• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

excreationist

Active member
Top down?! Are you for fucking real?
Like in Flight Simulator where you can fly high above the clouds or go close to the grass - it uses a "level of detail" technique which I call "top down".

flightsim-grass.jpg


In future games you would be able to zoom in closer to the grass... even to an atomic level... the grass could have physics (making it move) but this doesn't need to be done constantly (if no players are observing the grass). If the player made any changes to the grass it would be remembered (perhaps on an approximate level if possible).

On the other hand I'd consider Minecraft to be "bottom up" - it is always simulating things to the building block scale - this simulation is completely on or off depending on the block or object's distance from the players.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Well-known member
Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

How do you top down the fucking wind, ie air masses that impact everyone along the way?!

Air masses are massive accumulations of gases (particles with no dense of inhibition) joined up as a fluid that acts in predictable ways as if they were part of a fluid comprised of oceans of gas particles.
 

excreationist

Active member
How do you top down the fucking wind, ie air masses that impact everyone along the way?!

Air masses are massive accumulations of gases (particles with no dense of inhibition) joined up as a fluid that acts in predictable ways as if they were part of a fluid comprised of oceans of gas particles.
If not observed closely I think wind can be approximated rather than always being simulated on a quantum level. Flight Simulator also simulates wind pretty accurately including wind going over hills and mountains.
BTW Flight Simulator begins with satellite imagery, etc, and using Machine Learning it generates 3D buildings and trees and grass... rather than starting with the building blocks like Minecraft....
 

steve_bank

Well-known member
Video games as regality, that says it all.

Our culture is doomed. I think there are a lot of young people who are going to be very disillusioned and unhappy when they get alder. At least the religious have something.

The word that comes to mind for excreationist is 'tripping'.
 

steve_bank

Well-known member
Getting back to science and relgion.

In regional news a Gonzaga Jesuit professor was talking about how there is no conflict between science and religion. That sounded ok, but he finishes with 'religion inspires science'. The old RCC requirement that science somehow fits theology.

There has also been a TV spot by the RCC about science and religion. Maybe they are sensing which way the wind is blowing on science and vaccines.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Well-known member
How do you top down the fucking wind, ie air masses that impact everyone along the way?!

Air masses are massive accumulations of gases (particles with no dense of inhibition) joined up as a fluid that acts in predictable ways as if they were part of a fluid comprised of oceans of gas particles.
If not observed closely I think wind can be approximated rather than always being simulated on a quantum level. Flight Simulator also simulates wind pretty accurately including wind going over hills and mountains.
BTW Flight Simulator begins with satellite imagery, etc, and using Machine Learning it generates 3D buildings and trees and grass... rather than starting with the building blocks like Minecraft....

Flight simulator is a fucking game.

Airplanes in real life fly on all of the wind, as well as people being impacted by the weather the air masses bring about.
 

Keith&Co.

Well-known member
Read a scifi story a zillion years ago. A young woman dies in an accident. "She" wakes up to find she's been recreated as a robot. Because she was one of the last surviving humans and they don't want that fact to get out.

Boyfriend notices changed in her personality and investigates. Goes on a tour of the entire solar system Realizes that He is THE last surviving human. But you wouldn't know because everyone that's died has been replaced by a robot. For the purpose of continuing civilization.
Thing is, they have to replicate everything humans are doing. He finds miners processing ore on Pluto. This is a 24/7 operation, it wouldn't work if they just had robots stationed there, standing by unless and until LastMan ever comes to visit.
Because the details have to match. They have to have tools to support the mining and there has to be actual wear and tear on the tools, which means there are tool factories that have to be operational. They can't risk LastMan turning randomly to see the rate of ore shipping accidents and calculating that the numbers don't match the production reported. He might get a hair up his ass to look at a detail, any detail, in the solar system, and they need to match up to all the other details.

