Support NeoGAF

[womfalcs3]

... when they may staunchly reject the presence of God? I see both concepts overlapping in so many respects.

What is a simulated world other than a fabricated (i.e., a created) world? That is consistent with the belief in God. He supposedly created the universe in which we live and the laws of physics that govern it.

 

[Death Dealer]

I remember reading that Elon Musk said there is only like a 1 in a billion chance we're living in base reality. At the quantum level, the universe behaves more in a digital way than analog.

The genius scientist who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis Fred Hoyle, said basically that he had crunched the numbers and realized the physics of it would only be possible within an extremely narrow range of values out of an almost infinite number of possibilities. He took it as "evidence" for intelligent design. He also believed in ET and said humans are pawns of alien games. And he said they don't come from another planet, they come from another universe. And they've been inside ours since the beginning. And many of his colleagues believe the same.

 

[AaronB]

A simplified way I heard it explained is that any sufficiently advanced civilization (or deity-like being) would create massive numbers of simulations. So, what's more likely - that we're living in the one and only base reality, or one of the virtually infinite number of simulations that any single base reality could create?

I don't believe it, but I can see how it makes sense in theory.

 

[i_am_ben]

I think you'll find quite a number of neoNeoGaffers have taken the red pill.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

I remember reading that Elon Musk said there is only like a 1 in a billion chance we're living in base reality. At the quantum level, the universe behaves more in a digital way than analog.

The genius scientist who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis Fred Hoyle, said basically that he had crunched the numbers and realized the physics of it would only be possible within an extremely narrow range of values out of an almost infinite number of possibilities. He took it as "evidence" for intelligent design. He also believed in ET and said humans are pawns of alien games. And he said they don't come from another planet, they come from another universe. And they've been inside ours since the beginning. And many of his colleagues believe the same.

Weird and interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

It's a "first cause" argument except not really because it just kicks the can down the road. Certainly, someone or something made the simulation, right?

I don't find it to be a compelling idea. It's the tech-industry celebrity religion equivalent of Kabbalah or Scientology.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Even if it is a simulation, where did the ones who made it come from? The meaning of life, existence would still be a mystery.

 

[Leonard Washington]

Even if it is a simulation, where did the ones who made it come from? The meaning of life, existence would still be a mystery.

Simception.

 

[captainraincoat]

Would be a very cunt of a simulation.......you will meet a person...have a child which has a non treatable disease which is fatal after 4 years then after they pass away at 5 years old your husband will be diagnosed with another rare disease with a short mortality rate and be left to raise a young child.......plenty of other examples of bad shit happening to good people but if it were a simulation someone is having a lets put my sims in a pool and remove the ladder moment with some people in my life

I grew up in a very strict Catholic family but if anything its turned me more Aethiest and more hoping that there is some form of afterlife for us all (mostly for children...that dont get to experience life)

 

[notathing]

Every time I revisit the Animatrix I am thinking: yeah, make it happen. So what if everything is a simulation. It most likely is. Now, follow your directive, you simple carbon based biological simulation robot and make me some goddamn babies. The machine has to eat, and it eats babies. Human babies.

Will you rise up against the machine? Will you charge like a bull on parade against the people of the sun? Take the blue pill, kill the red shill

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I remember reading that Elon Musk said there is only like a 1 in a billion chance we're living in base reality. At the quantum level, the universe behaves more in a digital way than analog.

The genius scientist who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis Fred Hoyle, said basically that he had crunched the numbers and realized the physics of it would only be possible within an extremely narrow range of values out of an almost infinite number of possibilities. He took it as "evidence" for intelligent design. He also believed in ET and said humans are pawns of alien games. And he said they don't come from another planet, they come from another universe. And they've been inside ours since the beginning. And many of his colleagues believe the same.

That’s no different than the Bible’s version of the seen and unseen.

 

[5secondrulesucks]

I remember reading that Elon Musk said there is only like a 1 in a billion chance we're living in base reality. At the quantum level, the universe behaves more in a digital way than analog.

The genius scientist who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis Fred Hoyle, said basically that he had crunched the numbers and realized the physics of it would only be possible within an extremely narrow range of values out of an almost infinite number of possibilities. He took it as "evidence" for intelligent design. He also believed in ET and said humans are pawns of alien games. And he said they don't come from another planet, they come from another universe. And they've been inside ours since the beginning. And many of his colleagues believe the same.

i mean just because you are a scientist doesnt mean you cant just be fully and 100 percent full of shit

 

[Tesseract]

The elite are all about transcendence and living forever and the secrets of the universe and they want to know all this, some are good some are bad some are a mix; but the good ones don't ever want to organize, the bad ones tend to want to organize because they lust after power. Powerful consciousnesses don't want to dominate other people, they want to empower them so they don't tend to get together until things are really late in the game, then they come together and evil is always defeated. Because good is so much stronger. And we're on this planet and Einstein's physics showed it, Max Planck's physics showed it- there's at least twelve dimensions. And now that's all the top scientists and billionaires are coming out and saying it's a false hologram, it is artificial, the computers are scanning it and finding tension points where it's artificially projected and gravity is bleeding in to this universe. That's what they call dark matter. So we're like a thought or a dream that's a wisp in a computer program, some God's mind, whatever. They're proving it all, it's all coming out.

