a bit, are we?

Nope, I just forgot to post the explanation.

you can't have observations without theory.

Nonsense. First, let me explain my "shifting claim". I said that all knowledge is based on observation, and I stand by this claim. I also said that some knowledge is only observation. Some knowledge is directly based on observation, and all knowledge is indirectly based on observation.

Now, you gave me an example of not skepticism, but dogmatism. They know for certain that they saw a unicorn today because they do not say they saw the unicorn but had a sense experience of a unicorn. This is not a skeptical point of view. And it is pretty dead, because it was quite thoroughly disproved by the skeptic community.

To distinguish our positions, I suggest we call your position "naïve skepticism", and my position "critical skepticism".

Not at all. My position is True Skepticism, which states that no true knowledge is possible, even this statement. Your position seems to be that no true knowledge is possible, except this statement, which is Conditional Skepticism. My comment that all knowledge comes from observation is an argument against dogmatism. And I still challange you to produce some knowledge that is not based on observation.

f I understand you, you allow for the possibility that something is, but doesn't exist. Right?

Yes, there could be something outside the universe, but not only does it not 'exist', we can never study it. Without knowing this 'outside' we cannot know why there is an 'inside'. If we claim to be able to do that through induction, then it won't be knowledge at all, but a guess. If we want to guess, that's all very well and good, but I assume you do not.

 

[jan]

Sorry, Taffer, for my lack of response so far (insert subterfuge here); I'm still alive, and maybe I'll find some time to reply during the weekend.

 

[jan]

Originally posted by Taffer
You asked "what is the reason something [i.e. the universe] exists?", which, I took to mean, is looking for a synthetic truth.

Hey, reason is reason, take what you can get.

What good is analytic knowledge, except for describing other knowledge?

Don't say this in a room full of mathematicians specialized in pure mathematics.

It is (in my view) pointless to say "anything inside our universe exists" and then when asked why something inside our universe exists answer "because it is inside our universe". Analytic truths, when concerning the natural universe, I tend to find uncapable of quenching the humans thirst for knowledge.

I would say such an argument would make the mistake to address existence like an ordinary property; "everything inside our universe exists" is not a sentence like "everything inside our universe is green", although, as an English sentence, the grammar is similar, but the logic is completely different.

Otherwise, it would be possible to develop the concept of the "Pink Invisible Existing Unicorn". The PIEU (Pink Invisible Existing Unicorn) must exist, per definition. Obviously, there is something wrong with such a term.

Everything that exists inside our universe exists, but that doesn't explain why it exists. I am glad you agree, since your first posts made me suspect you could be trying to give an answer like the one you now reject.

That doesn't preclude the possibility that some kind of analythical reasoning delivers such an explanation. I assume CplFerro was trying something like this. My hints that the distinction between "actual" and "possible" might be void goes in a similar direction. I don't know whether or not any such speculation will ever result in something useful. It's very doubtful that it ever will (which I was trying to explain CplFerro), since we are dealing with stuff that is notoriously difficult to test. But why exclude the possibility of a convincing explanation? It surprises me that you claim to be not only a skeptic, but a "True Skeptic", doubting the possibility of any "true" knowledge, including the knowledge what can and can't be known, but nevertheless make bold claims about what is and what will never be possible to know.

It follows our physical laws because every single atom and every single bit of 'information' exists in side our made from things from our universe. The fact that inside things fall up is only apparent because, when writing the code for it, we decided to simulate this gravity in a different direction. The whole thing is a simulation (to our point of view), and so they are not real laws. Further more, it is still a law of gravity, albeit in a different direction. How about coming up with a new law that does not, in any way, arrise or get effected by any of our current laws.

I think what you are trying to say is that those worlds supervene. But that doesn't make them unreal. Unless you want to say that, since there are just atoms and void, there are no thoughts in our world, just simulated thoughts, no games of chess, only simulations of games of chess, no science, only the simulation of science, no pain, no love, no ideas, no theories, no colors, no smell, just the dance of atoms simulating all those things.

