Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 216

Thread: Argument from possible simulation

  1. Top | #21
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    A simulated universe implies an actual natural universe where someone is generating simulations....
    Yes unlike typical "existence of God" arguments...

  2. Top | #22
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    I believe in a kind of God...

    My personal reasoning:
    1. It is likely we're in a simulation (according to Elon Musk's reasoning)
    2. The simulation needs a creator
    3. The creator could be called 'God'
    Therefore it is likely there is a God.
    Step 2? The creator of the simulation, what about their God? If they have a god, that god would be our god too! Unless we are going for the Futurama Bender is God episode, and we have localized gods. Of course, their religion could be their dimension's equivalent of Scientology! But their dimension could still have a creator (and our simulation designer is just an idiot about religion)... but if that is also a simulation, we have a third level for the creator/creator's god.
    Nice. This shows that human knowledge has certainly advanced over the last thousand hundreds. Understanding has advanced from "turtles all the way down" to "gods all the way up".
    If their godhood involves simulations I'd say it involves a finite amount of information. Basically each simulation they create would have less information than their universe... if information is an integer and must be at least one then there would be a limit of Russian dolls within their universe...
    BTW the following is related to Jimmy Higgins' nested simulations idea:

    In that Rick and Morty episode it seems like some of the aliens were the "god" of the simulations....

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    It is possible that an intelligent force can intervene in a simulation. Something on its own is completely naturalistic....

    I'm not sure what you mean but do you agree that if it is a simulation that it had a creator?
    You are not catching the meaning.

    You are still talking in terms of a "contextualized universe" rather than a universe irrespective of it's context.

    Imagine an instance (and I really do mean just an instance) of the multiverse "Super Mario Brothers".
    I find the term "multiverse" confusing. In MWI (many worlds interpretation) every possible parallel universe in the multiverse is "real". e.g. say the spin of a billion particles were checked and all one billion of them were the same...
    https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...r+of+a+billion
    That's 1 in 10300,000,000 but according to MWI that literally happened in one of the universes... and every other possibility is also "real".

    In SMB most of the hypothetically possible games will never happen. (assuming the SMB game possibilities didn't involve MWI) Also many "possible" games can't be physically played by normal human players... e.g. pressing left then right then left, etc, for each individual frame (1/30 second), for the length of the game.
    I'm saying that the SMB games that are simulated are "real" in some sense but the hypothetical ones that are never simulated are not "real" to the same degree.

    Now, this multiverse is fairly simple. It has very few particle types, those particles have very few interactions, and they can occupy a fundamentally discrete number of positions in the fields that exists.

    There are many universes that exist in this multiverse, infinite in fact (owing to the fact that "lives" are available within it's physics).
    I wouldn't say that these are all "real" though.... I don't think the set of all possibilities is very relevant to the simulation we might be in....

    Now, to make this easier to "grok", imagine just ONE universe of all that multiverse, wherein the series of observable "interaction events" is "<event A> at 6 frames past <start event time> + delay, repeated three times".

    This universe is not a simulation, specifically. It may be simulated on a nintendo platform. It may be simulated on a PC emulator.
    I think approximations, not emulation, is more relevant to our possible simulation. e.g. I don't think each of the 1057 atoms in our Sun and similar star are always being explicitly simulated... Also I think this machine learning based game has some relevance to our simulation....


    I could create this universe.

    You could create this universe.

    "Which of us is the creator" of that universe is now exposed as a bad question,
    My initial post is that it appears that something called "God" seems likely to exist.... I'm not too worried about their precise identity.... after all there could be a deceptive force a bit like the one in Descartes' thought experiment....

    because it begs the question of whether this universe had to be "created" at all, or whether it is merely a point on which the SMB multiverse can fall. In fact, I can describe a universe with no instantiation within our own universe. Does that make it any less "of" the SMB multiverse?
    Perhaps you're saying the SMB multiverse exists eternally and individual games in it were "discovered"?

    Even if a god came down and did some magic, making a bunch of magical events, there is still only the text of "what happened". Let's say an entity appears in front of every human on earth and says "I'm god, I created you", there's still no actual proof that this entity IS god or that it did in fact create us.
    Yes we can't know the identity of the possible God... this could be a deliberate deception by a malicious intelligence.

    All it is proof of is that entities can appear in this way, and that they can make such utterances. There is still only the text of "what happened" with no reality of "why".
    As far as the "why" of the simulation my favorite theories are entertainment and personal growth....

