Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Mello_

Why call him a God?

701 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

OverSword
5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Perhaps that's a requirement by The Grand Simulator in your Simulated Universe. After all, it's all fake and doesn't have to make any sense.

I don't consider it fake per say.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

You have anthropomorphized the simulator, can we really not escape the bubble of seeing everything as circling back to us ?

I think consciousness and intelligence are outcomes in any system that can evolve. I’m not making it human like as much as I think there are logical consequences to all schemes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

All religions that I know of are about acting correctly or being punished.

The person who fears punishment from some unseen overseer, must think either one of the following, that he is doing something wrong that might merit punishment, or that he is doing nothing wrong, but the overseer might be unjust. You can do something about the former, but nothing about the latter, so act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

And the simulated universe idea, short circuits that ? You can't be punished, because you really don't exist, beyond this simulation ? I see some heavy-duty psychology involved in this attraction to the simulation universe.

I see no difference between simulation or reality for the people that exist within them so it short circuits nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Question: how are you defining your god proposition? 

An artificial creation, by default, has to have a creator. A simulated universe has to have a simulator, or instead of being a simulation and artificial universe. Reminds me of the Maker of Universes novels by the late Philip Jose Farmer, in which the decadent heirs of an immense technology created "pocket universes" for themselves to Lord it over. In one of the last novels it was revealed that Earth's was one such universe and it's Lord was called Red Orc.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, OverSword said:

I see no difference between simulation or reality for the people that exist within them so it short circuits nothing.

I think there is literally a world of difference between "life is real, and life is earnest", and the idea that you are in a game that has no ultimate import for the players, like fictional characters in a novel, they do not exist. But in a sense, we players do not exist, other than as an integral part of the whole. Simulation posits that what we perceive as the whole, itself does not exist. If there is a desire to believe this, it becomes a matter of interesting psychology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

An artificial creation, by default, has to have a creator. A simulated universe has to have a simulator, or instead of being a simulation and artificial universe. Reminds me of the Maker of Universes novels by the late Philip Jose Farmer, in which the decadent heirs of an immense technology created "pocket universes" for themselves to Lord it over. In one of the last novels it was revealed that Earth's was one such universe and it's Lord was called Red Orc.

Is this habits god? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, Sherapy said:

Is this habits god? 

You quoted me first so I thought that was addressed to me. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Just now, Hammerclaw said:

You quoted me first so I thought that was addressed to me. 

Awww, gotcha. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I don't consider it fake per say.  

Makes no difference, since you posit a creator with such immense power, who willed by whatever artifice this world into existence. You're just--in the end--reimagining "God".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

Well it cant be an “answer” without proof, but it does answer some very interesting questions. There is also some striking evidence in nature.

What striking evidence in nature, just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Is this habits god? 

I know nothing about God that would not involve sheer presumption. As Dirty Harry said, a man must know his limitations, usefully opining about God would well exceed mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Makes no difference, since you posit a creator with such immense power, who willed by whatever artifice this world into existence. You're just--in the end--reimagining "God".

Pretty much, but perhaps by trivializing our existence, fosters a different outlook, devoid of any reverence, because all we see, is supposedly fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
8 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Makes no difference, since you posit a creator with such immense power, who willed by whatever artifice this world into existence. You're just--in the end--reimagining "God".

Or not, since for all we know it's still the original creator who willed this to be :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, Habitat said:

Pretty much, but perhaps by trivializing our existence, fosters a different outlook, devoid of any reverence, because all we see, is supposedly fake.

Curiously, it's a point-of-view equally opposed to secular scientific reality where the universe is natural, man's existence, a happenstance of nature, where we live, breed and die like all other animals with no greater significance other than the hubris of our nature.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Or not, since for all we know it's still the original creator who willed this to be :D

Who?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
14 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What striking evidence in nature, just curious.

Both time dilation and wave particle duality are predictable from simulation theory.  I can explain it fully if you wish, but in short simulations require processing power. If that processing power is finite it must be conserved, and there are logical consequences that should be able to be observed because of this. One of them is that at the most basic level, manifestation of substance should only manifest when it’s needed by the simulation to conserve the processing power needed to make it manifest. The other is that at the extreme end of the simulation’s processing ability we should see a frame of reference start to low relative to other frames for the same reason even freeze once the limit is reached. In a video game we would call it lagg. At relative speeds any frame of reference behaves exactly as a simulation should because the amount of energy (also) information is simply to great. Fundamental nature behaves exactly as we would expect form a simulation with finite ( but great) processing power.

 

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
4 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Both time dilation and wave particle duality are predictable from simulation theory.  I can explain it fully if you wish, but in short simulations require processing power. If that processing power is finite it must be conserved, and there are logical consequences that should be able to be observed because of this. One of them is that at the most basic level, manifestation of substance should only manifest when it’s needed by the simulation to conserve the processing power needed to make it manifest. The other is that at the extreme end of the simulation’s processing ability we should see a frame of reference start to low relative to other frames for the same reason even freeze once the limit is reached. In a video game we would call it lagg. At relative speeds any frame of reference behaves exactly as a simulation should because the amount of energy (also) information is simply to great. Fundamental nature behaves exactly as we would expect form a simulation with finite ( but great) processing power.

 

That's all been pretty well debunked. The Universe is far more complex than any simulation and the very methods used to "prove" simulation manufacture results consistent with preconceived notions. 

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-find-we-re-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
9 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Who?

God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, OverSword said:

God.

What's that?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

The Universe is far more complex than any simulation

That we are presently capable of.  Not for long though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Just now, Hammerclaw said:

What's that?

Ask a priest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

All these musings are a manifestation of the impulse to understand the environment, something easily understood in the context of an organism that has a strong biological imperative to do so, man being a creature that survives by its wits, more than anything else, and different from creatures that are hardier and stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

That's all been pretty well debunked. The Universe is far more complex than any simulation and the very methods used to "prove" simulation manufacture results consistent with preconceived notions. 

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-find-we-re-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation

The flaw of course is the assumption that the more fundamental reality is anything like this one. That is a huge mistake, and one I would expect from certain kinds of fundamentalism. 

Instead we should focus on the logical consequences of process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, OverSword said:

Ask a priest.

No, I'm asking you. Give me your own personal take on this "God" hypothesis of yours. I mean no offense when I play devil's advocate in taking the unpopular side of delicate questions, although some certainly are offended. It's my way of interjecting an alternate or objective perspective.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.