Scientist claims we're characters in an advanced AI world - the Bible is proof

[pellinore]

Even atheists will find it difficult to argue against this- it is the word of an academic and scientist. It is a scientific claim.

Melvin Vopson, an associate professor in physics at the University of Portsmouth, claims our entire universe may be an advanced computer simulation. 

And the proof that this so-called simulation hypothesis is correct may be hiding in plain sight in the Bible.

Professor Vopson told MailOnline: 'The bible itself tells us that we are in a simulation and it also tells us who is doing it.

'It is done by an AI – an artificial intelligence.' 

Professor Vopson points to the Gospel of John, one of the first four books of the New Testament, the second part of the Christian Bible

Are we living in a simulation? Scientist claims we're simply characters in an advanced AI world - and says the proof is hidden in the BIBLE | Daily Mail Online

Edited September 30 by pellinore

[jethrofloyd]

I'm now convinced that we live in a computer simulation, and my mother-in-law is a bug.

[XenoFish]

All praise the grand programmer behind the keyboard. That's just a science version of creationism and god, carry on.

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, pellinore said:

 It is a scientific claim.

Since when did interpreting the Gospel according to John become a scientific claim?

[MrAnderson]

3 hours ago, pellinore said:

Even atheists will find it difficult to argue against this- it is the word of an academic and scientist. It is a scientific claim.

Melvin Vopson, an associate professor in physics at the University of Portsmouth, claims our entire universe may be an advanced computer simulation. 

And the proof that this so-called simulation hypothesis is correct may be hiding in plain sight in the Bible.

Professor Vopson told MailOnline: 'The bible itself tells us that we are in a simulation and it also tells us who is doing it.

'It is done by an AI – an artificial intelligence.' 

Professor Vopson points to the Gospel of John, one of the first four books of the New Testament, the second part of the Christian Bible

Are we living in a simulation? Scientist claims we're simply characters in an advanced AI world - and says the proof is hidden in the BIBLE | Daily Mail Online

 

It looks as a personal opinion by this scientist but not a scientific claim. Physicists can often make a lot of statements and claims and express personal opinions and beliefs. There is nothing wrong with this and a number of scientists are religious or believe in the paranormal.

Isaac Newton as classic example and so many others.

[+ouija ouija]

Problem is, you can make any claim you like about anything you like and if you look hard enough you will find a passage in the bible to back you up .

[MrAnderson]

44 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

Problem is, you can make any claim you like about anything you like and if you look hard enough you will find a passage in the bible to back you up .

On the other hand why does someone have to use the Bible. They can use anything else (other books) and make the appropriate connections restrospectively.

[+Hammerclaw]

What else does the idiot savant say?

[MrAnderson]

6 hours ago, jethrofloyd said:

I'm now convinced that we live in a computer simulation, and my mother-in-law is a bug.

 

5 hours ago, XenoFish said:

All praise the grand programmer behind the keyboard. That's just a science version of creationism and god, carry on.

You shouldn't be so dismissive of the computer simulation program. It has bern suggested sometime ago and it doesn't necessarily involve a god but a computer simulation created by some higher intelligence entity.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

8 hours ago, pellinore said:

Even atheists will find it difficult to argue against this- it is the word of an academic and scientist. It is a scientific claim.

Somebodys opinion is not science. Science require evidence and testability. The simulation hyphothesy is essentially unfalsifiable.

If we really live in a simulation wouldn't that mean that religion is simulated too ? So all religious experiences could simply be some kind of computer code ?

I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is.

[XenoFish]

2 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

 

You shouldn't be so dismissive of the computer simulation program. It has bern suggested sometime ago and it doesn't necessarily involve a god but a computer simulation created by some higher intelligence entity.

I'll dismiss whatever I wish.

[MrAnderson]

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I'll dismiss whatever I wish.

It was a suggestion not an order.

[MrAnderson]

35 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Somebodys opinion is not science. Science require evidence and testability. The simulation hyphothesy is essentially unfalsifiable.