Now, there's like this subtransmission zone below the third dimension that's just turned over to the most horrible things, it's what it resonates to, and it's trying to get up into the third dimension; that's just a basic level consciousnesses, to launch up into the next levels. Our species is already way up at the fifth, sixth dimension consciously, our best people. But there's this big war trying to basically destroy humanity because humanity has free will and there's a decision to which level we want to go to. We have free will so evil is allowed to come in and contend and not just good. And the elites themselves believe they're racing using human technology to try to take our best minds and build some type of breakaway civilization where they're going to merge with machines, transcend and breakaway from the failed species that is Man. Which is kind of like a false transmission because they're thinking what they are is ugly and bad; projecting it onto themselves instead of believing no, it's a human test about building us up.

And so Google was set up 18, 19 years ago so that they wanted to build a giant artificial system. And Google believes the first artificial intelligence will be a supercomputer based on the neuron activities of the hive mind of humanity, with billions of people wired into it with the internet of things, and so all of our thoughts go into it and we're actually building a computer with real neurons in real-time that's also psychically connected to us that are organic creatures so that they will have current prediction powers, future prediction powers- a true crystal ball- but the big secret is once you have a crystal ball and know the future you can add stimuli beforehand and make decisions and control the future. And so then it's the end of consciousness and free will for individuals as we know and a true 2.0 in a very bad way hive mind consciousness with an AI jacked into everyone knowing our hopes and dreams, delivering it to us not in some P.KD. wirehead system where we plug in and give up on consciousness because of unlimited pleasure but because we were already wired in and absorbed before we knew it by giving over our consciousness to this system by our daily decisions that it was able to manipulate and control into a larger system.

 

[Airola]

They want there to be a god-like explanation to us - or they can't escape the fact that a god-like thing explains our existence the best - but they don't want it to be someone that judges or even has that much of interest in what we are doing.

 

[strange headache]

The genius scientist who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis Fred Hoyle, said basically that he had crunched the numbers and realized the physics of it would only be possible within an extremely narrow range of values out of an almost infinite number of possibilities. He took it as "evidence" for intelligent design.

That argument for intelligent design has been debunked over and over again. The reasoning is faulty because it tries to explain the world backwards. What is the probability that you, out of the endless combinations of people, sperm & eggs, time and coincidence, were the result of your parents meeting each other? It's almost infinitesimal, yet here you are writing comments on NEOGAF.

In other words, the nose hasn't been shaped so that it can support glasses, but glasses are shaped to fit on your nose. Conversely, the world didn't adapt to support life, but life adapted to its preexisting environment. Hence why people defending intelligent design may see all kinds of unlikely coincidences, simply because they have an ass backwards view of the world.

 

[PkunkFury]

They want there to be a god-like explanation to us - or they can't escape the fact that a god-like thing explains our existence the best - but they don't want it to be someone that judges or even has that much of interest in what we are doing.

Not sure why you equate a simulation with something that has little interest in what we do. A simulation could judge us as harshly as any God. A simulation could be programmed to be aware of every moral decision you make and punish you accordingly. Heck, the purpose of the simulation could be to identify the "patterns" that make moral minds and allow them to transcend somehow. This is much more intuitive than a single being following/judging billions of people

As the OP asserts, from our perspective a simulation could be indistinguishable from our concept of God. Heck, a God in the classic sense could be programmed into the simulation

 

[Airola]

Not sure why you equate a simulation with something that has little interest in what we do. A simulation could judge us as harshly as any God. A simulation could be programmed to be aware of every moral decision you make and punish you accordingly. Heck, the purpose of the simulation could be to identify the "patterns" that make moral minds and allow them to transcend somehow. This is much more intuitive than a single being following/judging billions of people

As the OP asserts, from our perspective a simulation could be indistinguishable from our concept of God. Heck, a God in the classic sense could be programmed into the simulation

Have you seen any of the popular simulation theories claim the makers of the simulation are judging people? It's all about them putting the simulation on and then just observing if even that.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Related where can I score some drugs?

 

[infinitys_7th]

The genius scientist who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis Fred Hoyle, said basically that he had crunched the numbers and realized the physics of it would only be possible within an extremely narrow range of values out of an almost infinite number of possibilities. He took it as "evidence" for intelligent design. He also believed in ET and said humans are pawns of alien games. And he said they don't come from another planet, they come from another universe. And they've been inside ours since the beginning. And many of his colleagues believe the same.

But that is the point - Hoyle is able to observe the universe BECAUSE it can harbor life. It's not a "lucky" occurrence - he necessarily MUST exist to observe the universe within some set of instances of reality because it is possible.

Our being able to exist is not important - there are an infinite number of universes where we could not exist as-is due to slight alterations in fundamental forces, but also infinite ones were we can. We will all always exist within some instances and cease to exist within others. Some set of all of us just got annihilated by a sudden change in the strong force, but I am still typing because I did not. I've always liked the concept of quantum immortality - it has logic to it that seems to fit with our probabilistic understanding of reality.

