Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...and the only reason I consider myself agnostic instead of atheistic.
In Stephen Hawking's latest book: The Grand Design , Hawking conceeds that if an advanced alien civilization with sufficient computing power created a simulated world that was programed to function based on scientific principles, any residents of that virtual world would have no way of knowing they were in a simulation instead of a real world.
Now before you slap your forehead and say: "Oh no, not The Matrix thing again?!", stop for a second and think about this.
First. What IS reality? Everything we know and understand about our world is filtered through our sensory organs and brain. That information is used by our brains to create a virtual model in our heads, which we use to make sense of the data input and use it to navigate our environment. So in effect, we aren't directly seeing the world around us, we are seeing a simulation of the world around us as created by our brains. We already verifiably understand the world through a simulation, in other words.
Second, Science itself works under two basic schools of thought regarding the subject of reality: the realists and the anti-realists. The realists make the assumption everything actually physically exists in space and time, down to the last subatomic particle. But, quantum physics shoots this understanding down. According to Quantum Physics, a subatomic particle can be in two places at once, can take any possible route all at the same time and can even not exist until it is observed.
So in reality, we can't truly say reality is in fact, real. Instead, scientists base their works on models, where phenomena holds true constantly and consistently, not to mention making the information practical, understandable and otherwise usable.
So if our reality is really only an assumed one, it would be completely possible for our world, or even universe to be a simulated one. And if we were living in a simulation, that means someone (or something) created the simulation and is living outside the simulation. Such a being could easily overrule the directives of the simulation and create what we would call miracles. A simulation could be programmed to make a world with all the characteristics of a 4.5 billion year old planet but really be far younger (ACK! even 6000 years!).
And yes Rifleman, a simulation could even theoretically flood the world with water that didn't otherwise exist and fit 2 of every kind of animal in a big wooden boat, and then erase any evidence of a flood (or simply have a small group of AI programs experience "the deluge") all sans magic.
It also begs the question, if our world is simulated, is the simulator's world simulated too? Could the multiverse be a neverending line of simulations, a la "Inception"?
Finally, being in a simulation is not necessarily inferior to being in a "real world"; a incredible program that could reproduce the universe from the subatomic to the universal scale would function exactly as the real deal. All observations would jive with the real thing, plus you would not be held back by physical distances or time when making your observations. It would be the only way an intelligent being could possibly see everything in an area encompassing billions of light years.
I'm not saying it IS, but I can find no scientific reason, nor religious text ("god(s)" never promises us reality is real, as near as I can tell) to disprove or shoot down this theory. Can you?
...a simulation could even theoretically flood the world with water that didn't otherwise exist and fit 2 of every kind of animal in a big wooden boat, and then erase any evidence of a flood (or simply have a small group of AI programs experience "the deluge") all sans magic.
Not in a world that was simulated using scientific principles. You're contradicting yourself.
It never ceases to amaze how far you folks will go to try and rationalize young earth creationism and "Noah's" flood...
Not in a world that was simulated using scientific principles. You're contradicting yourself.
No I'm not. Here's an example... I'm playing a lot of Sims 3 lately; there are only a predermined set of ways the game lets your "sim" earn money. No matter how hard I try from the perspective of the "sim" I couldn't ever make the money count go up otherwise. But in a seperate toolbar, they have a system called "karma" where you can spend earned points on special boons or punishments to any "sim" in the game. One showers your "sim" with money.
Not to mention you can hack the game in all sorts of diffent ways beyond the intent of the origional programmer (though it always seems to be used for a nude hack first )
In other words, we would be in the perspective of the sims. We couldn't overide the progam no mater what we do, because we are in the program. But the controller of the program would have no such limits by virtue of it's perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuixoticHobbit
It never ceases to amaze how far you folks will go to try and rationalize young earth creationism and "Noah's" flood...
Um.. I'm NOT a creationist, go back and read the first line. And for the record, I don't personally believe in religion, nor do I insist this theory is the true way of things. But I search for truth, even if it isn't what I want. I cannot logically disprove the "simulated earth" argument. I want to know if the greatest minds of CD can....
