Why call him a God?

[+Hammerclaw]

3 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

The flaw of course is the assumption that the more fundamental reality is anything like this one.

The flaw is opening a whole new can of unprovable assertion to bolster a previous one.

[Habitat]

8 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

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. 

Interesting post. The whole idea of the simulation seems wildly extrapolative to me. The importance of it is largely psychological, it can be used as a justification and an excuse for evading responsibility, and I can't see much social good coming from it. In fact, it panders to selfishness.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Habitat

[Habitat]

The simulated universe is at least a three-quarter brother to nihilism. In both ideas, nothing matters.

[White Crane Feather]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Interesting post. The whole idea of the simulation seems wildly extrapolative to me. The importance of it is largely psychological, it can be used as a justification and an excuse for evading responsibility, and I can't see much social good coming from it.

I understand. Of course “social good” is completely subjective. If the theory could explain dark matter and dark energy, then lead to logical predictions that could then be proven, however, how can we ignore it. Also consider the depths of an existence inside of many simulations. Concentric rings of simulations in different kinds of realties. Of course it’s all speculation and philosophy.

Then we have to consider when does spirituality start to make more sense, then the morality that typically comes with it. It’s a rabbit whole for sure, but doesn't have to go the way that you are suggesting.  

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

The simulated universe is at least a three-quarter brother to nihilism. In both ideas, nothing matters.

Only if you accept it is a simulation. Within the simulation, to the oblivious inhabitants, things matter, as usual. 

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

It’s a rabbit whole for sure, but doesn't have to go the way that you are suggesting.  

Anything that trivializes the lives of others, is not socially constructive.

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Only if you accept it is a simulation. Within the simulation, to the oblivious inhabitants, things matter, as usual. 

Of course, you have to accept the idea, but having accepted it, it is a species of nihilism. I doubt the idea will be taken to heart by anyone other than the already dissolute, but this only encourages them.

[Habitat]

45 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

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.

Well, in a sense it is a third version of "reality", I suppose. But does not solve the puzzle.

[White Crane Feather]

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Anything that trivializes the lives of others, is not socially constructive.

That isn’t what I’m saying. Ultimately it may not. Sure if you are still looking at it like a video game, but it would be sooooooooo much more than that. 

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

but it would be sooooooooo much more than that. 

Would ? How can you say that.

[+Sherapy]

59 minutes ago, Habitat said:

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.

How do you define god?

[White Crane Feather]

30 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

The flaw is opening a whole new can of unprovable assertion to bolster a previous one.

You don’t not open something because you are afraid that it is unprovable. Questions lead to speculation, speculation leads to Hypothesis, hypothesis leads to theory, theory leads to predictions that can be tested.  There are logical consequences to everything. Ultimately we should be able to test for many of the logical consequences of the theories that are closer to truth.     

[Habitat]

it is really no more than a "nested realities" theory. Ultimately, if faces the same problem of all "creation" myths, the Master coder.

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

How do you define god?

I don't.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

You don’t not open something because you are afraid that it is unprovable. Questions lead to speculation, speculation leads to Hypothesis, hypothesis leads to theory, theory leads to predictions that can be tested.  There are logical consequences to everything. Ultimately we should be able to test for many of the logical consequences of the theories that are closer to truth.     

Whatever became of that university experiment that was designed to "prove" a simulation ? It involved using equipment to decide if there was a kind of pixellation limit to reality, for want of a better description.

[White Crane Feather]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Would ? How can you say that.

 

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Would ? How can you say that.

Well I know enough about physics to understand that a computer in a reality like ours couldn’t possibly hold all the information of this reality in totality, so if we are in a simulation it’s either gigantic, or occupies a different kind of reality than this one with different physics. If simulation theory passes the test of mathematics and prediction, then we can look at our reality and realized there is another one to explore. And there is. We already know that the mechanizations behind the uncertainty principle, or the reality deep within a black hole, or the kinds of fluctuations to kick off the the Big Bang are already in realms that are purely mathematical from our perspective. That deep reality is no doubt different than this one, and most certainly not occupied by a bunch of cogsz 

[Habitat]

7 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

How do you define god?

It would be an anaemic kind of God, if anyone could come up with a definition that "worked".

[White Crane Feather]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Whatever became of that university experiment that was designed to "prove" a simulation ? It involved using equipment to decide if there was a kind of pixellation limit to reality, for want of a better description.

The same technology is being used to detect gravitational waves at the moment. I’m not sure what has been done to detect if space is pixelated or not.  

[+Liquid Gardens]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Of course, you have to accept the idea, but having accepted it, it is a species of nihilism.

I know what you're saying but I think it depends, just because there are so many things that if you look at it a certain way also have nihilistic destinations.  If we realize this is a simulation but have no way to exit it or ascertain the 'real 'reality (which itself of course could also be a simulation), then this is reality, or as real as it gets, so we may as well behave as if it is real  I agree that some will take it as further justification to do whatever evil they're going to, but since it's possible that whatever is done reflects in some way to the real reality, with rules we have no clue of, it may be more rational to behave.

I think part of the appeal of some religions is it provides shades of nihilism in a positive sense; it helps in dealing or accepting the horrible things that happen in this world if there's a heaven and God to more than make up for it.  What can even a lifetime of suffering matter with respect to an eternal heaven, or eternal anything?  It's so insignificant logically in comparison that the vast majority of what happens here might as well be a simulation.

[+Sherapy]

21 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I don't.

Agnostic?

[Habitat]

7 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Agnostic?

I certainly do not know, and certainly not in the normal usage of the word "know'.

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

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.

I believe in God, creator and intelligent designer of the universe.  I don't believe in organized religion or much of what any of them pedal.  I lean towards reincarnation and life being lessons to learn.  I don't believe in hell.

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, OverSword said:

I disagree. There is good reason to consider a valid possibility. The numbers of simulated realities that would exist if they did.  Just because your imagination won’t allow you to go there doesn’t make it an invalid proposition. The University of Washington are actually developing experiments to test this theory. 

Sorry, not following the bolded. Could you explain further please.

Imagination is a it is. Simulation ideas are not the result of physics predictions or any observation. It's an idea that a philosopher cake up with. The idea is as well supported as the God idea, i.e. unicorns and goblins level proof.

Scientists also debate theologians on the subject of God. That does not make God a valid proposition, in fact it leans the opposite way as a result.

Do you have an inkling at the astounding level of power required to run a simulation of this size and complexity?

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, OverSword said:

I searched for proof of this statement and actually came up with a wide variety of viewpoints from physicists but found nothing about Berkley physicists stating that they have used physics to refute an afterlife.  Do you have a link?  

Is There Life After Death? A Debate

No, there’s not. In order to believe otherwise, you would have to be willing to radically alter our fundamental understanding of physics on the basis of almost no evidence. 

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/07/is-there-life-after-death-a-debate/

This paper by Lawrence Krauss ststes why life cannot be eternal:

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9902189

https://medium.com/qeverything/physics-rules-out-the-presence-of-soul-ghosts-and-afterlife-cc502fb34b1a

Brian Cox on ghosts (life after death)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ghosts-brian-cox-large-hadron-collider-cern-real-truth-standard-model-physics-a7598026.html%3famp

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by psyche101

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, OverSword said:

No.  Not God, the universe. And IMO there is good reason to consider this a possibility.  Furthermore, and to me the funnest part about the entire idea is that if you are a simulation living in a simulation that is nature to you so how do you know?  You don't.

We do know the power required for such a simulation would be beyond imagination. 

How is it not just replacing God with a technological God? 

How would it affect everyday life? If there was reason to think that the simulation philosophy was a real possibility, how would it change anything?