A Creator and Idealism vs Computational Simulations

[excreationist]

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.

Bender was a god in that episode. The actual "god" said "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" and goes on to explain this third option.... Bender seems to be satisfied with this option. I thought it is a clever option not related to stupidity. Also it seems Matt Groening's agnosticism would be compatible with the quote - rather than just being an attempt at humour....

I believe in an intelligent force that seems detectable just not provable. Note that in Christianity it says things like not putting God to the test.

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

I believe in an intelligent force that has a sense of humour. The answer to the ultimate question (42) is also a joke... and it was written by a "radical" atheist. The first time I realised it was connected to the game of Connect 4 I thought I'd look at the pieces:

And there were still exactly 42 pieces but two less red pieces and two extra yellow pieces than there should be...

Though a few days ago I eventually was able to explain this - Pressman "4 in a row sets" have 23 pieces of each colour - so that meant that there were 4 missing red pieces.... (but genuine Connect 4 sets only have 21 of each colour). Another interesting thing is that the set was more deluxe than all of the other cheaply made sets I've come across.

At the same mental ward visit I was reading a Bible upside down to try and curse myself then the next day I was given a sealed Bible that was upside down - I also see that as involving a sense of humour:

Note that the 2011 NIV Bible usually puts Jesus' words in red - but not for early John 8:

Bible Gateway passage: John 7 - New International Version

Jesus Goes to the Festival of Tabernacles - After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go...

www.biblegateway.com

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

I don't think the intelligent force generally has a sense of humour in its possible interactions with other people - just that I think it sometimes does when it involves me....

 

[atrib]

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

That was my question.

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

I don't think the intelligent force generally has a sense of humour in its possible interactions with other people - just that I think it sometimes does when it involves me....

My question stands unanswered. Do you even care about the answer?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Yes, wisdom shouldn't be mistaken to justify any conclusion. The Futurama quote above is a hallmark of people's jobs. When things go right, you don't notice what was needed or done to make it right. Mistakes stick out more.

Bender meeting god... or whom doesn't even consider itself god, was just to help Bender with his own god-hood. Not certain why Bender being a god isn't used by excreationist as evidence too, as that was in the same episode. I just hope that I'm not part of a universe that is floating is close proximity to Bender's ass.

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

I have no problem with people believing in a god that is undetectable. I have issues when they suggest they have good evidence to suggest a god that is undetectable exists, or worse, I'm just angry at their god and that is why I don't believe in it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I think the better question is why are some people (a minority of them) able to accept the premise of no creator (or at the very least, no personal creator). Are we (humans) just beholden to inertia that strongly.

 

[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.

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.

If we are in a simulation, the critical thing to look for is the base of that simulation, which in our existence, as far as we can tell, are baryons, fermions, wave functions. IF this is a simulation, those could be the physical signs of the transition of code into our reality. The basis of our existence.

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.

Who fucking cares!? Minecraft is not a sign of anything regarding us being a simulation. Physics would be the primer, not a PC.

 

[excreationist]

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

That was my question.

My question stands unanswered. Do you even care about the answer?

Like post #17 says the intelligent force might want to be mysterious - like in that Futurama quote. I think that is a possibility. Like the saying goes "the Lord works in mysterious ways". In post #17 I'm just taking it literally and exploring it in more depth. So I hope that explains why I believe in it. Also I see things like the Connect 4 set and upside-down Bible as hints of an intelligent force interacting in my life. Yes I know this non-obvious concept is very unusual.

 

[excreationist]

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.

Who fucking cares!? Minecraft is not a sign of anything regarding us being a simulation.

I just thought it was interesting to have an actual example of a simulation within a simulation....

Physics would be the primer, not a PC.

I think physics is generally only approximated - probably using AI
e.g.

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

So that the 10^57 atoms in our sun and similar stars aren't always being precisely simulated on a subatomic level...

 

[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.

I think the better question is why are some people (a minority of them) able to accept the premise of no creator (or at the very least, no personal creator). Are we (humans) just beholden to inertia that strongly.

In the concept of a non-obvious God there is no obvious proof that God exists and so I'd expect some people (who focus on what has the most evidence) to not believe in that God.

 

[excreationist]

Bender meeting god... or whom doesn't even consider itself god, was just to help Bender with his own god-hood. Not certain why Bender being a god isn't used by excreationist as evidence too, as that was in the same episode. I just hope that I'm not part of a universe that is floating is close proximity to Bender's ass.

In the episode Bender's attempt at being a god was almost completely a disaster - he demonstrated the God's quote about the problems with doing too much or doing nothing.

 

[pood]

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

That was my question.

My question stands unanswered. Do you even care about the answer?

Like post #17 says the intelligent force might want to be mysterious - like in that Futurama quote. I think that is a possibility. Like the saying goes "the Lord works in mysterious ways". In post #17 I'm just taking it literally and exploring it in more depth. So I hope that explains why I believe in it. Also I see things like the Connect 4 set and upside-down Bible as hints of an intelligent force interacting in my life. Yes I know this non-obvious concept is very unusual.

You think it is a possibility so you believe it to be true? How does that work?

 

[atrib]

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

That was my question.

My question stands unanswered. Do you even care about the answer?

Like post #17 says the intelligent force might want to be mysterious - like in that Futurama quote. I think that is a possibility. Like the saying goes "the Lord works in mysterious ways".

Do you understand what I'm asking you? You keep repeating the same things but you won't tell us why it makes sense to believe something without evidence.

In post #17 I'm just taking it literally and exploring it in more depth.

You are not exploring anything in depth. You just post the same material over and over.

So I hope that explains why I believe in it.

It explains nothing. Being attracted to an idea is not a good reason to believe that the idea is true.

Also I see things like the Connect 4 set and upside-down Bible as hints of an intelligent force interacting in my life. Yes I know this non-obvious concept is very unusual.

We know. You have told us this at least a dozen times. It still doesn't make sense.

 

[atrib]

I think physics is generally only approximated - probably using AI

How the fuck could you possibly know that? Is there any fucking evidence to support this claim? No.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Physics would be the primer, not a PC.

I think physics is generally only approximated - probably using AI
e.g.

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

So that the 10^57 atoms in our sun and similar stars aren't always being precisely simulated on a subatomic level...

Probably using AI... as opposed to being approximated by what else?

 

[excreationist]

I think physics is generally only approximated - probably using AI

How the fuck could you possibly know that? Is there any fucking evidence to support this claim? No.

In the future I think there will be billions of video games that are indistinguishable from reality. AI-based physics that involves approximations seems to be the least resource intensive way possible based on the current possibilities and so it would be most likely to be used in the video games.
e.g.

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

 

[Jarhyn]

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

That was my question.

My question stands unanswered. Do you even care about the answer?

Like post #17 says the intelligent force might want to be mysterious - like in that Futurama quote. I think that is a possibility. Like the saying goes "the Lord works in mysterious ways". In post #17 I'm just taking it literally and exploring it in more depth. So I hope that explains why I believe in it. Also I see things like the Connect 4 set and upside-down Bible as hints of an intelligent force interacting in my life. Yes I know this non-obvious concept is very unusual.

You think it is a possibility so you believe it to be true? How does that work?

Yeah, that's where I personally draw a line.

There's just nothing of that that deserves belief.

There are standards of evidence and really good, easy ways to demonstrate godhood that haven't been displayed in any way.

We could potentially describe the whole universe as a OISC on a field of memory. At that point, it is demonstrably executable on any and every and thus just "logically always the result of that".

Thats OK, though. It doesn't prevent free will, or say anything about why "this" is in the logical process of becoming "that".

It also doesn't rob us of the power to ask "when would I let something in there come out here?"

 

[excreationist]

Like post #17 says the intelligent force might want to be mysterious - like in that Futurama quote. I think that is a possibility. Like the saying goes "the Lord works in mysterious ways". In post #17 I'm just taking it literally and exploring it in more depth. So I hope that explains why I believe in it. Also I see things like the Connect 4 set and upside-down Bible as hints of an intelligent force interacting in my life. Yes I know this non-obvious concept is very unusual.

You think it is a possibility so you believe it to be true? How does that work?

see:

"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

Also based on my personal experiences:

My experiences that suggest an intelligent force exists

Hi this is about experiences I had as an atheist/agnostic that made me think that there could be an intelligent force in the universe - maybe even from the future a bit like Interstellar? Maybe I'll become a liberal Christian one day. (very long post...) From March 2018: From my blog: Several...

iidb.org

 

[excreationist]

Do you understand what I'm asking you? You keep repeating the same things but you won't tell us why it makes sense to believe something without evidence.

You asked "Why believe something when there is no good evidence for it?"

I guess I believe it because it explains my personal experiences as possibly involving an intelligent force (e.g. Connect 4 and upside-down Bible) while being consistent with science's materialistic view of reality (from the point of view of skeptics).

In post #17 I'm just taking it literally and exploring it in more depth.

You are not exploring anything in depth. You just post the same material over and over.

By "in depth" I am talking about the four explanations that skeptics could have: "coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud"

So I hope that explains why I believe in it.

It explains nothing. Being attracted to an idea is not a good reason to believe that the idea is true.

You asked me why I believed it. I understand why you don't think it involves good reasons.

Also I see things like the Connect 4 set and upside-down Bible as hints of an intelligent force interacting in my life. Yes I know this non-obvious concept is very unusual.