They cannot have a factory that only operates if he walks up, the machinery intake and output can't just start instantly and still dovetail with any other facility involved in the shipping of product or the production of supply parts and materials. And there's no way to predict where he might express an interest, or become curious, or what page of the paper he might suddenly notice details on.



If the wind doesn't exist until someone goes to look at it, then the moment someone measures it, the simulation has to calculate backwards from all the observed effects that have been measured/noticed to flesh out the details in such a way that they match every possible effect it could have on everyone.

Which means that before they create the wind in an up-until-that-minute uninhabited spot, they have to make sure that the follow-on winds in any two or ten inhabited spots all match. That it's not physically impossible for point A and point B to measure the wind they actually measured.
And the only way to do that is to simulate the wind in the uninhabited spot FIRST, so the developing effects all match, whether someone goes to measure it or not.
 

excreationist

Active member
Flight simulator is a fucking game.
I think I am probably in a video game too - an extremely advanced one but like Flight Simulator I think it would involve Machine Learning.
Airplanes in real life fly on all of the wind, as well as people being impacted by the weather the air masses bring about.
I think Flight Simulator is heading in the right direction. Future versions would be even more realistic. The weather impacting people doesn't require a simulation to simulate everything on a quantum level.... note that Flight Simulator also simulates the current weather conditions for the part of the world you're in.
 

excreationist

Active member
If the wind doesn't exist until someone goes to look at it, then the moment someone measures it, the simulation has to calculate backwards from all the observed effects that have been measured/noticed to flesh out the details in such a way that they match every possible effect it could have on everyone.

Which means that before they create the wind in an up-until-that-minute uninhabited spot, they have to make sure that the follow-on winds in any two or ten inhabited spots all match. That it's not physically impossible for point A and point B to measure the wind they actually measured.
And the only way to do that is to simulate the wind in the uninhabited spot FIRST, so the developing effects all match, whether someone goes to measure it or not.
I wrote in post #304:
"If not observed closely I think wind can be approximated rather than always being simulated on a quantum level"​

I'm saying that it could still be simulated all of the time.... in an approximated way using very efficient machine learning.... (similar to how machine learning physics looks very realistic even though it isn't on an atomic level) [see "two minute papers" on YouTube]

Then if you observe it closely it would become more and more realistic....

As far as calculating backwards goes, I think that could be the case for evolution - see post #109
 

steve_bank

Well-known member
Flight simulator is a fucking game.
I think I am probably in a video game too - an extremely advanced one but like Flight Simulator I think it would involve Machine Learning.
Airplanes in real life fly on all of the wind, as well as people being impacted by the weather the air masses bring about.
I think Flight Simulator is heading in the right direction. Future versions would be even more realistic. The weather impacting people doesn't require a simulation to simulate everything on a quantum level.... note that Flight Simulator also simulates the current weather conditions for the part of the world you're in.


Way off topic. Computers And Technology.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Well-known member
Flight simulator is a fucking game.
I think I am probably in a video game too - an extremely advanced one but like Flight Simulator I think it would involve Machine Learning.
Except that science implies we are the ones learning, not the machine. There is no evidence of "machine learning" unless you want to say evolution is machine learning... when it isn't a process that has improved itself.
Airplanes in real life fly on all of the wind, as well as people being impacted by the weather the air masses bring about.
I think Flight Simulator is heading in the right direction. Future versions would be even more realistic. The weather impacting people doesn't require a simulation to simulate everything on a quantum level.... note that Flight Simulator also simulates the current weather conditions for the part of the world you're in.
Quantum level? So you apparently still don't understand how quantum mechanics could be used to model a simulation. You think that somehow the programming is top down. Like tumors growing in someone's abdomen. Top down.

I bring up air masses, because those contain huge amounts of particles that interact with the world around them... just like a hurricane. A hurricane over land shears. Hurricanes in environments of vertical shear weaken. Air masses are impacted by other air masses and the environment around them. It is compressible (proven via air pressure), meaning it contains lots of widely spaced particles that can expand and contract. So the top down idea is crap because we know air masses would need to be modeled down to some resolution of the molecules and not top-down.