If we really live in a simulation wouldn't that mean that religion is simulated too ? So all religious experiences could simply be some kind of computer code ?

I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is.

It's actually a really good imo. Is this a simulation? Are we taking part into some kind of game or experiment?

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, MrAnderson said:

It's actually a really good imo. Is this a simulation? Are we taking part into some kind of game or experiment?

No, it isn't. This is a nerd's lunch table, junior high sort of topic. Posit the ludicrous and challenge people to disprove it. Most adults have better things to do.

 

Edited September 30 by Hammerclaw

[MrAnderson]

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No, it isn't. This is a nerd's lunch table, junior high sort of topic. Posit the ludicrous and challenge people to disprove it. Most adults have better things to do.

 

I didn't say others have to disprove his claim or that he expects others to disprove his claim. It is just a hypothesis based on personal opinion. What happened to free thinking resulting into some strange hypothesis.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, MrAnderson said:

I didn't say others have to disprove his claim or that he expects others to disprove his claim. It is just a hypothesis based on personal opinion. What happened to free thinking resulting into some strange hypothesis.

Then come up with something original. This one has already been flogged to death. 

[Cho Jinn]

"Instead of viewing the simulated universe hypothesis as antagonistic to religious beliefs, one can see it as offering a complementary perspective," said Vopso.

I am not terribly religious, but can similarly say that intelligent design, at some abstraction, is not antagonistic to our (reproducible) scientific understanding of our the universe operates.  The Nu-Atheist movement seems to have satisfied itself with proving wrong the people convinced that Jesus somehow fed 6,000 (?) people on a hill with unlimited fish and breadsticks (or that a human being can't walk on unfrozen water, or that walk sticks don't turn into cobras, etc.), and then making the leap that, therefore, there is no omnipotent, unknowable deity.

[godnodog]

We're in a simulation running on a PrayStation 666 with godlike raytracing

[+Hammerclaw]

12 minutes ago, godnodog said:

We're in a simulation running on a PrayStation 666 with godlike raytracing

More like a fat Xbox One, running on the secret sauce.

[josellama2000]

10 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

 

It looks as a personal opinion by this scientist but not a scientific claim. Physicists can often make a lot of statements and claims and express personal opinions and beliefs. There is nothing wrong with this and a number of scientists are religious or believe in the paranormal.

Isaac Newton as classic example and so many others.

Ha ha, yeah sure.

For someone who is supposed to be well-versed on the scientific method, having that kind of claims or opinions is certainly a proof that there is something wrong among the scientific community. Unless they are trying to show a recently common syndrome that afflict old scientists when jumping from physics to metaphysics.

Throughout history, there has been a tendency for individuals to explain complex phenomena through personal experiences or cultural narratives—consider how biblical angels were described or how some proponents of new-age thinking invoke quantum mechanics to justify a variety of beliefs. Inlcuding explaining the unknown with other unknown to infinite (like a stack of turtles that hold earth). The recent assertion by a doctor that "God is an AI" exemplifies this trend, blurring the lines between scientific inquiry and speculative philosophy.
Finally, using what others mistakes, unproved claims, or did wrong (as you mention Newton and many others) does not constitutes a valid argument. Using simple language, i suggest you to please self-control and don't throw yourself from the bridge whenever you see everybody jumping.
My friend, your words are a ode to fallacy.

BTW, i agree with the simulation hypothesis, as first mentioned by Professor Paul Davis before his speech about multiverses, as he clearly explained that it was based on probabilities. And, Prof. Davis showed how a scientist made a claim even on very conjectural ideas.

Edited Monday at 09:56 PM by josellama2000

[pellinore]

I am saddened, not to say shocked, by some of the responses to this thread. The Daily Mail has been running a campaign for a month, showing how science supports religion- they have quoted a scientist who has actually been to Heaven and reported what it is like, they have reported the experiences of people who have actually died and had the courage (and it takes courage, due to the chance of mockery) to share their experiences; and now a scientist who has discovered the AI behind Biblical teaching is also mocked.