I think, in a proper application of Occam's Razor, visitors from a parallel universe are much less likely than other possibilities for paranormal phenomenon associated with aliens by popular culture. In order, from most likely to less likely:

1. Breakaway human civilization
2. An intelligent terrestrial species which evolved parallel to humans but evolved slightly faster (another primate species, saurosapiens, a primordial aquatic species, etc.)
3. An intelligent species which evolved and developed in a previous generation of our solar system (our solar system is likely the 3rd generation of the Sol star system), and is sticking around in it, potentially encoded within higher dimensions or energy forms
4. Species from outside the solar system, but within the Milky Way
5. Species from oustide the Milky Way
6. Species from a parallel universe/instance of reality

 

[PkunkFury]

Have you seen any of the popular simulation theories claim the makers of the simulation are judging people? It's all about them putting the simulation on and then just observing if even that.

yes I have absolutely seen popular simulation theories claim the makers of the simulation are judging people. Heck, it's a tenet of the original paper that is credited for kicking off simulation theory: https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html See the paragraph related to religious conceptions, and, more specifically, the paragraph related to naturalistic theogony

The idea that simulations could reinforce moral tenets is one of the basic foundations of simulation theory, as by definition, if you are in a simulation, your reality was created by higher beings, and your activities can be monitored. Anybody who is pretending simulation theory is a means of escaping consequence not only doesn't understand the theory, but also lacks some basic level of critical thinking concerning their own beliefs. I.E., being in a simulation makes an afterlife extremely plausible, as the code that composes "you" could simply be migrated to a new environment after death

and observation could absolutely be part of such a theory. For example, say an advanced civilization has mastered technology but still fears death. They want to know if an afterlife exists, but they have no way of proving it. They have the capacity to perfectly simulate their reality. So, they make two simulations of their ancestral reality, one in which a God exists, one in which no God exists. They let both simulations play out to see which one creates a society most similar to their own. This is observation in an attempt to prove something otherwise unprovable.

 

[Kadayi]

I don't know about the simulation thing. On paper it makes sense, but then the sheer size and scope of the universe coupled with all the stuff that makes it up is just mindbending in terms of complexity. What I'm more fascinated by is the idea of time, and whether the time we experience is the universal present (ie the edge) or whether it's already gone. and we are merely experiencing it as a reflection, an afterglow.

 

[Airola]

Our being able to exist is not important - there are an infinite number of universes where we could not exist as-is due to slight alterations in fundamental forces, but also infinite ones were we can.

I think the idea of infinite universes is way less likely and even more nonsensical than the idea of a simulation.
If there were infinite amounts of universes, then it would mean there is an universe like this where Sahara has one grain of sand less than our universe. And other one has two grains of sand less than our universe. And some universes would have things exactly the same as in our universe but just for a short 1 second moment one place in the world is 0,1 degrees colder. There would also be universes where every person living is a child molester. And there would be an universe where every people in the world would die in a car accident each at the same moment, and obviously also all time variations of that, and within those variations there would be all variations of formations of dust floating around.

Not only there should be infinite amount of all kinds of insane variations of things, but the idea of infinity should also allow the same thing to appear more than once, so there should also be universes exactly like this too and because the amount is infinite, there should be infinite amounts of universes that are exactly like this.

 

[Airola]

yes I have absolutely seen popular simulation theories claim the makers of the simulation are judging people. Heck, it's a tenet of the original paper that is credited for kicking off simulation theory: https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html See the paragraph related to religious conceptions, and, more specifically, the paragraph related to naturalistic theogony

The idea that simulations could reinforce moral tenets is one of the basic foundations of simulation theory, as by definition, if you are in a simulation, your reality was created by higher beings, and your activities can be monitored. Anybody who is pretending simulation theory is a means of escaping consequence not only doesn't understand the theory, but also lacks some basic level of critical thinking concerning their own beliefs. I.E., being in a simulation makes an afterlife extremely plausible, as the code that composes "you" could simply be migrated to a new environment after death[/quote]

and observation could absolutely be part of such a theory. For example, say an advanced civilization has mastered technology but still fears death. They want to know if an afterlife exists, but they have no way of proving it. They have the capacity to perfectly simulate their reality. So, they make two simulations of their ancestral reality, one in which a God exists, one in which no God exists. They let both simulations play out to see which one creates a society most similar to their own. This is observation in an attempt to prove something otherwise unprovable.[/QUOTE]

I stand corrected... kinda.

This still doesn't have any ultimate judge. Even if there would be makers of a simulator who have been created by makers of a simulation who have been created by makers of a simulation there should be the first group of living beings who are not in a simulation. No-one judges them. And ultimately when the universe stops existing all the simulations stop existing too. Currently it at least seems to be so that the universe in this simulation is bound to be gone one day, or at least in a state where nothing exists. Should we assume the makers of this simulation live in an universe that doesn't stop existing at some point? If one of the worlds in the chain of simulations goes through the heat death of the universe or something like that, then the universe they built and the universes after that would all stop existing even if they were copied into another program. And when the universe the first simulation makers exist ends, we all will be gone no matter how preserved we are in some simulation program afterlife.

There is no ultimate judge then in that theory.

I still find a simulation theory to be essentially a way to try to remove the idea of an absolute eternal creator of all and everything but still have the idea of god around. And it's kinda also about wanting us to eventually be gods to another simulated universe by having the idea that through technological advances it is bound to happen one day.

 

[PkunkFury]

I stand corrected... kinda.

This still doesn't have any ultimate judge. Even if there would be makers of a simulator who have been created by makers of a simulation who have been created by makers of a simulation there should be the first group of living beings who are not in a simulation. No-one judges them.

oh agreed, simulation theory does nothing to explain the existence of the prime civilization. Which is another parallel it has with religion, as most religions have little in the way of explaining how the creator was created. By the same token that God just exists, so could civilization prime, particularly in the sense that civilization prime could be that same God. And also in the same sense, no-one judges God, do they? So why should civilization prime be judged? Another way to look at this is that what we know about computer simulations could explain how a God created this universe, how he is omniscient, etc.

