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

Argument from possible simulation

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,312
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
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.
I don't really understand half of what you're saying. Is a "discrete creator" talking about having a single creator? Note my argument doesn't insist that there is necessarily a single creator - just that some kind of creator could be called a God....

Note that a lot of simulations would be unique... like Minecraft (using different seeds).... so that doesn't really have much to do with your example of a SMB multiverse.... (where there is a consistent origin state - like in MWI and the Big Bang)
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,312
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
About the origin of God:

Traditional "Existence of God" arguments:

God always existed (including the Father and his "eternally begotten" Son)

This thread:

The creator was considered to be a god at some point in time...
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,743
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,628
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
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.
I don't really understand half of what you're saying. Is a "discrete creator" talking about having a single creator? Note my argument doesn't insist that there is necessarily a single creator - just that some kind of creator could be called a God....

Note that a lot of simulations would be unique... like Minecraft (using different seeds).... so that doesn't really have much to do with your example of a SMB multiverse.... (where there is a consistent origin state - like in MWI and the Big Bang)

Like, the difference not between "one and several" but "the difference between 1 and non-ordinal infinity.

Further, the point I am making is general, about universes in general. (Algorithm) + (seed) = result. MC multiverse(initial) is just an integration of (algorithm) from -SEED_MAX to +SEED_MAX. That said, there is a much greater degree of freedom in the interface there. The varying extent of the degrees of freedom do not change the underlying facts of the math. From (initial), it is a function of the intersection of the control vector and the state.

In fact while our universe is very large, there are still a finite number of states possible of it, as well.

It's still just the algorithm, against some specific seed, and if there were a constrained control vector, nothing can be said of "outside" the bounds of "this happened along the control vector". The state of the universe itself is independent and free of how that state was generated. It merely IS, and it is implemented by all things that implement it, and is itself "a shape things may be of".
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,628
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I short, I'm turning multiverse theory/MWI on its head: perhaps it is this universe that is singularly itself (not of a "branching multiverse"), and that if there is a multiverse, it is the multiverse of contexts which may instantiate this universe.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
39,217
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
About the origin of God:

Traditional "Existence of God" arguments:

God always existed (including the Father and his "eternally begotten" Son)

This thread:

The creator was considered to be a god at some point in time...
Creator? As in the OP? You labeling yourself a god?
 

abaddon

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,203
Surely by "creator" he means world-creator, not OP-creator.

But can a human be considered a god? I wonder "Why not?"

The simulation I'm most familiar with is the one that I myself make. After all, the eyes aren't windows through which "the world" simply comes through and displays itself "as is" to a little homunculus sitting inside the skull.

Created "in me" makes it my creation. So if world-creators or simulation-makers are gods, then I'm a god.

The problem that I see with this, is simply that the word-choice of "god" is needless. It carries a lot of mythological baggage with it. IMV it's not necessary to take up 'theism-speak' to describe any of this.

So anyway... Why is ANY creator called "god"? But then again, if world-makers are gods, then what being with an "inner world" isn't a god?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,628
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Surely by "creator" he means world-creator, not OP-creator.

But can a human be considered a god? I wonder "Why not?"

The simulation I'm most familiar with is the one that I myself make. After all, the eyes aren't windows through which "the world" simply comes through and displays itself "as is" to a little homunculus sitting inside the skull.

Created "in me" makes it my creation. So if world-creators or simulation-makers are gods, then I'm a god.

The problem that I see with this, is simply that the word-choice of "god" is needless. It carries a lot of mythological baggage with it. IMV it's not necessary to take up 'theism-speak' to describe any of this.

So anyway... Why is ANY creator called "god"? But then again, if world-makers are gods, then what being with an "inner world" isn't a god?

Also a valid point.

Like, I am.... Maybe I will judge myself for this, but I spun up a new instance of Dwarf Fortress a bit ago. It is a simulation game that simulates a whole world, a pocket universe. People, places, things. Sometimes awful things happen to good people. Sometimes things are just legitimately off the rails fucked up. Like the fact that I create these worlds in the hopes that they contain truly awful things that I can magic a new individual into existence, possess, and reshape into a killing machine (or die trying) for the sake of pointing said killing machine at said monstrosity and enjoying watching the fallout.

The fact is, I created this world of living stories to use it for a D&D campaign. I've already mismanaged a population of 20 individuals into nearly dying of thirst and hunger.

So, there's that. The fact that I am in fact "a creator" and I'm a really shitty god. If I was the people of that world, I might want very badly to kill me. If I behave badly there, generally that approaches certainty. I mean if you knew I was the one that decided giant beasts made of rock intent on going on murderous rampages would exist when I could have made them just not... Well, I would probably throw me in a giant pit with one of said rock beasts.

Anyway, I digress. the point is, yes, creators can be gods, but they are gods around a universe not of it, usually.

And even as a god, more powerful than most, there's a lot of shit I can't fix.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,312
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
About the origin of God:

Traditional "Existence of God" arguments:

God always existed (including the Father and his "eternally begotten" Son)

This thread:

The creator was considered to be a god at some point in time...
Creator? As in the OP? You labeling yourself a god?
I'm comparing arguments for the existence of God in relation to the God's origin.

In traditional arguments God always exists.

In my simulation argument in my thread the godhood has a beginning....
 
Top Bottom