But the world is still within our world. The physical laws are still just a simulation. And these 'new' laws are still not new! Again, give me one example of a law that is not derived from or influenced by a physical law in our universe. You can't, becuase our thinking is based on these physical laws.

Please explain how the law 23/3 is influenced by the laws of physics of our world. I know that the person who came up with this law consisted of atoms following the laws of physic of our world, but how has this left traces within the law 23/3 itself?

you can't have observations without theory.

Nonsense. First, let me explain my "shifting claim". I said that all knowledge is based on observation, and I stand by this claim. I also said that some knowledge is only observation. Some knowledge is directly based on observation, and all knowledge is indirectly based on observation.

And I say you are wrong. As soon as I have some time, this will be the subject of another thread.

Now, you gave me an example of not skepticism, but dogmatism. They know for certain that they saw a unicorn today because they do not say they saw the unicorn but had a sense experience of a unicorn. This is not a skeptical point of view. And it is pretty dead, because it was quite thoroughly disproved by the skeptic community.

What? I can't follow you at all. If you have the sense experience of a unicorn, you know for certain that you saw a unicorn, but this knowledge is dogmatism? So having the perception of a unicorn turns you into a dogmatist? Care to explain?

Not at all. My position is True Skepticism, which states that no true knowledge is possible, even this statement. Your position seems to be that no true knowledge is possible, except this statement, which is Conditional Skepticism. My comment that all knowledge comes from observation is an argument against dogmatism. And I still challange you to produce some knowledge that is not based on observation.

I never claimed that we have knowledge not based on observation. Please provide a quote that shows that I made such a claim. I also never proposed Conditional Skepticism (please provide a quote to prove me wrong). You, on the other hand, claim that it is possible to produce knowledge based on observation alone. How can the assertion of the existence of such a source of immediate knowledge be called Skepticism?

Yes, there could be something outside the universe, but not only does it not 'exist', we can never study it. Without knowing this 'outside' we cannot know why there is an 'inside'. If we claim to be able to do that through induction, then it won't be knowledge at all, but a guess. If we want to guess, that's all very well and good, but I assume you do not.

Not only a strange way to explain what "exists" means, as opposed to what "is" means, the claim "Without knowing this 'outside' we cannot know why there is an 'inside'." still lacks support. If you want to claim "we can't know why there is an 'inside'.", then that's fine, although I would still doubt it (see the first part of this post). But I can't see the connection between the first and the second half of your sentence, and so far, you failed to enlighten me (might be my fault, of course). Assuming we would know this 'outside', what would this knowledge tell us about the reason why it is?

 

[jan]

I never claimed that we have knowledge not based on observation.

But unfortunately, I wrote earlier:

If you want to defend the claim that no knowledge would be possible without some kind of observation: I doubt this too (since I think we couldn't start without some innate knowledge), but that's another topic.

There is certainly an interpretation that reconciles both statements. But I admit that it would be more naturally to read my earlier post as if I claim what I deny to have claimed.

So I guess I will have to take the trouble to defend both claims: that there is innate knowledge, and that there are no pure observations not based on theories. Stay tuned.

 

[Taffer]

There is certainly an interpretation that reconciles both statements. But I admit that it would be more naturally to read my earlier post as if I claim what I deny to have claimed.

So I guess I will have to take the trouble to defend both claims: that there is innate knowledge, and that there are no pure observations not based on theories. Stay tuned.

First clarify, are we talking about certain knowledge (as in the problem of epistemology)?

 

[Taffer]

Hey, reason is reason, take what you can get.

I made this statement because we can know analytic truths for certain (we certainly know that all married men have a wife) but we can not know synthetic truths for certain. However, when dealing with the outside universe, analytic truths tend to be rather useless. I'll come back to this.

Don't say this in a room full of mathematicians specialized in pure mathematics.

Mathematics is a tricky one. It seems to be partially analytic and partially synthetic. And certainly only parts of 'pure' mathematics are helpful for knowing for certain the way the world is (rather then just describing the world). But anyway...

I would say such an argument would make the mistake to address existence like an ordinary property; "everything inside our universe exists" is not a sentence like "everything inside our universe is green", although, as an English sentence, the grammar is similar, but the logic is completely different.