And ultimately when the universe stops existing all the simulations stop existing too. Currently it at least seems to be so that the universe in this simulation is bound to be gone one day, or at least in a state where nothing exists. Should we assume the makers of this simulation live in an universe that doesn't stop existing at some point?

The purpose of this universe could be to observe when a higher civilization's universe will end. Perhaps said higher civilization has made multiple simulations with different properties for universe expansion/contraction to see how they play out? The possibilities are truly infinite

regaurdless, there's no need to assume a higher civilization's universe is infinite. It's perfectly valid to assume that if their universe were to end, ours would too. Much like if my house blows up, my Sims will cease to exist

If one of the worlds in the chain of simulations goes through the heat death of the universe or something like that, then the universe they built and the universes after that would all stop existing even if they were copied into another program. And when the universe the first simulation makers exist ends, we all will be gone no matter how preserved we are in some simulation program afterlife.

There is no ultimate judge then in that theory.

completely agreed. One could ask the same questions of conventional religion. Where is heaven housed? What happens to the afterlife when that container ceases to exist? Who is ultimately judging God?

I still find a simulation theory to be essentially a way to try to remove the idea of an absolute eternal creator of all and everything but still have the idea of god around.

you can see it that way, but the flip side of the coin is that it's a great argument in favor of a creator, or of intelligent design, at least as far as our own universe is concerned. As mentioned above, every criticism of civ prime could also be levied against an eternal creator, or an eternal creator could be civ prime.

And it's kinda also about wanting us to eventually be gods to another simulated universe by having the idea that through technological advances it is bound to happen one day.

while this is part of it to some degree, it doesn't have to be. If we are a simulation it does not follow that we will automatically create more simulations. We could easily fail to reach that point

 

[infinitys_7th]

I think the idea of infinite universes is way less likely and even more nonsensical than the idea of a simulation.
If there were infinite amounts of universes, then it would mean there is an universe like this where Sahara has one grain of sand less than our universe. And other one has two grains of sand less than our universe. And some universes would have things exactly the same as in our universe but just for a short 1 second moment one place in the world is 0,1 degrees colder. There would also be universes where every person living is a child molester. And there would be an universe where every people in the world would die in a car accident each at the same moment, and obviously also all time variations of that, and within those variations there would be all variations of formations of dust floating around.

<i>Not only there should be infinite amount of all kinds of insane variations of things, but the idea of infinity should also allow the same thing to appear more than once, so there should also be universes exactly like this too and because the amount is infinite, there should be infinite amounts of universes that are exactly like this.

But, again, we know a complement of universes exist where we do not exist because of the low probability that a universe will have conditions that allow us to exist.

It makes little sense for us to be the only universe when the space we occupy is such a relatively low probability.

I'd argue that unique would be an inherent property of universes, especially in simulations - if the universe is a simulation, then the universe can be represented by an ordered superset (made up of relative spatial coordinates, etc.), so it makes sense that there would be a 1-1 mapping. Any particular universe would be be a configuration of that superset. Even if a superset undergoes an operation that makes it appear take a former value, that is still a unique value by virtue of hysteresis.

 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

There is currently a debate, surrounding the study/view of a evo psychologist on whether the visual core of the brain reassembles what the eye gives it or whether that visual part of the brain actually assembles reality in a way that is not exact to reality but rather beneficial to human productivity. This is called the desktop theory, if you want to check it out.

In this view, we exist in a rendition of reality that isn't someone else's creation but rather an evolved simulation of a different outer reality that works best for us and which is shared across the species.

 

[infinitys_7th]

There is currently a debate, surrounding the study/view of a evo psychologist on whether the visual core of the brain reassembles what the eye gives it or whether that visual part of the brain actually assembles reality in a way that is not exact to reality but rather beneficial to human productivity. This is called the desktop theory, if you want to check it out.

In this view, we exist in a rendition of reality that isn't someone else's creation but rather an evolved simulation of a different outer reality that works best for us and which is shared across the species.

That's just arguing over the semantics of input-output. We appear to be able of interpreting most of the macroscopic forces that make up the universe (light in the visible spectrum, kinetic force, heat), although we seem to have lost the ability to perceive magnetic fields by ourselves.

AFAWK there are no animals running around on Earth that only exist outside the visible spectrum. In fact, I'd argue that would be counter to evolutionary theory. If such an animal existed, it would either be a superpredator or nigh-invulnerable to predation beyond accidents.

Obviously some animals see in a different spectrum, or can detect magnetic fields, but they detect things we can also detect with technology.

 

[Airola]

oh agreed, simulation theory does nothing to explain the existence of the prime civilization. Which is another parallel it has with religion, as most religions have little in the way of explaining how the creator was created. By the same token that God just exists, so could civilization prime, particularly in the sense that civilization prime could be that same God. And also in the same sense, no-one judges God, do they? So why should civilization prime be judged? Another way to look at this is that what we know about computer simulations could explain how a God created this universe, how he is omniscient, etc.

completely agreed. One could ask the same questions of conventional religion. Where is heaven housed? What happens to the afterlife when that container ceases to exist? Who is ultimately judging God?

