Is the Universe a Simulation?

[Guest NGOG]

Right but i don't believe he does so as a result of which when I'm referring to 'God' I am referring to social phenomenon, the broadly accepted view of what God is, the judeo-Christian-Islamic God, the way the concept of God has effected society at large. If God exists and what form he exists in has no bearing on my statement here, purely because it's addressing what God has presented or rather come to represent to the society and the culture that I live in.

Because religious depictions are what I've been presented with in life. I can't address God as...i dunno, a turnip or a gas or an element or something because that is not how God has been presented to me and if God does exist and that is the form he takes then it has nothing to do with my previous statement because my statement was to do with a specific rejection of God as religion would have you understand the word, the God that has affected or infected society at the large, it's a rejection of that God and those principles, if God is to exist in some other form or way or level or if you are to re-configure the meaning of God into 'something that lives inside of all of us' or 'that feeling you get sometimes' then we're not talking about the same thing, I'm talking about the monolith God, our father in heaven, for me to accept or reject something to do with God of an alternate definition I'd have to be presented with one first i.e. I'd need to know something about him/her/it. It's difficult to entertain a possibility without having it presented to you first.

So essentially, you the reject the mainstream interpretation of god, but you are open to the notion of god?

I question mainstream interpretations of god because although I can recognize an undesirable behavior, it is virtually impossible for me to completely suppress the occurrence of a human instinct. When I see another human being, I immediately judge some aspect of their appearance/character - positively or negatively. According to scripture, the only person qualified to judge is god. And although I can see that judgement isn't morally sound - in whatever form it occurs - I cannot prevent a thought from entering my mind. It just happens instantaneously. Like a foot being submerged by water.

I don't necessarily see a god when I look at the Old Testament - but I do see a subtle pattern of intelligence when I look up at the sun on a hot day.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Something like that, yeah. See I see some kinda pattern of intelligence to the world too but i think it's almost disrespectful to whatever the core or source of that is to call it 'God' cuz God comes with a whole plethora of associations that detract from the infinite possibilities of the nature of whatever thing is it is. Broadening the parameters of what God is to accomodate something miraculous about the functions of nature as understood by science is kinda disrespectful to it, in my opinion.

Put simply, it's irresponsible to define something which we are, at the moment, totally clueless about the nature of, with a label whoose original associations have been debunked somewhat. It almost narrows its potential by association.

Edited February 28, 2014 by sugaraylen

[Guest Len B'stard]

It could also look like a fat bird with no arms sat down leaning forward so her arse is sticking out

Edited February 28, 2014 by sugaraylen

[Ace Nova]

And surely I would have fleeting moments of inexplicable foresight?

It's called Deja Vu.

[Guest Len B'stard]

That ain't foresight, thats hindsight.

[Ace Nova]

That ain't foresight, thats hindsight.

Yeah, I guess....but I've had that type of experience...and the place/event happened later in life...

It was almost like Deja Vu of my Deja Vu....really odd.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Guest NGOG]

Yeah, I guess....but I've had that type of experience...and the place/event happened later in life...

It was almost like Deja Vu of my Deja Vu....really odd.

Are you referring to those instances where you feel you know somewhere that you've seemingly never been to before?

Edited February 28, 2014 by NGOG

[Ace Nova]

Yeah, I guess....but I've had that type of experience...and the place/event happened later in life...

It was almost like Deja Vu of my Deja Vu....really odd.

Are you referring to those instances where you feel you know somewhere that you've seemingly never been to before?

Yeah, that....but it happens before I get there....almost like a memory of somewhere....then when it actually happens....I'll flashback to my previous "deja vu" for maybe a second....

Only happens to me once a year or so....very infrequently. And it doesn't always involve places...sometimes it's people....or conversations with people....events, etc.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Snake-Pit]

Yeah, I guess....but I've had that type of experience...and the place/event happened later in life...

It was almost like Deja Vu of my Deja Vu....really odd.

Are you referring to those instances where you feel you know somewhere that you've seemingly never been to before?

Yeah, that....but it happens before I get there....almost like a memory of somewhere....then when it actually happens....I'll flashback to my previous "deja vu" for maybe a second....