That's the problem with mainstream science- it never looks outside the box; it always falls back on older theories.

[MrAnderson]

12 minutes ago, pellinore said:

I am saddened, not to say shocked, by some of the responses to this thread. The Daily Mail has been running a campaign for a month, showing how science supports religion- they have quoted a scientist who has actually been to Heaven and reported what it is like, they have reported the experiences of people who have actually died and had the courage (and it takes courage, due to the chance of mockery) to share their experiences; and now a scientist who has discovered the AI behind Biblical teaching is also mocked.

That's the problem with mainstream science- it never looks outside the box; it always falls back on older theories.

Some posters on this site think that scientists don't have religious and personal views. But most worrying of all is that they regard themselves as personifications of rational thinking and skepticism. And this is the biggest mistake they make. They think we should all have their way of thinking.

Edited Monday at 09:59 PM by MrAnderson

[+ouija ouija]

7 minutes ago, pellinore said:

I am saddened, not to say shocked, by some of the responses to this thread. The Daily Mail has been running a campaign for a month, showing how science supports religion- they have quoted a scientist who has actually been to Heaven and reported what it is like, they have reported the experiences of people who have actually died and had the courage (and it takes courage, due to the chance of mockery) to share their experiences; and now a scientist who has discovered the AI behind Biblical teaching is also mocked.

That's the problem with mainstream science- it never looks outside the box; it always falls back on older theories.

That was said tongue-in-cheek . . . yes?

[MrAnderson]

40 minutes ago, josellama2000 said:

Ha ha, yeah sure.

For someone who is supposed to be well-versed on the scientific method, having that kind of claims or opinions is certainly a proof that there is something wrong among the scientific community. Unless they are trying to show a recently common syndrome that afflict old scientists when jumping from physics to metaphysics.

Throughout history, there has been a tendency for individuals to explain complex phenomena through personal experiences or cultural narratives—consider how biblical angels were described or how some proponents of new-age thinking invoke quantum mechanics to justify a variety of beliefs. Explained the unknown with other unknown. The recent assertion by a doctor that "God is an AI" exemplifies this trend, blurring the lines between scientific inquiry and speculative philosophy.
Finally, using what others mistakes, unproved claims, or did wrong (as you mention Newton and many others) does not constitutes a valid argument. Using simple language, i suggest you to please self-control and don't throw yourself from the bridge whenever you see everybody jumping.
My friend, your words are a prosody to fallacy.

BTW, i agree with the simulation hypothesis, as first mentioned by Professor Paul Davis before his speech about multiverses, as he clearly explained that it was based on probabilities. And, Prof. Davis showed how a scientist made a claim even on very conjectural ideas.

Take a look at Newton for example. Great scientists but his personal views were his personal views. And sometimes your personal views and beliefs could end up being true or true to a certain degree. You don't need evidence and proof for your personal views and beliefs.

Take a look at string theory. Is there any evidence that what has been proposed I string theory is true? There is none! But still the subject attracts a wide range of scientists and researchers and people make a career in the field or completed their PhDs and other research degrees and so on.

[josellama2000]

59 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

Take a look at Newton for example. Great scientists but his personal views were his personal views. And sometimes your personal views and beliefs could end up being true or true to a certain degree. You don't need evidence and proof for your personal views and beliefs.

Take a look at string theory. Is there any evidence that what has been proposed I string theory is true? There is none! But still the subject attracts a wide range of scientists and researchers and people make a career in the field or completed their PhDs and other research degrees and so on.

You have a very strange and exotic way of thinking. How come anyone exists and breath when self views and beliefs are not evident and based on reasons? Unless a person has been brai n-washed or suffer from a psychiatric affliction.
Sorry but i am not able to write anymore at the moment, as i am still  trying to understand how the following sentence supports anyone argument: "It is just a hypothesis based on personal opinion".
 

Edited Monday at 10:58 PM by josellama2000