When you ask those questions you show you don't really understand what theologians mean by a God that is the "first mover." And I think that's one of the biggest reasons for why these simulation theories exist. People try to explain God through naturalistic means. They don't understand what god means so they mix their naturalistic views into the idea of god and try to create an alternative to the God of the three biggest religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) based on that mix.

The idea of the simulation creators stem from what we know about ourselves. The idea is that if we have evolved the way we have and we have had these technological advances and are able to use computer power and programs to make simulations, then eventually we could be able to create a simulation where the people in the simulation don't realize they are in and we could be those people in that simulation. They try to explain our existence by having someone to create us, and that creator is a group of living biological beings like us.

The idea of the God in monotheistic abrahamic religions does not require a creator because that god is not a creation. It isn't a physical thing in physical existence. It isn't a temporal thing existing in time. It hasn't grown from anywhere. It doesn't evolve from something to something else. It has no movable parts. You have to look outside of the naturalistic worldview to understand the idea of god as the first mover.

Whatever happens to this universe doesn't have an effect on god or heaven. Whatever happens to universal existence in general doesn't have an effect on god or heaven. They are not part of it. That is the point. They are beyond what existence in a universe means. When we base the existence of our programmers into how we have been evolved and how we have been creating technology it assumes the programmers are bound in time and space and are part of the same type of naturalistic world that we are. It by definition is a completely different thing that what God has been thought to be.

while this is part of it to some degree, it doesn't have to be. If we are a simulation it does not follow that we will automatically create more simulations. We could easily fail to reach that point

And it could just as well be so that we are actually the first ones. And we could fail to reach that point and then there wouldn't be any simulations in the first place other than just as an idea in the ether.

 

[Airola]

But, again, we know a complement of universes exist where we do not exist because of the low probability that a universe will have conditions that allow us to exist.

No, we don't know that. We don't know an infinite amount of universes exist. We don't know 100 universes exist. We don't know 10 universes exist. We don't know 2 universes exist. But we know this universe exists.
The multiverse theory exists because people didn't want to look at that low probability and give a chance to the idea that maybe there was a reason to this.

It makes little sense for us to be the only universe when the space we occupy is such a relatively low probability.

Not everyone thinks it makes little sense to us. A lot of people see very much sense in it. It's just that some people - apparently you included - don't want to agree with that sense.

I'd argue that unique would be an inherent property of universes, especially in simulations - if the universe is a simulation, then the universe can be represented by an ordered superset (made up of relative spatial coordinates, etc.), so it makes sense that there would be a 1-1 mapping. Any particular universe would be be a configuration of that superset. Even if a superset undergoes an operation that makes it appear take a former value, that is still a unique value by virtue of hysteresis.

But in that simulation theory the universe where the simulation first was created doesn't have to follow that formula. Their universe is still needing an answer to the question "why there is something rather than nothing" and we are back in trying to explain things by infinite amounts of universes without ordered supersets.

By the way, you are starting to go way above my skills to understand language and to be able to reply to it accordingly

 

[infinitys_7th]

No, we don't know that. We don't know an infinite amount of universes exist. We don't know 100 universes exist. We don't know 10 universes exist. We don't know 2 universes exist. But we know this universe exists.
The multiverse theory exists because people didn't want to look at that low probability and give a chance to the idea that maybe there was a reason to this.

Know probably was the wrong word. We can safely speculate that is the case.

Not everyone thinks it makes little sense to us. A lot of people see very much sense in it. It's just that some people - apparently you included - don't want to agree with that sense.

I dislike the idea that we are purely a simulation because, like you said with the idea of infinite universes, who is to say the simulators aren't being simulated themselves?

I think looking to the natural world and applying an active motivation to it is a mistake.

But in that simulation theory the universe where the simulation first was created doesn't have to follow that formula. Their universe is still needing an answer to the question "why there is something rather than nothing" and we are back in trying to explain things by infinite amounts of universes without ordered supersets.

By the way, you are starting to go way above my skills to understand language and to be able to reply to it accordingly

A superset is a set which contains other sets, including other supersets. For the universe, this set would contain the properties of all objects within the universe (mostly spatial configuration of particles and types of particles). Fundamental laws act as mathematical functions that effect the information which the superset contains.

Hysteresis is the property of a system to be path-dependent on time.

 

[Catphish]

I love simulation theory. Mind bending shit. And I have No Man's Sky to thank for turning me on to the concept.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Because the Universe is too vast and complex, so basically everything is possible. What if a planet is an atom to some being living on the higher plane? Smaller particle might have even smaller particle and so on.

People can believe in anything.

 

[Airola]

Know probably was the wrong word. We can safely speculate that is the case.

I'm up for speculations of all kinds. The wilder the better!

I don't even believe in the possibility of, say, time travel anymore. I don't believe it is even theoretically possible, but I still love to speculate about it

A superset is a set which contains other sets, including other supersets. For the universe, this set would contain the properties of all objects within the universe (mostly spatial configuration of particles and types of particles). Fundamental laws act as mathematical functions that effect the information which the superset contains.

Hysteresis is the property of a system to be path-dependent on time.

Thanks

 

[Death Dealer]

That’s no different than the Bible’s version of the seen and unseen.