Not at all. All I argued there was that if existance means 'is inside our universe' then anything in our universe 'exists', and this is just an analytic truth.

Otherwise, it would be possible to develop the concept of the "Pink Invisible Existing Unicorn". The PIEU (Pink Invisible Existing Unicorn) must exist, per definition. Obviously, there is something wrong with such a term.

Again you are confusing the idea of a PIEU and an actual PIEU. Is the first case, the idea exists (naturally because you had it), and in the second, the actual, living, thing doesn't exist.

Everything that exists inside our universe exists, but that doesn't explain why it exists. I am glad you agree, since your first posts made me suspect you could be trying to give an answer like the one you now reject.

You do not understand by point here. Everything in our universe exists because it is inside our universe, and that is the only definition of 'existance' we can take. Analytically, anything inside our universe must exist. You stay everything that exists inside our universe exists. This is not what I said. I said everything inside our universe exists. Note the difference. The reason it exists is simply because it must exist by the very definition of existance.

That doesn't preclude the possibility that some kind of analythical reasoning delivers such an explanation. I assume CplFerro was trying something like this. My hints that the distinction between "actual" and "possible" might be void goes in a similar direction. I don't know whether or not any such speculation will ever result in something useful. It's very doubtful that it ever will (which I was trying to explain CplFerro), since we are dealing with stuff that is notoriously difficult to test. But why exclude the possibility of a convincing explanation? It surprises me that you claim to be not only a skeptic, but a "True Skeptic", doubting the possibility of any "true" knowledge, including the knowledge what can and can't be known, but nevertheless make bold claims about what is and what will never be possible to know.

Ahh, here you mistake my argument. In a nutshell I am saying that: Given that we can never leave the universe, and that we need to to find a true explanation, then we can never know why the universe exists. I fully admit that any of my premises could be wrong, but I do not see how if we except both of them that the conclusion could be wrong. Additionally, I do not believe an analytic truth will ever result in any real knowledge about the nature of the universe, because this truth was made by us, and not the nature of the universe. I am arguing based upon my reasoning, not the truth behind some of my statements (which I fully admit could be wrong). I am also somewhat of a materialist. I just think it can be wrong too.

I think what you are trying to say is that those worlds supervene. But that doesn't make them unreal. Unless you want to say that, since there are just atoms and void, there are no thoughts in our world, just simulated thoughts, no games of chess, only simulations of games of chess, no science, only the simulation of science, no pain, no love, no ideas, no theories, no colors, no smell, just the dance of atoms simulating all those things.

I do actually say that, but it's got nothing to do with the argument. To the people in the simulation, it is a real universe. To us, we can see how its laws are, by neccessity, governed by our laws, as it is inside our universe. For all we know our universe is inside another universe, but that doesn't help us answer the question at hand. We can no more leave the universe to find an answer then a computer program can leave a computer.

Please explain how the law 23/3 is influenced by the laws of physics of our world. I know that the person who came up with this law consisted of atoms following the laws of physic of our world, but how has this left traces within the law 23/3 itself?

What is the 23/3 law?

Nonsense. First, let me explain my "shifting claim". I said that all knowledge is based on observation, and I stand by this claim. I also said that some knowledge is only observation. Some knowledge is directly based on observation, and all knowledge is indirectly based on observation.

And I say you are wrong. As soon as I have some time, this will be the subject of another thread.
[/quote]

Good idea. Also, rather sheepishly, I'd like to update my position (after some time away and a bit of thought). All knowledge is based directly or indirectly on observation, or as a result, of the universe.

What? I can't follow you at all. If you have the sense experience of a unicorn, you know for certain that you saw a unicorn, but this knowledge is dogmatism? So having the perception of a unicorn turns you into a dogmatist? Care to explain?

No, having a sense experience of a unicorn and then claiming that it exists based upon this sense experience does. I can have a sense experience of a unicorn, but I'll fully admit that this experience could be wrong. Just because I saw it does not mean it exists.