We know. You have told us this at least a dozen times. It still doesn't make sense.

Well it might be impossible for me to explain it then...

 

[pood]

In the future I think there will be billions of video games that are indistinguishable from reality.

There are two different questions here.

In the future, will there be vast numbers of video games or other computer simulations that are indistinguishable from reality?

And,

Are we ourselves simulations, living inside a universal simulation (the Bostrom thesis)?

These questions should not be confused.

I can well imagine that in the future, there will be virtual reality simulations indistinguishable from the real thing.

I live in New York City and like to hang out at Coney Island in the summer. I wish I could hang out there all year round but most months are too cold to do that.

But I can imagine having a VR headset, or goggles, or some kind of suit, which I can put on and find myself having a virtual experience of Coney Island that is indistinguishable from the real thing.

I think that is not only possible but a plausible future.

Perhaps there will be others with their own headsets frolicking on this virtual beach and they will display as avatars, and I will have an avatar of my own. And we can meet and greet virtually. So far, so good.

But in addition to avatars of real people, there will be countless simulated people, because Coney Island is very crowded in in hot weather and most of the “people” on this simulated beach will not be avatars of real people wearing their own headsets or suits or whatever.

The question could occur: are any of these simulated people (as opposed to the avatar people) conscious? Are they self-aware? Do they experience qualia?

A simple reductio shows the absurdity of the question. There have always been low-tech simulations of the world. A painted portrait is a simulation of the person painted. A novel is a simulation of characters in the world. A comic book is a simulation of people and super heroes.

When I pick up a Superman comic book, do I ask the question, Is the pen and ink Superman in this book conscious? Does he think of himself as Superman, with a private history? Does he experience flying as a quale?

Of course I don’t ask that question. The idea is stupid. Superman (and characters in novels, portraits, etc.) are simulations. They do not and cannot have interior mental lives.

Just so the sim people on my virtual Coney Island are not and cannot be conscious.

Now, maybe someday we will be able to simulate people that are conscious and have interior mental lives. However, and this is the key point — we currently have no idea whatsoever how to do this, or whether it can be done at all.

This has huge ramifications for Bostrom’s Simulation Argument. He assumes consciousness is substrate-independent and can be reproduced on, say, silicon. I, otoh, see no reason at all to believe this. Were this the case, I dare say we would already have sentient, self-aware, intelligent computers like HAL 9000. And clearly we do not.

So the idea that we ourselves are simulations in a universal simulation must be treated differently from the question of whether it’s possible to simulate Coney Island to such a high degree of fidelity that it would be indistinguishable from the real Coney Island. The latter, I think, quite plausibly could be done. The former idea has no evidence to support it.

But even if it were possible, and our descendants in the far future are running ancestor simulations as Bostrom suggests, just ask yourself: what kind of moral monsters would these people be? For example, who in their right mind would simulate the Holocaust, and bestow upon the sim people in the Holocaust environment consciousness, so that they would be painfully aware of the horrible things being done to them? If they wanted to study a reconstruction of the Holocaust in an immersive VR environment, wouldn’t it be sufficient to make the simulated people philosophical zombies, people who behave as if self-aware but who in reality are dead inside, void of experience? WHY in the world would you want to make these sim speople suffer, if indeed it turned out to be possible to simulate self-awareness?

 

[excreationist]

@pood:
I have written about the simulated beings and the problem of suffering:

Why is there Suffering? - Life's Player

About suffering in a simulation

lifesplayer.com

Choosing to Suffer?
In scenarios like the Roy game and Alan Watts' dream thought experiment, the player chose to live a life involving suffering but forgot this during the game. They'd remember this choice when they woke up.
....
Philosophical Zombies
In future video games, non-player characters could act just like conscious beings but without the ability to genuinely feel anything, including negative sensations. It would be up to the simulation's creator whether they want billions of characters to experience genuine suffering or not.

I am most interested in video games where the player has an existence outside of the simulation (e.g. the Roy and Alan Watts scenarios). I think Nick Bostrom favours the idea of there being a single brain within a simulation and then its inputs are generated.

Are You Living in a Simulation?

The original paper that introduced the simulation argument

www.simulation-argument.com

 

[pood]

But you say that we are “probably in a simulation.” And the sim people in this simulation are conscious. I know I am and I assume other are (though I can’t prove it). And in this sim world where all we sim people dwell, there is enormous suffering. You see, belief in a reality simulated by a programmer is just theism updated for the high-tech age. And the same old problem that plauges theism must necessarily plague the sim argument, and that is the problem of evil.

Not to mention, of course, the point you did not address at all: what makes you think simulating consciousness, creating sim people who experience qualia, is possible in the first place? You do see how this different, don’t you, from simulating Coney Island so that real people can put on VR helmets and experience this virutal island?