  4. Top | #24
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,887
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    9,684
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    ....Another possibility is simply that God is dead. Not unlikely, since she must be fifteen at this point.

    (Or in other words, how did you get from Step 3 to your conclusion? )
    Yes the creator isn't necessarily still existing now....
    That wasn't my main point. Your argument contains the steps

    "3. The creator could be called 'God'
    Therefore it is likely there is a God."

    That's invalid reasoning. Some guy's dog is likely to exist and could be called "God" too, but that doesn't make it likely there is a God. As Lincoln said, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg; likewise, calling something God doesn't make it a god -- whether it's a universe-creator or just a man's best friend. So you still need a step in your argument explaining why creating a universe is sufficient to make you a god.

    Some years ago I wrote an evolution simulation. (Some pretty nifty simulated organisms evolved -- one of the more successful species had two genes in its genome each of which would have been instantly lethal in the absence of the other, creating a nasty chicken-and-egg puzzle.) If somebody cares to invest the resources to leave my simulation running for four billion years, maybe intelligent life will eventually evolve in my simulated universe. Some of my simulated life forms might invent religious philosophy and claim I'm a god. They might reason as you do: that they're in a simulation, the simulation needs a creator, and the creator could be called 'God', and thus infer that God is real. But that will be a logic mistake. I am real, yes; but I'm not God.

    It follows that creating a universe is insufficient to make you a god.

  5. Top | #25
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    31,282
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    73,755
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    ....Another possibility is simply that God is dead. Not unlikely, since she must be fifteen at this point.

    (Or in other words, how did you get from Step 3 to your conclusion? )
    Yes the creator isn't necessarily still existing now....
    That wasn't my main point. Your argument contains the steps
    "3. The creator could be called 'God'
    Therefore it is likely there is a God."

    That's invalid reasoning. Some guy's dog is likely to exist and could be called "God" too, but that doesn't make it likely there is a God. As Lincoln said, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg; likewise, calling something God doesn't make it a god -- whether it's a universe-creator or just a man's best friend. So you still need a step in your argument explaining why creating a universe is sufficient to make you a god.
    The punctuation is also wrong.

    3. The creator can be called 'God'.
    Therefore it is likely there is a 'God'.

    That's better. Giving something a label, doesn't make it something else.

  6. Top | #26
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,898
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,809
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    I find the term "multiverse" confusing. In MWI (many worlds interpretation) every possible parallel universe in the multiverse is "real". e.g. say the spin of a billion particles were checked and all one billion of them were the same...
    https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...r+of+a+billion
    That's 1 in 10300,000,000 but according to MWI that literally happened in one of the universes... and every other possibility is also "real".

    In SMB most of the hypothetically possible games will never happen. (assuming the SMB game possibilities didn't involve MWI) Also many "possible" games can't be physically played by normal human players... e.g. pressing left then right then left, etc, for each individual frame (1/30 second), for the length of the game.
    I'm saying that the SMB games that are simulated are "real" in some sense but the hypothetical ones that are never simulated are not "real" to the same degree.

    Now, this multiverse is fairly simple. It has very few particle types, those particles have very few interactions, and they can occupy a fundamentally discrete number of positions in the fields that exists.

    There are many universes that exist in this multiverse, infinite in fact (owing to the fact that "lives" are available within it's physics).
    I wouldn't say that these are all "real" though.... I don't think the set of all possibilities is very relevant to the simulation we might be in....

    Now, to make this easier to "grok", imagine just ONE universe of all that multiverse, wherein the series of observable "interaction events" is "<event A> at 6 frames past <start event time> + delay, repeated three times".

    This universe is not a simulation, specifically. It may be simulated on a nintendo platform. It may be simulated on a PC emulator.
    I think approximations, not emulation, is more relevant to our possible simulation. e.g. I don't think each of the 1057 atoms in our Sun and similar star are always being explicitly simulated... Also I think this machine learning based game has some relevance to our simulation....


    I could create this universe.

    You could create this universe.

    "Which of us is the creator" of that universe is now exposed as a bad question,
    My initial post is that it appears that something called "God" seems likely to exist.... I'm not too worried about their precise identity.... after all there could be a deceptive force a bit like the one in Descartes' thought experiment....

    because it begs the question of whether this universe had to be "created" at all, or whether it is merely a point on which the SMB multiverse can fall. In fact, I can describe a universe with no instantiation within our own universe. Does that make it any less "of" the SMB multiverse?
    Perhaps you're saying the SMB multiverse exists eternally and individual games in it were "discovered"?