For a person that thinks we are in a simulation, you have given the concept almost no actual thought, like a bible thumping Christian who hasn't actually read that much of the Bible.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Flight simulator is a fucking game.
I think I am probably in a video game too - an extremely advanced one but like Flight Simulator I think it would involve Machine Learning.
So, the me is not being simulated, nothing about me is a simulation, but everything else is simulated. Is that what you are saying? It's the matrix, correct? Everyone is being fooled for some unknown purpose.
 

excreationist

Active member
Except that science implies we are the ones learning, not the machine. There is no evidence of "machine learning" unless you want to say evolution is machine learning... when it isn't a process that has improved itself.
Flight Simulator uses a lot of machine learning:
https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/17/m...icrosoft-build-the-world-of-flight-simulator/
About machine learning for cosmological simulations:
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-machine-cosmological-simulations.html
Perhaps you haven't heard of machine learning....
Here AI is used to convert Minecraft scenes into pretty realistic scenes:
Quantum level? So you apparently still don't understand how quantum mechanics could be used to model a simulation.
Yeah at the moment I've just been considering traditional computer based simulations...
....I bring up air masses, because those contain huge amounts of particles that interact with the world around them... just like a hurricane. A hurricane over land shears. Hurricanes in environments of vertical shear weaken. Air masses are impacted by other air masses and the environment around them. It is compressible (proven via air pressure), meaning it contains lots of widely spaced particles that can expand and contract. So the top down idea is crap because we know air masses would need to be modeled down to some resolution of the molecules and not top-down.
Flight Simulator simulates hurricanes too. I disagree that a hurricane has to always be simulated on atomic level... in weather simulations they are far less detailed than that yet they are somewhat accurate on a global level..... ("level of detail" involves things calculated differently if up close vs far away) In the future hurricanes would be able to be simulated even more accurately...
For a person that thinks we are in a simulation, you have given the concept almost no actual thought, like a bible thumping Christian who hasn't actually read that much of the Bible.
You seem to think you have better insights about the topic - but I think machine learning is a key idea which you thought I just made up...
 
Last edited:

excreationist

Active member
excreationist said:
I think I am probably in a video game too - an extremely advanced one but like Flight Simulator I think it would involve Machine Learning.
Except that science implies we are the ones learning, not the machine. There is no evidence of "machine learning" unless you want to say evolution is machine learning... when it isn't a process that has improved itself.
Perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps you know what machine learning is but you just think there is no evidence it is used in our possible simulation. Well machine learning can be thousands or millions or more times more efficient than straight-forward simulations....
e.g.
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-machine-cosmological-simulations.html
Based on Elon Musk's quote about billions of video games it would follow that they'd be as efficient as possible. So machine learning or an even more efficient/powerful technique would be used.
Machine learning can also be used to generate incredibly creative photorealistic images:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-system-GPT-3-and-generating-images-from-text
So if there are creative things within a simulation (like a cartoon baby panda wearing headphones using a blue light saber) it could have been generated by a contemporary level AI rather than having to simulate a human mind to create it....
 

Jimmy Higgins

Well-known member
excreationist said:
I think I am probably in a video game too - an extremely advanced one but like Flight Simulator I think it would involve Machine Learning.
Except that science implies we are the ones learning, not the machine. There is no evidence of "machine learning" unless you want to say evolution is machine learning... when it isn't a process that has improved itself.
Perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps you know what machine learning is but you just think there is no evidence it is used in our possible simulation.
Except you never actually provide any information for this. Or back up... or even the slightest idea how to falisify, observe, or prove it. You just say "Elon Musk!" and "I think we might be in a simulation", and that's it. Hundreds of posts with nothing more. There is a quantum foam with basic building blocks of matter coming into and out of existence, potential bits and bytes that form the simulation... and you just cite Flight Simulator. Lazy!