Not in a world that was simulated using scientific principles. You're contradicting yourself.
It never ceases to amaze how far you folks will go to try and rationalize young earth creationism and "Noah's" flood...
No no, QH: he's quite the opposite. He's just postulating some possibilities, which I'd have to admit are just that: possibilities. I'd also say such a SIM would be of necessity inordinately complex, of massive file size, but perhaps also running on a non-binary multi-matrix of unfathomable (Godlike?) power.
This might well explain the difference in perceptive capabilities and common sense amongst some of the "game pieces" (us). The Christians are created with built-in preferences and defaults, (like a lack of logic, and a too-trusting perspective on life), while we atheists are built with a hard-and-fast cold-hearted lack of humanity, no detectable ethical standards and a penchant for lying (hee hee...).
Therefore it's understandable that we'd always be at odds with each other and like SIM-City, we just have to play it out to see who wins. But then, with a Big Bang-like hot-reboot, we start it all over again.
Still, I'd have to assume the game's creators (or is it Creators?) are DNa based, modeled the game pieces after their basic physiologies, and evolved over multi-millenia in their native intelligence to have defined and designed such a diabolical game.
BTW, would they have originated this crafty and creative game on a MAC platform? Creativity demands the best, IMHO!
So, I'm playing some Sci-Fi pretend here, but if I had a most magnificent quantum computer that could handle the computations for the behavior of an infinite number of subatomic particles, I would set the parameters (laws of physics), create a universe from the "big Bang" and watch it develop from beginning to end, just to see what happened.
My simulated universe would start very small but eventually grow to incomprehendable virtual size. I would particulary be interested in the places that developed life and especially intelligent life. From my viewpoint I could see the entire thing evolve over what would be billions of years in the simulation but could be a matter of days or even hours to me. I could see any place in the universe at any scale at any time, and I might mess with things here and there just for the hell of it, or even to accomplish certain objectives, but never so much as to void the "natural" development of the universe.
Perhaps if I was a sentient energy alien instead of a carbon or silicone based life form, I would value sentience more than where that sentience came from. I could "harvest" sentience from a simulation with experience as a "physical lifeform" and translate them from the program to my world, or move them into a totally new simulation.
Or, if I was a history or science teacher in a post-human civilization, I might send my students to live virtual lives during certain epochs of time, or to see the evolution of planet, galaxy or even universe from levels both macro and microscopic. I might try to recreate our lost past as accurately as possible. Or, as a virtual space traveler, I would explore the galaxy from my neural plug-in, since I wouldn't have a few million years to explore Andromeda in person.
Well, it sure as hell couldn't be done with Windows.
I don't know about that. The mass extinctions could be evidence of the typical "stop the computer, close all the windows, stop all the applications, shut down and reboot the system" Microsoft Windows Syndrome!!!!
Yes, I did say 'The Matrix thing again' But yes it is possible. A lot of things are possible. However, given that nature is repeatable and shown no sign of being anything but the mechanical workings of predictable effect, then that reality is real, even if it is made out of nothing but energy, is part of a huge computer game or a Holographic game and not withstanding chaos theory and Indeterminacy.
There is thus no logical nor evidential reason to suppose that reality has no reality, or that sudden inexplicables can happen. True, there are unexplained events but there always have been and many are now explained. The rest simply remain unexplained.
There is no example of a planet suddenly stopping in orbit and reversing or a volcano spewing lemon squash instead of lava. We don't get any sign or anything other than the workings of nature and evidence of a material universe. Attempts to explain ice ages or dinosaur extinctions as some sort of computer reset is good for a laugh but not much else.
It seems that the idea of a computer program is an interesting mental idea based mostly on we can't disprove it, like deist - god. If one has any regard for logic used correctly, we won't believe any of those interesting speculations without some persuasive proofs and that is all the justification needed to regard that materialist and naturalistic worldview as the only rational one to hold.
If there is or are any elements of doubt, these apply much more to speculations about eveything being an image either in a huge invisible computer or the mind of a huge invisible being.
BTW, would they have originated this crafty and creative game on a MAC platform? Creativity demands the best, IMHO!
Go apple!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