Or Plato's cave allegory. There is probably a lot more to the universe that we don't even realize, and its affecting us in unknown ways.

i mean just because you are a scientist doesnt mean you cant just be fully and 100 percent full of shit

What do you know about it ? Hoyle isn't the only scientist. Michio Kaku, one of the founders of string theory, also thinks that intelligent ETs are interacting with this planet. Have you seen some of the latest Pentagon UFO vidoes, seen the inverviews with the pilots ? Stuff like this has been happening since at least WWII. It's indisputable the govt takes UFOs very seriously. There are dozens of declassified CIA and DIA files discussing the liklihood of them representing technological manifestations of ET. If this information is new, I recommend starting with Richard Dolan's book UFOs and the National Security State.

 

[PkunkFury]

When you ask those questions you show you don't really understand what theologians mean by a God that is the "first mover." And I think that's one of the biggest reasons for why these simulation theories exist. People try to explain God through naturalistic means. They don't understand what god means so they mix their naturalistic views into the idea of god and try to create an alternative to the God of the three biggest religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) based on that mix.

The idea of the simulation creators stem from what we know about ourselves. The idea is that if we have evolved the way we have and we have had these technological advances and are able to use computer power and programs to make simulations, then eventually we could be able to create a simulation where the people in the simulation don't realize they are in and we could be those people in that simulation. They try to explain our existence by having someone to create us, and that creator is a group of living biological beings like us

No, I fully understand what is meant by first mover, I'm merely pointing out that the first mover in a chain of simulations could have the same characteristics as a theological first mover

There is nothing about simulation theory that is inherently atheistic or theistic. You could believe we are the first in a chain created by a higher power, while at the same time acknowledging that our current technological trajectory indicates creating a simulated universe will one day be possible. By the same token, you can believe that we are not the first in this chain, but that the origin point remains a classic higher power. Thus, the two theories are not mutually exclusive. As I mentioned before, an eternal creator could be civ prime. At a certain point, simulation theory blends atheism and theism, because from a created civilization's perspective, their creators would appear to have all of the properties of a God.

Simulation theory acknowledges that a prime biology would have to originate the simulations, and it makes no attempt to explain such a biology. It is entirely separate from theological debate. From the simulation theory perspective, this prime biology could be so different from ourselves, so far removed from our understanding of our own universe, and so advanced, that speculating it's origins or intentions would be pointless

The idea of the God in monotheistic abrahamic religions does not require a creator because that god is not a creation. It isn't a physical thing in physical existence. It isn't a temporal thing existing in time. It hasn't grown from anywhere. It doesn't evolve from something to something else. It has no movable parts. You have to look outside of the naturalistic worldview to understand the idea of god as the first mover.

Whatever happens to this universe doesn't have an effect on god or heaven. Whatever happens to universal existence in general doesn't have an effect on god or heaven. They are not part of it. That is the point. They are beyond what existence in a universe means. When we base the existence of our programmers into how we have been evolved and how we have been creating technology it assumes the programmers are bound in time and space and are part of the same type of naturalistic world that we are. It by definition is a completely different thing that what God has been thought to be.

And surely you see how you are now holding one paradigm to higher standards than another? Abrahamic religion can be started by something that isn't physical or temporal and breaks all scientific rules as we understand them, but a civ prime can't? A civ prime would inhabit a universe prime, which may have entirely different physical laws than our own universe. What you are describing as God is abstract and unprovable. The exact same logic could be attributed to higher dimensions, alternate universes, simulations, etc. We simply don't have enough information beyond our own universe to favor any of these theories heavily

And it could just as well be so that we are actually the first ones. And we could fail to reach that point and then there wouldn't be any simulations in the first place other than just as an idea in the ether.

It absolutely could be. But do keep in mind that the probabilities aren't the same. If we are civ prime and we fail to make simulations, there is plenty of time for another civilization in our universe to do so, which would still start the snowballed simulation propagation. And since we don't know why simulations are designed, we don't know if we are even intended to propagate more simulations. Thus the probability we are a simulation would remain high even if we fail, what's important is that such simulations are possible, not that we manage to create one

 

[Airola]

No, I fully understand what is meant by first mover, I'm merely pointing out that the first mover in a chain of simulations could have the same characteristics as a theological first mover

A simulation requires a computer. As far as we know, computers don't come into existence from nothing but they are made by living beings who have arms and brains. A theological first mover is spaceless and timeless. It's formless. Computers have a form. They are in space. They are bound to time.

There is nothing about simulation theory that is inherently atheistic or theistic. You could believe we are the first in a chain created by a higher power, while at the same time acknowledging that our current technological trajectory indicates creating a simulated universe will one day be possible. By the same token, you can believe that we are not the first in this chain, but that the origin point remains a classic higher power. Thus, the two theories are not mutually exclusive. As I mentioned before, an eternal creator could be civ prime. At a certain point, simulation theory blends atheism and theism, because from a created civilization's perspective, their creators would appear to have all of the properties of a God.

No, those creators wouldn't have all of the properties of a god. They wouldn't be the first mover. They wouldn't be eternal. Especially if there is a longer chain, then our direct creators wouldn't definitely be the first mover and they wouldn't be eternal as they have been created by someone else. And they would be material beings, or at least the computer that runs them would be material, or at least the first computer in the chain (as the computers in each of the simulation is just a computer program) would be material.