e.g.
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-machine-cosmological-simulations.html
Based on Elon Musk's quote about billions of video games it would follow that they'd be as efficient as possible. So machine learning or an even more efficient/powerful technique would be used.
Machine learning can also be used to generate incredibly creative photorealistic images:
That's great. In our simulation, the simulation is dying, with entropy always increasing, order always disordering... this learning simulation isn't learning.
 

excreationist

Active member
....There is a quantum foam with basic building blocks of matter coming into and out of existence, potential bits and bytes that form the simulation... and you just cite Flight Simulator. Lazy!
I think if an AI can generate hundreds of cartoons involving a baby panda wearing headphones using a blue light saber (and photorealistic scenes based on natural language) then it can approximate quantum foam: (because quantum foam is technically straight-forward but the logic involved to generate those cartoons or photos isn't straight-forward)
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-system-GPT-3-and-generating-images-from-text
"Two minute papers" on YouTube has more than a hundred examples of cutting edge machine learning. Many involve physics - and quantum foam is just a kind of physics.
Here is an example of machine learning simulating astrophysics where you're zoomed out from the quantum world...
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-machine-cosmological-simulations.html
e.g.
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-machine-cosmological-simulations.html
Based on Elon Musk's quote about billions of video games it would follow that they'd be as efficient as possible. So machine learning or an even more efficient/powerful technique would be used.
Machine learning can also be used to generate incredibly creative photorealistic images:
That's great. In our simulation, the simulation is dying, with entropy always increasing, order always disordering... this learning simulation isn't learning.
Machine learning happens BEFORE the main simulation - during "training".
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Higgins

Well-known member
I think if an AI can generate hundreds of cartoons involving a baby panda wearing headphones using a blue light saber (and photorealistic scenes based on natural language) then it can approximate quantum foam: (because quantum foam is technically straight-forward but the logic involved to generate those cartoons or photos isn't straight-forward)
Why in the heck (am I still responding?) would a simulation that is Top-Down, simulate down to the quantum level?

You keep contradicting your own statements.
That's great. In our simulation, the simulation is dying, with entropy always increasing, order always disordering... this learning simulation isn't learning.
Machine learning happens BEFORE the main simulation - during "training".
You are stuck in the rut of 'well it's possible'. Yeah sure, it's possible. Just about anything can be possible with enough energy.

That isn't the question. The question is how does one go about observing being inside a simulation.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Why in the heck (am I still responding?) would a simulation that is Top-Down, simulate down to the quantum level?

You keep contradicting your own statements.
Machine learning happens BEFORE the main simulation - during "training".
You are stuck in the rut of 'well it's possible'. Yeah sure, it's possible. Just about anything can be possible with enough energy.

That isn't the question. The question is how does one go about observing being inside a simulation.
And aren't people going to get curious? Aren't people going to discover the simulation eventually? I mean if you are going to take the path that we can simulate quantum foam, QM and anything and everything that is logically and naturally "weird," why not just fess up and say that we've discovered that it's all a simulation?

If we can never "prove" that it's a simulation, if everything we discover about the universe gets tossed onto the argument that we can simulate that too, then what the fuck is the fucking point? How do you ever get to demonstrate that it's a simulation? Is that part of simulation dogma, that those in the simulation can never discover the simulation? Sounds kinda like woo to me.
 

steve_bank

Well-known member
Top down? Naaah. Circular simulation is better. Triangular simulation has been trued, but the discontinuities ate the points are difficult to deal with.

us form of simulating is a good approach. You think you are getting somewhere but you are really just covering the same ground over and over. No entropy.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Well-known member
Why in the heck (am I still responding?) would a simulation that is Top-Down, simulate down to the quantum level?

You keep contradicting your own statements.
Machine learning happens BEFORE the main simulation - during "training".
You are stuck in the rut of 'well it's possible'. Yeah sure, it's possible. Just about anything can be possible with enough energy.

That isn't the question. The question is how does one go about observing being inside a simulation.
And aren't people going to get curious? Aren't people going to discover the simulation eventually? I mean if you are going to take the path that we can simulate quantum foam, QM and anything and everything that is logically and naturally "weird," why not just fess up and say that we've discovered that it's all a simulation?

If we can never "prove" that it's a simulation, if everything we discover about the universe gets tossed onto the argument that we can simulate that too, then what the fuck is the fucking point? How do you ever get to demonstrate that it's a simulation? Is that part of simulation dogma, that those in the simulation can never discover the simulation? Sounds kinda like woo to me.
There is added self-serving irony that we are in the simulation, and the simulation is about us.

Try this, the whomever that are simulating our universe has no idea we exist in the model. We are less that a spec of a piece of dust on the penis of a tardigrade (I will beat anyone who fact checks that! into a pulp), that our existence has gone undetected and wholly unnoticed by the simulation.
 

Keith&Co.

Well-known member
Try this, the whomever that are simulating our universe has no idea we exist in the model. We are less that a spec of a piece of dust on the penis of a tardigrade (I will beat anyone who fact checks that! into a pulp), that our existence has gone undetected and wholly unnoticed by the simulation.


universe.jpg
 

excreationist

Active member
Why in the heck (am I still responding?) would a simulation that is Top-Down, simulate down to the quantum level?

You keep contradicting your own statements.
Like how in Flight Simulator 2020 when you get close enough it shows the grass, when observe closely enough in our world you can observe quantum phenomena. Using machine learning it can also take quantum phenomena into account on a large scale. The purpose is to be indistinguishable from reality without having to always simulate the 1057 atoms in the Sun, etc.
Machine learning happens BEFORE the main simulation - during "training".
You are stuck in the rut of 'well it's possible'. Yeah sure, it's possible. Just about anything can be possible with enough energy.
I'm also saying that in the future there would probably be billions of these simulations so it would seem likely that we're in one of them.
That isn't the question. The question is how does one go about observing being inside a simulation.
Well it is meant to be indistinguishable from reality so you can't know for sure.
 

excreationist

Active member
Try this, the whomever that are simulating our universe has no idea we exist in the model. We are less that a spec of a piece of dust on the penis of a tardigrade (I will beat anyone who fact checks that! into a pulp), that our existence has gone undetected and wholly unnoticed by the simulation.


View attachment 34922
In the machine learning top-down kind of simulation the stars and our Sun would be approximated. So distant stars wouldn't be constantly simulated using 1057 particles at once... but an image of those stars would look like that if a person were to view them. I'm saying they would still be simulated to some degree when not directly observed.
 

excreationist

Active member
There is added self-serving irony that we are in the simulation, and the simulation is about us.
Yes like in the video game "No Man's Sky" there are 18 quintillion different planets but it focuses on the planet you are currently visiting. (though I think in our simulation it still simulates phenomena very very roughly when not directly observed)
Try this, the whomever that are simulating our universe has no idea we exist in the model. We are less that a spec of a piece of dust on the penis of a tardigrade (I will beat anyone who fact checks that! into a pulp), that our existence has gone undetected and wholly unnoticed by the simulation.
That's like saying that the 18 quintillion different planets in "No Man's Sky" (and their animals) have to be constantly simulated to the grass scale just in case the player is anywhere on any particular planet. Video games are usually optimized to be as efficient as possible. Constantly simulating all of the planets to the grass scale when there is only one player is unnecessary and too CPU intensive so it wouldn't happen in a practical video game.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
There is added self-serving irony that we are in the simulation, and the simulation is about us.
Yes like in the video game "No Man's Sky" there are 18 quintillion different planets but it focuses on the planet you are currently visiting. (though I think in our simulation it still simulates phenomena very very roughly when not directly observed)
Try this, the whomever that are simulating our universe has no idea we exist in the model. We are less that a spec of a piece of dust on the penis of a tardigrade (I will beat anyone who fact checks that! into a pulp), that our existence has gone undetected and wholly unnoticed by the simulation.
That's like saying that the 18 quintillion different planets in "No Man's Sky" (and their animals) have to be constantly simulated to the grass scale just in case the player is anywhere on any particular planet. Video games are usually optimized to be as efficient as possible. Constantly simulating all of the planets to the grass scale when there is only one player is unnecessary and too CPU intensive so it wouldn't happen in a practical video game.

That's not a simulation, that's solopsism.
 

excreationist

Active member
That's not a simulation, that's solopsism.
In the Roy game in Rick and Morty it turned out that Morty was the only real person within that game though at the time he temporarily wasn't aware of that....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szzVlQ653as&t=24s
I guess the purpose of that simulation (the Roy game) is to have the player see how well they can live a particular character's life - without being aware it is just a simulation during gameplay....
A similar scenario is Alan Watt's dream scenario:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?24575-Suffering-in-a-designed-world

BTW it turns out that "No Man's Sky" can be played as a multiplayer game.... so then only some of the 18 quintillion different planets would be simulated at once... (rather than all of them at once)
 

steve_bank

Well-known member
If this a simulation there is nothing I can do about it, no worries.

If this is not a simulation there is nothing I can do about it, no worries.

Go with the flow bro.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
If this a simulation there is nothing I can do about it, no worries.

If this is not a simulation there is nothing I can do about it, no worries.

Go with the flow bro.
Right, it's goofy.

How would you ever learn that its a simulation if everything is perfectly simulated, as claimed? So you can't know if its a simulation and you cannot know if it isn't a simulation. So pursuing knowledge about whether it is a simulation is the dumbest thing you can do. The simulation salesmen are just like god salesmen.

Come to think of it, pursuing any knowledge at all is just as dopey because its all a dog and pony simulation. Bread and circus, bread and circus, bread and circus forever.
 

steve_bank

Well-known member
If this a simulation there is nothing I can do about it, no worries.

If this is not a simulation there is nothing I can do about it, no worries.

Go with the flow bro.
Right, it's goofy.

How would you ever learn that its a simulation if everything is perfectly simulated, as claimed? So you can't know if its a simulation and you cannot know if it isn't a simulation. So pursuing knowledge about whether it is a simulation is the dumbest thing you can do. The simulation salesmen are just like god salesmen.

Come to think of it, pursuing any knowledge at all is just as dopey because its all a dog and pony simulation. Bread and circus, bread and circus, bread and circus forever.


I am thinking this kind of mew age mysticism is just a spin on the old stuff both religious and philosophical. A reframing of an old question.

Why am I here and what is my purpose?. Is my life predetermined? And so on.

Simulation is just a code word for god or guiding spirit. Another metaphor for reality and a way to explain reality.

The infinite capacity of human imagination.
 

excreationist

Active member
About a different kind of simulation:
3:59
today I want to talk about the idea that it's our experience of the universe that is simulated.​
That we are simulated minds in a virtual universe​
that has just enough detail to convince us of its reality​

4:22
Bostrom argues that in the future, it will be possible to simulate the action of all the neurons of the human brain​
and to simulate the sensory input to that brain with enough fidelity to convince the simulation that it's a real person.​

10:19
The hypothesis is unfalsifiable.​
Bostrom himself points out that upon being found out by one of its resident minds​
the simulation can be instantly edited or rewound.​
In fact this editability is a necessity.​
These simulations can only cover a tiny fraction of the universe so they are prone to inconsistencies.​
It's far more computationally economical to edit out the discovery of these inconsistencies​
Than it is to simulate enough of the universe so that inconsistencies don't happen.​
 
Top