    Even if a god came down and did some magic, making a bunch of magical events, there is still only the text of "what happened". Let's say an entity appears in front of every human on earth and says "I'm god, I created you", there's still no actual proof that this entity IS god or that it did in fact create us.
    Yes we can't know the identity of the possible God... this could be a deliberate deception by a malicious intelligence.

    All it is proof of is that entities can appear in this way, and that they can make such utterances. There is still only the text of "what happened" with no reality of "why".
    As far as the "why" of the simulation my favorite theories are entertainment and personal growth....
    I use the term "multiverse" because it is the integral of universe: it is all universes created by some defined set of physical relationships integrated across all "input scenarios", which is to say all probability wave collapse scenarios.

    It is not to say there are many worlds, but rather to describe an integrated set.

    It is not about possibilities, but about the fact that an instance of a universe does not have discrete creator, but is rather created by everything and nothing that does create it: that it is a definition of a series of states over some dimension of state transition, and "simulation" is not a part of that definition. "IsSimulation" is not a member of "Universe". Though List<Universe*> _simulations() may be.

  7. Top | #27
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    31,282
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    73,755
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    I think approximations, not emulation, is more relevant to our possible simulation. e.g. I don't think each of the 1057 atoms in our Sun and similar star are always being explicitly simulated...
    This is a very odd concession. If we must be a in simulation, why in the heck must we not be in a simulation where all atoms and subatomic particles are simulated? Why does your simulation require being shifted down in resolution?

  8. Top | #28
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    That's invalid reasoning. Some guy's dog is likely to exist and could be called "God" too, but that doesn't make it likely there is a God.
    But is the dog the creator of a simulation? (see step 2 and 3)

    As Lincoln said, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg; likewise, calling something God doesn't make it a god -- whether it's a universe-creator or just a man's best friend. So you still need a step in your argument explaining why creating a universe is sufficient to make you a god.
    The information in a simulation is basically created out of nothing... the time in the simulation is created out of nothing. The creator can be omnipotent and omniscient about the simulation. So I think the creator of the simulation could be considered a god.... I mean traditionally there are many gods that aren't omnipotent or omniscient or are a creator, etc. (like most Greek gods)

    Some years ago I wrote an evolution simulation. (Some pretty nifty simulated organisms evolved -- one of the more successful species had two genes in its genome each of which would have been instantly lethal in the absence of the other, creating a nasty chicken-and-egg puzzle.) If somebody cares to invest the resources to leave my simulation running for four billion years, maybe intelligent life will eventually evolve in my simulated universe. Some of my simulated life forms might invent religious philosophy and claim I'm a god. They might reason as you do: that they're in a simulation, the simulation needs a creator, and the creator could be called 'God', and thus infer that God is real. But that will be a logic mistake. I am real, yes; but I'm not God.

    It follows that creating a universe is insufficient to make you a god.
    I thought within the simulation you could theoretically be omniscient, omnipotent, give people in it an afterlife, end the universe if you feel like it, etc. So within the simulation you are God.

  9. Top | #29
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    I think approximations, not emulation, is more relevant to our possible simulation. e.g. I don't think each of the 1057 atoms in our Sun and similar star are always being explicitly simulated...
    This is a very odd concession. If we must be a in simulation, why in the heck must we not be in a simulation where all atoms and subatomic particles are simulated? Why does your simulation require being shifted down in resolution?
    Like Elon Musk I think simulations could run on small-scale computers and set-top boxes.

    A theory I'm working on talks about top-down vs bottom-up simulations.

    Top-down simulations start with the big picture then generate more and more detail when needed. This is known as "level of detail".

    Bottom-up simulations start with everything built with the smallest building blocks and simulate them faithfully rather than approximate them when you get further away...

    The problem with bottom-up simulations is that they require a lot more computing resources. An example of this game type is Minecraft and it can only handle a relatively small area of the world at once. On the other hand in games like Flight Simulator 2020 you can see a huge view of the world above the clouds and fly down to see blades of grass.... this is possible because the blades of grass aren't rendered if you're too far away but I don't think the "pop-in" is too bad.

    To simulate 10^57 atoms faithfully would require a computer with more than 10^57 bytes of memory. It would also require an incredibly powerful CPU. So I think it uses AI and approximations.

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    3. The creator can be called 'God'.
    Therefore it is likely there is a 'God'.

    That's better. Giving something a label, doesn't make it something else.
    I'm saying the creator of a simulation could be considered a god....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •