A Creator and Idealism vs Computational Simulations

[excreationist]

Idealism

Idealism is the metaphysical view that associates reality to ideas in the mind rather than to material objects. It lays emphasis on the mental or spiritual components of experience, and renounces the notion of material existence.

I'd say that simulations that involve some kind of computational machinery involve a physical existence even if it is a virtual physical existence like in Minecraft. And here is a simulation running on a redstone computer in Minecraft that also involves a virtual physical world....

3D Minecraft in Minecraft with no command blocks, no datapacks and no mods. Features include an 8x8x8 fully 3D-rendered world with 16 different block types, 32 different items, and dozens of game mechanics including mining, crafting, smelting, building, chests, random ticks and more!

This build does NOT run in real time. It runs on MCHPRS, the server developed by StackDoubleFlow, which speeds up the game roughly 10-20,000x while running redstone. That brings the framerate to a much more reasonable 0.1fps, so the long timelapses in the video only took 9 hours to record in total.

In principle it is pretty clear how the creator would be interacting with a simulation - it is interacting with the virtual physical world that exists in the computer....

It seems the process with an idealism-based creator is a lot more mysterious....

It seems in a simulation there are two levels of physical existence - the physical machinery of the computer (even if it is virtual like in the Minecraft in Minecraft example) and the physical environment that is being simulated.....

 

[atrib]

What does this have to do with the existence of gods?

 

[Jarhyn]

What does this have to do with the existence of gods?

It goes to observed behaviors of observed simulation creating entities.

We see primary activities going on when people make simulations: they turn off everything bad that can happen to them in particular and they will often go on a tear though the system; they turn off everything bad that can happen to them and they explore the system gently; they turn off everything bad that can happen to everyone beyond the invasion of trolls and just build boring shit; they leave everything bad that can happen to a temporary avatar of them in place, and play as if they are a denizen of whatever type as their avatar, with whatever normal goals; etc.

Humans fall into rather fixed patterns of gameplay model, and I want to say that the thesis here is that one MAY find the ability to positively identify a god based on the immediate presence of an entity behaving that way.

One major issue with this is that these "gameplay models" are materially accessible by material entities and systems, so one would have still have to observe an immediate instance of a "strong causal adjacency", something like "I write on this pad of paper here 'spin left' and without any material linkage capable of transmitting that energy in a non-chaotic way to the emitter or the photons, particles emitted from the emitter aare spinning left; on 'spin right' written below the previous line, right spinning."

It would require a miracle as a "causally impossible outcome in a non-simulated universe."

Simulationism even allows completion of the semantic concept of a "miracle".

This would be roughly the ability to dictate the resolution of mechanics on the basis of an event that would require "kernel" access.

It is so proposed that there is an available proof of a creator god, but that it is completely unsatisfied by any evidentiary record to date.

We are quickly again approaching a point in time where there will be technical methods to fake records of it having happened, and no or few methodologies that defeat such techniques of fakery on any scale of operation that wouldn't also cause permanent damage.

It also makes for the awkward observation that perfection is not required, no matter what the creator of it says and no matter how it comports itself. Though as is discussed, it doesn't need to exist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

excreationist loves the idea of simulations and I think the best argument for life as a simulation would be looking at virtual particles, wave functions, and trying to determine what living in the box would look like, constraints of variables, the very fabric of RAM and ROM, storage. Sort of like Tron, but realistic.

Instead, they play on Minecraft and talk about computer AI making images.

 

[atrib]

None of which leads to, or is yet to lead to a discussion of whether creator gods exist, other than as a subset of humans who build simulations using software tools and computers. Or provides any meaningful discussion of the evidence that our reality was created by a sentient entity. Which is why I don't understand how this topic belongs in the Existence of God(s) subforum.

 

[Jarhyn]

excreationist loves the idea of simulations and I think the best argument for life as a simulation would be looking at virtual particles, wave functions, and trying to determine what living in the box would look like, constraints of variables, the very fabric of RAM and ROM, storage. Sort of like Tron, but realistic.

Instead, they play on Minecraft and talk about computer AI making images.