Only happens to me once a year or so....very infrequently. And it doesn't always involve places...sometimes it's people....or conversations with people....events, etc.

[username]

If it is, does that change anything in my existence? Because I don't think it will. The same things will still make me happy or sad.

knowing its a simulation might cause people to think life is a meaningless waste of time.

Classic overthinking. Lets for just a moment assume the entire universe is a mirage, a reflection, fake, happening inside one cell of a giant extraterrestrial lifeform. Whatever. None of that would change anything. The fact of the matter is that we as humans have all apparently developed a sense of conciousness. Whether we're real or fake or reflected or whatever. So no matter how freaking insignificant we might be in any big picture you can possibly paint it doesn't need to change our perception of all the simple things that define happiness. If having a warm cup of tea on a warm summer evening makes you happy, it doesn't matter whether that cup of tea and that summer evening and you are real or fake. It matters that drinking that cup of tea on that summer evening is making you happy. Especially considering that no matter whether it's real or fake, either way there will be no way you can influence it. You can however influence your own happiness. Focus on that. If your actions can make you and people around you happy, they can never be meaningless because they enhance you conciousness and others'. Edited February 28, 2014 by username

[Nobodys_Fault]

There is one original reality. Eventually computing power will be great enough to allow multiple simulated realities to run. Within those simulated realities eventually computing power will be great enough to allow simulated realities to run. And within those simulated realities eventually computing power will be great enough to allow simulated realities to run. Ad infinitum. Now given the massive number of possible simulated realities, how likely is it that you're in the one original reality?

Do you believe that we are merely the re-run of a more advanced society?

Why would society want to trigger such a process though? If we're doomed to commit the same actions, what's the point? Is it for a sense of immortality?

No I don't believe it. I just think it's an interesting idea(and entirely possible).

As for your second point - a simulation does not repeat endlessly. It can branch off anywhere. All it has to do is follow the underpinning laws of the universe. And indeed it could be argued that there is an element at the heart of everything that ensures a self-repeating loop is impossible - the mathematics of chaos.

Nobody's_Fault's points make sense to me, to a point, but I'm yet to be persuaded that a "reality" with conscious (maybe quotes around that too?) beings can be fully simulated. Granted, I haven't read much on the topic, but everything in this thread seems to take it for granted that technology can develop and "advance" in such a manner.

To be perfectly honest I'm not entirely convinced that conscious beings can be fully simulated either. But to take an example - the web turned 25 today. If you told me 25 years ago(had I been alive ) that in the present day, by pushing a few buttons on a box i carry in my pocket, I would be broadcasting my thoughts across the world to a bunch of Guns N' Roses fans I'm not sure I would have been convinced of that either. Given that society hasn't stopped advancing at the pace predicted by Moore's Law I think it's incorrect to assume that we're going to be slowing down any time soon. Ridiculous shit is happening every goddamn day. Just this week the number of planets known to humanity doubled. Who knows what we'll be capable of in another 30-40 years.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Nobodys_Fault

[magisme]

The "who knows" part is exactly what I'm emphasizing. I think that's the only reason we're not eye to eye here. You're emphasizing possibilities based on unpredictability of past "advances" (I really do insist on quotes around that word, sorry), and I'm emphasizing the unpredictability.

[Broskirose]

[Nobodys_Fault]

The "who knows" part is exactly what I'm emphasizing. I think that's the only reason we're not eye to eye here. You're emphasizing possibilities based on unpredictability of past "advances" (I really do insist on quotes around that word, sorry), and I'm emphasizing the unpredictability.

Yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong - you are correct. A society that is vastly superior technologically in the future is not an inevitably. It's entirely possible that we reach the ceiling in terms of silicon based computing within the next ten years if nobody comes up with something that will push it beyond the limits of thermal dynamics.

[wasted]

If it is, does that change anything in my existence? Because I don't think it will. The same things will still make me happy or sad.

knowing its a simulation might cause people to think life is a meaningless waste of time.