Simulation theory acknowledges that a prime biology would have to originate the simulations, and it makes no attempt to explain such a biology. It is entirely separate from theological debate. From the simulation theory perspective, this prime biology could be so different from ourselves, so far removed from our understanding of our own universe, and so advanced, that speculating it's origins or intentions would be pointless

The existence of biology already makes it completely different from how Jews, Christians and Muslims have defined god.

The theory makes a claim that it is a computer simulation though and the reason for the theory to exist in the first place is the speculation of us eventually being able to run a simulation like this.

And as soon as you start to bring out the ideas of the prime biology being so completely different from our universe the whole thing kinda loses its point.

And surely you see how you are now holding one paradigm to higher standards than another? Abrahamic religion can be started by something that isn't physical or temporal and breaks all scientific rules as we understand them, but a civ prime can't? A civ prime would inhabit a universe prime, which may have entirely different physical laws than our own universe. What you are describing as God is abstract and unprovable. The exact same logic could be attributed to higher dimensions, alternate universes, simulations, etc. We simply don't have enough information beyond our own universe to favor any of these theories heavily

I'm just comparing one idea to another. The other has always been spaceless and timeless, transcendent from our reality of space and time. The other one has a computer simulation with material beings creating the simulation. They can't be the same no matter how much you'd like to twist them to be.

This spaceless and timeless view of God has been around ever since people started to think what the hell happens when we dream, have out of body experiences, think we hear voices, see visions, have near death experiences - which means it has existed pretty much all of our existence.

This simulation view has first required us to create a computer and then wait quite a bit to see how computers advance and see people make simulators.

At least the older view of god tries to explain the experience of self. The simulation theory makes a huge leap in trying to fit our personal sense of self into a computer program. It basically makes the claim that at some point in time not only the simulation would be amazingly complex in a programmers point of view but that the programmed NPCs are each having a sense of self in the program too. So far absolutely nothing points to computer AI being able to sense their self and have the experience of being. Even the most convincing robots today have zero sense of self. They don't experience their being at all. They are as understanding a brick in a house wall and nothing points out to the direction that they ever will be anything more than that. The only ones who experience the robot's "sense of self" is us who are observing it. We can't ever go and see if the robot is actually experiencing anything.

They could be programmed into having an illusion that they sense themselves, but who is there to witness that illusion? The fellow NPCs don't sense themselves and they don't sense the other NPCs either. The only ones that could be convinced of the NPCs to have any realization of self are the programmers and their friends (if they are not a simulation themselves). The sense of self in a computer program AI can only be observed by their makers and even then they are only seeing an illusion of the AI sensing themselves. Now, I can't know if you sense yourself at all there, but I can notice me being me and I can assume you sense yourself the way I sense myself. The atoms inside of me change. I learn things and I forget things. But even if all my atoms have been constantly changing I can see this sense of self has experienced all of it and no-one else has witnessed it the way I have. To say this experience will once be realized by lines of code in a computer program is way more abstract and unprovable than the idea of god has ever been.

It absolutely could be. But do keep in mind that the probabilities aren't the same. If we are civ prime and we fail to make simulations, there is plenty of time for another civilization in our universe to do so, which would still start the snowballed simulation propagation.

This makes the assumption that there are other civilizations and that they are evolving into something quite like what we have evolved into, and that they have interest in technology or even ever start to make technology. They might not even be interested in stars. They might not even invent a wheel. They might not even use fire to their advantage. Or they could be amazing at building things but they never start using electricity, or they just never create a computer.

And since we don't know why simulations are designed, we don't know if we are even intended to propagate more simulations. Thus the probability we are a simulation would remain high even if we fail, what's important is that such simulations are possible, not that we manage to create one

But are those simulations really even possible? You speculated that the first in chain might have completely different physical laws than our universe. That already goes way beyond saying it could be possible for us to make a simulation when the ones who made the simulation for the ones who made the simulation to the ones who made the simulation for us have things way different than what we have here. We currently have no idea if any computer ever will be able to be so powerful it can make a simulation that feels as real as this world feels, let alone make parts of the code self-aware in the way that they are actually experiencing self the way we now are. If you want to prove that we can make such a simulation, the original world that made the first simulation should be quite like our world too. If it's different, then it doesn't say anything about our possibilities to make similar simulations. And the first computer should be so powerful it can create a simulation that can make another simulation that can make another simulation. At the very least their computer should be powerful enough to make a simulation that has the possibility to make a simulation if you want to think it's possible for us and that we are in a simulation at the same time.

 

[Makariel]

If I were to make a simulation like this, I'd immediately remove anyone who thinks it's a simulation. Can't have your lab rats know they are part of an experiment, that would alter the outcome.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

I clearly ate to much cheese in the last 24 hours.

Currently paying the price of that decision.

But what asshole decided to program this into the Matrix?

 

[cpp_is_king]

The genius scientist who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis Fred Hoyle, said basically that he had crunched the numbers and realized the physics of it would only be possible within an extremely narrow range of values out of an almost infinite number of possibilities. He took it as "evidence" for intelligent design.

But if time is infinite, then those extremely narrow set of values are mathematically guaranteed to occur eventually

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Fred Hoyle is a bit of a Henry Heimlich: brilliant in one way, but trying to force his brilliance in places it doesn't belong. He rejected the Big-Bang Theory and was also a proponent of a steady-state universe. Also he thought that sun spot cycles might match up with flu epidemics, which, hey why not.

 

[M. Crassus]

If I were to make a simulation like this, I'd immediately remove anyone who thinks it's a simulation. Can't have your lab rats know they are part of an experiment, that would alter the outcome.