So to be fair here, I'm not sure how old @excreationist is, but I'm somewhere around 40, and It's taken 30+ years of "playing games like Minecraft" and later disassembling and naming the functions of Minecraft, then playing much more exotic games, then disassembling the binaries for a 787 to build a deterministic OS that would allow a PowerPC to think it was a 787 given that software...

I've built universes, and universe frameworks, and played with universes, and extended the hacking frameworks for them, and I come to very similar, if slightly more fleshed out, conclusions, though my conclusions include "zero or more", which implies creators are neither necessary not necessarily singular to a system.

 

[excreationist]

What does this have to do with the existence of gods?

I'm saying a simulation based creator god makes a lot more sense than an idealism based one.... i.e. it could be more likely to exist.... i.e. it is about the existence of gods....

Half of this topic is about idealism and the traditional creator God which people seem to have ignored....

 

[excreationist]

excreationist loves the idea of simulations and I think the best argument for life as a simulation would be looking at virtual particles, wave functions, and trying to determine what living in the box would look like, constraints of variables, the very fabric of RAM and ROM, storage. Sort of like Tron, but realistic.

No I don't think they are good arguments - partly because a big quantum-based computer could be difficult to simulate cheaply. Most scientists are aware of that quantum phenomena yet they don't believe we are in a simulation.

Instead, they play on Minecraft

I believe I'm probably in a video game and so video games like Minecraft are relevant. Note that I showed that Minecraft can involve a simulation within a simulation using redstone computers.

and talk about computer AI making images.

Images that are starting to involve anything a human can express in words that could have a visual appearance.

Amazing new AI system - GPT-3 and generating images from text

GPT-3 is based on 175 billion weights such as a lot of Internet content... It can be used in many novel ways... It is pretty good at comprehending natural language - though sometimes has problems.... https://lacker.io/ai/2020/07/06/giving-gpt-3-a-turing-test.html Recently it was used to...

iidb.org

And more recently in that thread it is about AI generating videos and 3D models and it seems definite that in the near future it will be able to create interactive photorealistic VR-like video and experiences - starting to involve anything that can be expressed in words.

The following is related to the God of the Bible - how the voice commands in Genesis could be handled with AI:

Voice commands of a simulation's creator and text-to-3D, etc.

In the Bible there is a creator that speaks things into existence using voice commands. In the future simulations could be initialized like this.... by using speech recognition to turn speech into text then AI could turn text into 3D, etc. Current text-to-3D technology...

iidb.org

 

[atrib]

What does this have to do with the existence of gods?

I'm saying a simulation based creator god makes a lot more sense than an idealism based one.... i.e. it could be more likely to exist.... i.e. it is about the existence of gods....

How could you possibly know that? How do you assess the probability for either case? And I'm not sure what an idealism based god is; it sounds just as made up as a simulation based god.

 

[atrib]

No I don't think they are good arguments at all. Most scientists are aware of that quantum phenomena yet they don't believe we are in a simulation.

There are no good arguments for asserting the proposition that we are probably living in a simulation. At least none that you have presented. And no, Elon Musk claiming that he believes something is not a good argument.

I believe I'm probably in a video game and so video games like Minecraft are relevant. Note that I showed that Minecraft can involve a simulation within a simulation using redstone computers.

I understand that you believe you are in a simulation., You have told us that at least a dozen times and its getting old. Do you have anything to add to the discussion? How do we test this claim? What is the mechanism by which human consciousness is simulated - are we simply software constructs in volatile memory following some programming, or are we grounded in a material substrate like a brain in a vat? If the latter, how did this brain come about? What powers this alleged simulation, and what kind of hardware is it running on? What are some of the (probable) characteristics of the designer of the simulation? There are a lot of good questions that can be asked and discussed, but you are not willing to touch any of it. All you do is tell us that you are probably part of a simulation. You won't even tell us why you believe this.

Images that are starting to involve anything a human can express in words that could have a visual appearance.

What does this have to do with the existence of gods? Or even simulations?

 

[excreationist]

What does this have to do with the existence of gods?

I'm saying a simulation based creator god makes a lot more sense than an idealism based one.... i.e. it could be more likely to exist.... i.e. it is about the existence of gods....

How could you possibly know that? How do you assess the probability for either case?