Classic overthinking. Lets for just a moment assume the entire universe is a mirage, a reflection, fake, happening inside one cell of a giant extraterrestrial lifeform. Whatever. None of that would change anything. The fact of the matter is that we as humans have all apparently developed a sense of conciousness. Whether we're real or fake or reflected or whatever. So no matter how freaking insignificant we might be in any big picture you can possibly paint it doesn't need to change our perception of all the simple things that define happiness. If having a warm cup of tea on a warm summer evening makes you happy, it doesn't matter whether that cup of tea and that summer evening and you are real or fake. It matters that drinking that cup of tea on that summer evening is making you happy. Especially considering that no matter whether it's real or fake, either way there will be no way you can influence it. You can however influence your own happiness. Focus on that. If your actions can make you and people around you happy, they can never be meaningless because they enhance you conciousness and others'.

Maybe you really understood what I meant.

[Aaron_H]

Oh dear.

[Ace Nova]

[wasted]

It's a conspiracy against the human race.

[Broskirose]

That actually makes perfect sense. It just looks like it doesn't for like 5 seconds.

[Haters Gonna Hate]

We are in The Matrix

[foghat43]

I don't believe the universe is a computer simulation...but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is. Even if it is, this doesn't answer any of life's ultimate questions...does it? For example, if our present reality is just a computer simulation created by humans (or some other race/species in the universe) who are more technologically advanced than us...well, who created the humans who created the simulation? If not created, how did they get here? So while it may add another layer to the question of our existence, purpose, etc. it certainly doesn't provide any answers. The simulation model/theory still assumes that "someone" designed and controls the simulation...correct? Who is that "someone"....is it "God", a "god", humans, another species/race (aliens)? How did this "someone" begin to exist and is it a moral/personal being or just some impersonal "force" (i.e. an "it" more than a "someone")? Are we accountable to this "someone" for how we behave within the simulation with our future happiness (or redemption/salvation) dependent on the choices we make while in the "matrix"? Do we have freewill within the simulation or are our actions/decisions pre-programmed? Can we escape the simulation? So the same questions still exist even if it is a simulation...what is the ultimate reality that is "back of" or behind the simulation and which existed prior to the simulation itself? So there is a real sense in which the theory is irrelevant to the ultimate questions of life.

Edited March 1, 2014 by foghat43

[ohlovelyrita]

For all the atheists around....out of curiosity, why do some of you find this "theory" possible but the existence of God not?

Because there is no god to communicate with in this dimension and no one has done so.

There are spirits and immortal beings. One god denotes a superior being presiding over us

but the law of the land is lawless. Spiritual anarchy.

"Living is easy with eyes closed

Misunderstanding all you see

It's getting hard to be someone

But it all works out

It doesn't matter much to me"

I loved the imagery in "Master and the Margarita". Great comments in this thread

and this was a topic a few months ago:

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?/topic/204414-has-science-confirmed-the-universe-is-an-illusion/

[Ace Nova]

After thinking it over, the universe being a simulation is highly unlikely and the likelihood of technology evolving to where it could be is just as unlikely. First off, how is simulation defined? If we are part of some program...it wouldn't be a simulation, it would be a reality.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Kasanova King

[ohlovelyrita]

After thinking it over, the universe being a simulation is highly unlikely and the likelyhood of technolgy evolving to where it could be is just as unlikely. First off, how is simulatin defined? If we are part of some program...it wouldn't be a simulation, it would be a reality.

There are parallels in how we dream. We dream in symbols yet we imagine a 3-D world.

[foghat43]

For all the atheists around....out of curiosity, why do some of you find this "theory" possible but the existence of God not?

Because there is no god to communicate with in this dimension and no one has done so.

There are spirits and immortal beings. One god denotes a superior being presiding over us

but the law of the land is lawless. Spiritual anarchy.

No god to communicate with and no one has done so? Hmmm...billions of people (in a variety of religions all over the planet) who communicate with God everyday (through prayer) would disagree. Perhaps it would be better to say that you don't communicate with a god and that your life is one of spiritual anarchy...rather than trying to absolutize your spiritual experience and make it the norm for everyone else.