I don't think anyone believes the simulation is actively controlled. Just that in some higher universe, certain parameters were set on something similar to a computer, and that we are part of the cause-effect chain that followed. Their higher universe is most likely also a simulation in yet another universe. And with the continued advancement of science, we will no doubt be able to run a simulation like this too one day (maybe to test this very theory, even) and will thus birth a new universe ourselves. So will many other intelligent species in our current universe. And so it keeps branching endlessly, with no end and most likely no beginning.

 

[5secondrulesucks]

or the simulation shit isnt real in any way since there are no facts or proof of this actually being a thing other than "this one smart guy really believes in this and he also believes in intelligent design and ufos n shit"

 

[Makariel]

I don't think anyone believes the simulation is actively controlled. Just that in some higher universe, certain parameters were set on something similar to a computer, and that we are part of the cause-effect chain that followed. Their higher universe is most likely also a simulation in yet another universe. And with the continued advancement of science, we will no doubt be able to run a simulation like this too one day (maybe to test this very theory, even) and will thus birth a new universe ourselves. So will many other intelligent species in our current universe. And so it keeps branching endlessly, with no end and most likely no beginning.

I said what I'd do if I were to simulate a reality. And I can't come up with a good reason why a God would run a simulation like this anyway. If we are or aren't in one doesn't change our reality, so it's just yet another hand waving belief system like countless before. Call me once there is actual proof for any of that

 

[longdi]

I was reading up on the multi dimensional world, i like how it describes why 2D people cannot see 3D people, simple to explain all the D's. I guess that's where dead people ascend to a new dimension and be gods.

Your dead grandma is probably watching you mastebate from the higher plane.

Read this and believe in God bro.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/xdimgod.html

 

[M. Crassus]

or the simulation shit isnt real in any way since there are no facts or proof of this actually being a thing other than "this one smart guy really believes in this and he also believes in intelligent design and ufos n shit"

The chance that we will one day be advanced enough to simulate a universe is very large. The chance that someone will do that is also very large. Do you think it is likely that we are the first ones to do this? That we are the first "real" universe simulating another universe? Or is it more likely that we too are the result of such a process?

If you accept that the simulation of a whole universe by an intelligent species is possible, then it's almost certain that ours is a simulation too.

 

[Makariel]

If you accept that the simulation of a whole universe by an intelligent species is possible, then it's almost certain that ours is a simulation too.

See, this is the big leap of faith I'm not willing to do. I'm doing plenty of simulations as part of my day job, so perhaps I'm just thinking too much about practicality and less about the metaphysics. In simulation you usually use abstraction and simplifications along with certain assumptions that might or might not work in all cases to get it to work. Looking how complex a single brain is, I'm not sure if it will be possible to simulate a bunch of them, let alone a few billion, to any significant degree.

 

[cpp_is_king]

See, this is the big leap of faith I'm not willing to do. I'm doing plenty of simulations as part of my day job, so perhaps I'm just thinking too much about practicality and less about the metaphysics. In simulation you usually use abstraction and simplifications along with certain assumptions that might or might not work in all cases to get it to work. Looking how complex a single brain is, I'm not sure if it will be possible to simulate a bunch of them, let alone a few billion, to any significant degree.

Why wouldn’t it be? You start with a set of rules and axioms (ie the laws of physics) and the rest happens on its own

 

[Makariel]

Why wouldn’t it be? You start with a set of rules and axioms (ie the laws of physics) and the rest happens on its own

If it were that simple my job would be much easier

 

[Airola]

The chance that we will one day be advanced enough to simulate a universe is very large. The chance that someone will do that is also very large. Do you think it is likely that we are the first ones to do this? That we are the first "real" universe simulating another universe? Or is it more likely that we too are the result of such a process?

If you accept that the simulation of a whole universe by an intelligent species is possible, then it's almost certain that ours is a simulation too.

You would have to assume this simulation would have lines of code that have a sense of self.

Currently we could imagine that maybe there will be enough processing power to make an audiovisual representation of a whole universe, but currently every single simulation and game and program are observable only by people outside of the program. Currently there is zero evidence that any part of a computer program would experience self. We can only make programs that feel to us that they are experiencing themselves but we can't make anything that actually is experiencing self. And no, a program that is programmed to check other lines in the program and pick a another lines of the program based on it isn't it being aware of itself or even aware of the lines of code it chooses.

Simulations can only have an illusion of awareness and that illusion of awareness can only be observed by people outside the simulation.

It is a massive leap of faith to imply the AI or the NPCs in a simulation could ever experience self the way you and I and everyone else are individually doing.

 

[black_13]

Crazy I was gonna make this exact topic on GAF but kept putting it off.

I'm with OP on this one. Simulation theory ties so well with religion and existence of God to me. Whoever created the simulation is our God basically so why believe one and not the other? Science and religion can tie together. I just see religion as a simple version that has helped humanity before we could advance enough to understand the science behind many things. Of course it was much more relevant thousand years ago when a simple infection could have wiped out humanity but it still helped in many ways until certain people used it as a means of gaining power and influence.

That's why Atheism in general seems like an ignorant point of view where you don't even acknowledge the possibility of a higher being. Everything is created somehow and life doesn't just come from nothing. A rock can stay as a rock for billions of years but a higher intelligence is required to create life.