Well it seems clear that in the future there will be simulations/video games that are indistinguishable from reality. I don't think it will ever be the case that anything like a world involving an idealism-based creator will be created.

And I'm not sure what an idealism based god is; it sounds just as made up as a simulation based god.

From the link at the start of my original post:

Idealism

This is the view that the only reality is the ideal world. This would be the world of ideas. It is the view that there is no external reality composed of matter and energy. There are only ideas existing within minds.

It is about whether the God of the Bible is made up of matter and energy or fundamentally involving mental and spiritual elements (see OP quote).

 

[excreationist]

No I don't think they are good arguments at all. Most scientists are aware of that quantum phenomena yet they don't believe we are in a simulation.

There are no good arguments for asserting the proposition that we are probably living in a simulation. At least none that you have presented. And no, Elon Musk claiming that he believes something is not a good argument.

Well it is kind of off topic now. Also I think it is impossible to prove to a lot of skeptics that we are in a simulation and I think that is what the intelligent force wants - "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud" (including evidence of a simulation)

I believe I'm probably in a video game and so video games like Minecraft are relevant. Note that I showed that Minecraft can involve a simulation within a simulation using redstone computers.

I understand that you believe you are in a simulation., You have told us that at least a dozen times and its getting old.

I believe in a simulation with an intervening intelligent force....

Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

This is about idealism gods vs simulation gods - not about trying to prove we might be in a simulation.

How do we test this claim?

For me it is partly about faith - similar to the existence of gods....

What is the mechanism by which human consciousness is simulated -

That isn't relevant.

are we simply software constructs in volatile memory following some programming, or are we grounded in a material substrate like a brain in a vat? If the latter, how did this brain come about? What powers this alleged simulation, and what kind of hardware is it running on? What are some of the (probable) characteristics of the designer of the simulation? There are a lot of good questions that can be asked and discussed, but you are not willing to touch any of it. All you do is tell us that you are probably part of a simulation. You won't even tell us why you believe this.

Images that are starting to involve anything a human can express in words that could have a visual appearance.

What does this have to do with the existence of gods? Or even simulations?

If you look in that post you'd see how I'm saying that voice commands like in Genesis can be implemented using similar AI and technology. It means that worlds don't need human effort like current video games - they could be initialised using text, etc.

 

[excreationist]

About the idealism-type Christian God and its existence -

I think Christians don't believe it is made up of mechanistic parts like a computer or a brain - it is an infinite unchanging entity....

 

[excreationist]

"Monistic Idealism - Why William Lane Craig is actually an idealist"

Feed – Reasonable Faith Forum – Equip

www.reasonablefaith.org

Premise 1. If one affirms something mental is the ultimate foundation of all reality, then one is an idealist.
Premise 2. Craig affirms that something mental is the ultimate foundation of all reality.
Conclusion. Craig is an idealist.

I thought it would be better for this topic to also talk about alternative gods rather than being completely limited to idealism gods....

 

[excreationist]

There are no good arguments for asserting the proposition that we are probably living in a simulation.

That's the whole point of the non-obvious God concept.... (a simulation implies a creator)

GOD: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch like a safecracker or a pickpocket.

BENDER: Or a guy who burns down the bar for the insurance money.

GOD: Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

If there was a scientific consensus that we were in a simulation it would be less immersive and perhaps the point is to be indistinguishable from reality - if there was proof were were in a simulation then that would be different to being in base reality.

 

[atrib]

That's the whole point of the non-obvious God concept

Why believe something when there is no good evidence for it? That is the part that is not obvious to me.

 

[excreationist]

That's the whole point of the non-obvious God concept

Why believe something when there is no good evidence for it? That is the part that is not obvious to me.

Well this is a little essay I wrote:

If we are in a simulation there would be one or more intelligent forces that created it and they (or other beings) might intervene from time to time.

Sometimes they might like players to be aware that they are intervening but not want this to be obvious so that the connection is more mysterious. The intelligent force could be playing “hide and seek” with the players.

Like “God” in a Futurama episode says, "When you [God] do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all”.

I think the intelligent force only intervenes in a way that skeptics could explain as involving coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud.

Though there are hints that our world could involve a simulation and an intervening intelligence, modern supernatural skeptics feel justified in their belief that the world is purely mechanistic and physical.