I never claimed that we have knowledge not based on observation. Please provide a quote that shows that I made such a claim. I also never proposed Conditional Skepticism (please provide a quote to prove me wrong). You, on the other hand, claim that it is possible to produce knowledge based on observation alone. How can the assertion of the existence of such a source of immediate knowledge be called Skepticism?

Woah, hang on. I never said that, did I? If I did, I'm sure I didn't mean it like that. I do not believe that true knowledge is possible anyway, certainly not through observation alone. Knowledge is, but this is different from true knowledge. And if you do not claim that, then I withdraw my statement. It was just the feeling I had, and a rather late-at-night one at that. You have my apologies.

Not only a strange way to explain what "exists" means, as opposed to what "is" means, the claim "Without knowing this 'outside' we cannot know why there is an 'inside'." still lacks support. If you want to claim "we can't know why there is an 'inside'.", then that's fine, although I would still doubt it (see the first part of this post). But I can't see the connection between the first and the second half of your sentence, and so far, you failed to enlighten me (might be my fault, of course). Assuming we would know this 'outside', what would this knowledge tell us about the reason why it is?

This knowledge would let us compare the 'existance' of the universe and the 'non-existance' of the 'outside-of-the-universe-ness'. If you have a better definition of existance, I'd like to hear it, but this is the one I use when making my arguments.

The second half of that statement is based on my previous arguments. 'Existance' is a state of being (something either exists or it doesn't), and to know that state of being, we must know its opposite. Like knowing that it can be sunny by knowing both sunny days and rainy days. If we never saw a single fine day, then we would probably assume that it can never be fine, and it will always rain, and we would be very surprised when the rain stopped.

 

[jan]

I have to apologize for not replying, and, being even more impolite, not announcing that I would fail to reply. Unfortunately, I don't find the time for JREFing at the moment, and this state will persist a few more days. Nevertheless, I am willing to continue our exchange.

 

[Taffer]

I have to apologize for not replying, and, being even more impolite, not announcing that I would fail to reply. Unfortunately, I don't find the time for JREFing at the moment, and this state will persist a few more days. Nevertheless, I am willing to continue our exchange.

You are forgiven. You even took the time to make a picture!

Er, that is to say...

Me buxom lass, why don't ye come here 'n ol' Black Slate 'll shiver yer timbers!

EDIT: As I suddenly realise the internet is vastly asexual, please do not be offended by the above piratey rambling...

 

[Elind]

Why is there something and not just nothing? This sounds like a strictly metaphysical question, and I don't know if we will ever be able to answer this question. It might be nevertheless interesting to try to find different possible answers.

I prefer to keep it simple. Neither word (something/nothing) has meaning without the other, so having "something" is no stranger than having "nothing".

There is only one word: Everything. (or call it semantics if you prefer).

 

[Beerina]

Consider this thought experiment. A computer A.I. program is run on a very powerful computer. It is given a virtual world to exist in. This world is a room. As the A.I. program first 'gained' consiousness (i.e was first 'aware') inside this room, it has no knowledge of anything outside this room. After a few hours, the A.I. program begins to ponder. Eventually, it gets to the question at hand. "Why do I exist? Why does this room exist? Why does anything exist at all?". James is watching all this unfold on a monitor. james knows the answers to these questions. Why do I exist? Because we wanted to see what would happen. Why does this room exist? Because we wanted somewhere for you to live. Why does anything exist at all? Because we want it to.

...

Since the A.I. cannot survive outside of the computer simulation (in this case, he is the simulation), he can never 'go outside' and look at the outside universe. He cannot ask James (unless, of course, James wishes it, but that's irrelevant). He cannot, in fact, know the nature of his reality, because he has nothing to compare it to.

So the only real answer to the question "why does existance exist" is "because it does".

Not entirely true. The AI could try doing some scientific experiments. If cleverly designed, he might start gaining some characteristics of the supercomputer on which his universe is instantiated. In this way, he might discover the nature of the deeper reality. Or might crash his own system and instantly die without knowing it.

 

[Taffer]

Not entirely true. The AI could try doing some scientific experiments. If cleverly designed, he might start gaining some characteristics of the supercomputer on which his universe is instantiated. In this way, he might discover the nature of the deeper reality. Or might crash his own system and instantly die without knowing it.

It might do any amount of experiment, but for the perposes of this analogy, we are assuming the 'program' being run is both flawless and seamless (in that there are no tell tale features to AI inside the 'universe'). It would, therefore, never be able to know the true nature of its universe. Until it could leave the computer and observe that its universe is, in fact, a program being run on the computer, it can never know the nature of that universe (insofar as it cannot know the nature of why it exists). It can know the laws of the universe, but not the laws for its universe. In other words, it is governed by the laws of its universe. Its universe is governed by the laws of something 'outside' its universe. To know why its universe is requires knowledge of these laws. To know these laws requires to leave the universe. This is not possible (we are bound by the physical laws of our own universe which cease to exist 'outside' the universe), thus it cannot know why its universe exists.

 

[Beerina]

But it does. Because we can only exist in our reality, we can never 'step outside it' and look at the 'big picture'.

Many are the sci-fi stories where exactly this happens. My favorite is an old Twilight Zone where the little world produces people, whose worshipping creates a god, who then breaks free and attacks the scientist.

It's very premature to think there is no way to determine this, much less get there. Which leads us to...

Lets think of an ant, who happens to be 2 dimensional for all intents and purposes, living on a flat piece of paper. By his very nature, he cannot lift off the paper to see that his 'universe' actually happens to be inside a 3d universe, because he is in a 2d universe.

However, the ant could do experiments, like crush things in a 2-D press, harder and harder, until, perhaps, the 2-D item under strain buckled up into 3-space.

Perhaps a gust of wind, or a wanton lad, would pick him up and flip him over, and place him back down, turning him into the mirror image of himself. He'd wonder why the rest of the world had suddenly gone mirror image, but perhaps he and his scientist ant friends might reason out a mathematical explanation.

 

[Taffer]

Many are the sci-fi stories where exactly this happens. My favorite is an old Twilight Zone where the little world produces people, whose worshipping creates a god, who then breaks free and attacks the scientist.

It's very premature to think there is no way to determine this, much less get there. Which leads us to...




However, the ant could do experiments, like crush things in a 2-D press, harder and harder, until, perhaps, the 2-D item under strain buckled up into 3-space.

Perhaps a gust of wind, or a wanton lad, would pick him up and flip him over, and place him back down, turning him into the mirror image of himself. He'd wonder why the rest of the world had suddenly gone mirror image, but perhaps he and his scientist ant friends might reason out a mathematical explanation.

Nice little misrepresentation of my analogy. Obviously these things could happen, as my "ant on a flat piece of paper" is actually 3d and in a 3d universe. However, there is an 'inside' and an 'outside' to the universe. I'll attempt to explain.

It could be that, one day, scientists discover 43 new dimensions. They now understand all our 3D physical laws, in light of the new dimensions. However, these new dimensions are still inside the universe. In the ant analogy, your "wanton lad" would not describe anthing new about the universe the ant lives in, but simply gives him new-found knowledge about his current universe [that he thought was only 2D]. However, to find why our 'system' (universe) exists we must go 'outside the system' to see its causes. But this is not possible. Our bodies function through certain physical laws. These laws, by definition, do not exist outside our universe (for if they did, it wouldn't truly be outside the universe at all), so obviously we cannot know (or observe) anything at all outside the universe.

 

[Beerina]

It might do any amount of experiment, but for the perposes of this analogy, we are assuming the 'program' being run is both flawless and seamless (in that there are no tell tale features to AI inside the 'universe'). It would, therefore, never be able to know the true nature of its universe. Until it could leave the computer and observe that its universe is, in fact, a program being run on the computer, it can never know the nature of that universe (insofar as it cannot know the nature of why it exists). It can know the laws of the universe, but not the laws for its universe. In other words, it is governed by the laws of its universe. Its universe is governed by the laws of something 'outside' its universe. To know why its universe is requires knowledge of these laws. To know these laws requires to leave the universe. This is not possible (we are bound by the physical laws of our own universe which cease to exist 'outside' the universe), thus it cannot know why its universe exists.

Perhaps in a designed world where that were to be one of the design parameters. But in a random world, that would not necessarily be the case since the enclosed world is just a random outgrowth of the surrounding world and its physics.

And even if it were designed, you're asking an awful lot of the designer (note: he's a deceiver) to be able to predict every single test the intelligent AIs would possibly try, and compensate for it in ways that do not expose the outside world. As a general principle, this probably cannot be done without "running experiments" to see where preliminary AIs solve the problem, then eliminate that, and repeat over and over until no AIs solve the problem. Even then, you're still not guaranteed none will figure it out.

 

[Taffer]

I fail to see how, in any way, I introduced a designer.

There are no tests that can be done to understand outside of a closed system, by definition, not by design.

 

[Beerina]

Nice little misrepresentation of my analogy. Obviously these things could happen, as my "ant on a flat piece of paper" is actually 3d and in a 3d universe. However, there is an 'inside' and an 'outside' to the universe. I'll attempt to explain.

It could be that, one day, scientists discover 43 new dimensions. They now understand all our 3D physical laws, in light of the new dimensions. However, these new dimensions are still inside the universe. In the ant analogy, your "wanton lad" would not describe anthing new about the universe the ant lives in, but simply gives him new-found knowledge about his current universe [that he thought was only 2D]. However, to find why our 'system' (universe) exists we must go 'outside the system' to see its causes. But this is not possible. Our bodies function through certain physical laws. These laws, by definition, do not exist outside our universe (for if they did, it wouldn't truly be outside the universe at all), so obviously we cannot know (or observe) anything at all outside the universe.

You are assuming we could not "convert" to run our bodies outside the universe. If we could get said characteristics of it, we might very well be able to do that.

A supergenius locked inside a computer might realize this, figure out the nature of physics of the outside world, discover the Internet, find some machine attached to the Internet with a robotic arm, and build itself a body, and transfer its mind in there.

I can think of no fewer than three Sci-Fi stories where this is the case:

Matrix Reloaded (Agent Smith)

"Moriarity" Sherlock Holmes episodes on Star Trek: Next Generation

Virtuosity, with Denzel Washington and Russel Crowe


I would not presume our reality is one such that detection of outer world physics is impossible, much less escape. There's absolutely nothing in principle to prevent it. More likely than not, if all reality is natural, I think it would be the exception rather than the rule that we could not detect "outer reality".

And if we're in such a world deliberately, then the creator ("God", if you will) is a deceiver, keeping us ignorant and captive.

 

[Beerina]

Nice little misrepresentation of my analogy. Obviously these things could happen, as my "ant on a flat piece of paper" is actually 3d and in a 3d universe. However, there is an 'inside' and an 'outside' to the universe. I'll attempt to explain.

It could be that, one day, scientists discover 43 new dimensions. They now understand all our 3D physical laws, in light of the new dimensions. However, these new dimensions are still inside the universe. In the ant analogy, your "wanton lad" would not describe anthing new about the universe the ant lives in, but simply gives him new-found knowledge about his current universe [that he thought was only 2D].

I challenge this directly. An AI in a virtual computer simulation is told by the programmer all about his world, his computer, and the outside universe and its physics. He now has new-found knowledge about his current universe that he only thought was a Euclidian 3-space with "stuff" made of infinitely thin and hard planes.

Now he understands how all that is just a subset of the larger world's physics.

The difference you perceive is a matter of degree, not of substance.


Let's presume there's this God who created this world, and he is "spirit stuff", as are our minds, whatever that is, whatever that means. I would fully expect a logical explanation as to how this spiritual world instantiates him, us, and our universe. I don't accept "magically", because that is without cause, and that doesn't make sense, and is premature to assume anyway. And "mysteriously" is a far cry from "something impossible to understand".

 

[Beerina]

I fail to see how, in any way, I introduced a designer.

There are no tests that can be done to understand outside of a closed system, by definition, not by design.

You can define that, but 1. proving it is closed is very hard to do, and 2. presuming our universe is one such system is very premature.