This way a belief in paranormal intervention is more about personal faith and reasoning rather than involving any type of scientific consensus. Though it remains possible that there can be paranormal intervention in a simulation.

Then there is the possibility that the Bible was guided by an external intelligent force. It could be a test of the character of its readers - from the all-or-nothing thinking of fundamentalists and many atheists, to people who believe much of the Bible isn't historical while still believing in some kind of God.

See also:

"God does not play dice" and a non-obvious God

Albert Einstein said: God does not play dice with the universe https://www.businessinsider.com.au/god-does-not-play-dice-quote-meaning-2015-11 Stephen Hawking replied: Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen...

iidb.org

So it allows the possibility of a god interacting with the world without anyone being able to prove it - basically a good conspiracy theory. I find the concept attractive - and in the Futurama episode the god repeats the quote again at the end - so it seems Futurama's creators thought it was an important quote....

Also Futurama is generally a science-fiction show and I think it would be appropriate to try and implement science fiction to explain its "God" quote....

BTW Matt Groening is a self-identified agnostic which fits that god quote....

 

[bilby]

Yeah, assuming ad argumentum that we do live in a simulation, there presumably is an intelligence that created the simulation that is not, itself, simulated; And which arose by purely non-intelligent naturalistic means.

So regardless of whether or not we live in a simulation, there is a non-simulated reality that doesn't require any kind of creator (this is also true of theological gods - regardless of whether or not an intelligent god created our universe, the ultimate existence of that god must have been a natural event without a creator).

So given that positing a simulation or a theistic god achieves three eighths of fuck all towards explaining the origins of our universe; And given that we have a good understanding of how our universe could arise from a very simple starting point (small, hot, low entropy), what is the point of idle speculation that our complex universe arose not from simple beginnings, but from a separate complex precursor whose beginnings were either simple, or yet another nested layer of further complexity, and so ad infinitum.

All this extra complexity might be justified if there was a single observation that cannot be readily explained without the simulation (or god) conjecture. Or if there was any sound basis whatsoever to accept it.

But in the absence of such evidence, it's utterly pointless and futile; And is just one of an infinite number of needlessly complex conjectures about the origin of the universe that are possible, but useless.

The currently consensus cosmology is the best, because it's the simplest. It's one of a literally infinite number of possible conjectures, and not one of the others has anything to recommend it. Simplicity may not be a great criterion, but it's the best we can do to filter out the otherwise overwhelming pile of dross, of which the simulation hypothesis and a swathe of god hypotheses are just a tiny sample - with no merit over all of the others at all.

Interesting notions deserve a 'hmm', a shrug, and a move on to something with evidence. They're worthy of no more, and giving them more head space than that is a major waste of our limited lifespans.

 

[excreationist]

Yeah, assuming ad argumentum that we do live in a simulation, there presumably is an intelligence that created the simulation that is not, itself, simulated; And which arose by purely non-intelligent naturalistic means.

Yes I think that at some point even if there are many levels of simulations that there would be a mechanistic base reality - which the simulations could be attempting to be indistinguishable from.

All this extra complexity might be justified if there was a single observation that cannot be readily explained without the simulation (or god) conjecture. Or if there was any sound basis whatsoever to accept it.

But in the absence of such evidence, it's utterly pointless and futile; And is just one of an infinite number of needlessly complex conjectures about the origin of the universe that are possible, but useless.

Let me remind you of my non-obvious God theory (that I partly based on Futurama)
In Futurama "God" said twice: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
And I think the mechanism involves this:
"I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud" (and this is 100% intentional)
see also:

"God does not play dice" and a non-obvious God

Albert Einstein said: God does not play dice with the universe https://www.businessinsider.com.au/god-does-not-play-dice-quote-meaning-2015-11 Stephen Hawking replied: Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen...

iidb.org

BTW half of the title for this thread was about Idealist Gods - like the one William Lane Craig seems to believe in... as far as the existence of gods go at least I think simulation-based gods make more sense and are more likely to be possible in the future than idealist ones are.

 

[bilby]

In Futurama "God" said twice: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"

Yeah, that's a joke.

About the stupidity of believing in a God that's undetectable.

Jokes are quite common in comedies; You should probably be expecting them.