Argument from possible simulation

[Jarhyn]

I gotta agree with fromderinside. Mathematics is only a tool that we invented that we use to understand those patterns. Its like we use a meter stick to understand the dimensions of an object but that does not mean that the object is made of meter sticks, or that it wouldn't exist if we had not thought up the idea of a meter as a standard of measurement.

You say that, but then I can point to an entire universe defined and designed and implemented by a mathematical algorithm, whose existence can be expressed by a single, albeit very large, number.

A universe can exist as and be expressed by a mathematical structure.

The biggest problem "argument from simulation" creates is that it still offers no useful argument to inform philosophy, ethics, or morality.

Of you want to point at simulation as being proof of a God, I can just point to a simulation that I created and both god of, and am a complete piece of shit to at the same time, and I can equally point to the fact that if I could have made a more high-fi simulation with more "real", less abstracted people in it, I probably would have.

We are obviously using very definitions for; universe, real, structure, etc.... So we aren't actually having a discussion. We are each talking about very different things.

We are in a thread talking about arguments that God exists on the basis of the universe being simulated. To then ignore something because you want to play No-True-Scotsman games is asinine.

 

[excreationist]

You say that, but then I can point to an entire universe defined and designed and implemented by a mathematical algorithm, whose existence can be expressed by a single, albeit very large, number.

A universe can exist as and be expressed by a mathematical structure.

What do you think about post #53?

The biggest problem "argument from simulation" creates is that it still offers no useful argument to inform philosophy, ethics, or morality.

It explains why Yahweh's morality can seem imperfect... See post #4 in the context of the Godhood....
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ext-of-Godhood&p=883556&viewfull=1#post883556

Of you want to point at simulation as being proof of a God, I can just point to a simulation that I created and both god of, and am a complete piece of shit to at the same time, and I can equally point to the fact that if I could have made a more high-fi simulation with more "real", less abstracted people in it, I probably would have.

As far as flawed gods go....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

"Viewing material existence as flawed or evil, Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the Yahweh of the Old Testament) who is responsible for creating the material universe"​

 

[skepticalbip]

We are obviously using very definitions for; universe, real, structure, etc.... So we aren't actually having a discussion. We are each talking about very different things.

We are in a thread talking about arguments that God exists on the basis of the universe being simulated. To then ignore something because you want to play No-True-Scotsman games is asinine.

Are you maintaining that the characters in a simulated 'universe' (a computer algorithm) are conscious beings that are as 'real' as humans?

It is common for people who confuse common metaphors for what that metaphor is referencing (like universe as a metaphor for algorithm) to develop rather muddled thinking.

 

[Jarhyn]

We are obviously using very definitions for; universe, real, structure, etc.... So we aren't actually having a discussion. We are each talking about very different things.

We are in a thread talking about arguments that God exists on the basis of the universe being simulated. To then ignore something because you want to play No-True-Scotsman games is asinine.

Are you maintaining that the characters in a simulated 'universe' (a computer algorithm) are conscious beings that are as 'real' as humans?

It is common for people who confuse common metaphors for what that metaphor is referencing (like universe as a metaphor for algorithm) to develop rather muddled thinking.

Are you arguing that critters which interact and sexually reproduce and have conversations with each other about their lives, have likes and dislikes, whose experiences impact their existence, teach their children, and then die are not real after exactly the fashion they are extant in? Do you argue that it must not be like anything to "be a rock", or that it must not be like anything to be an atom, that it must not be like anything to be another person? Those things have behavioral shapes in space. And you know what? So do dwarves. And that shape is somehow interesting and absurd, but it most assuredly is. I argue it must be like something to be all those things because all those things are. So but that matter it must be like something to be a dwarf. And they definitely have a structure of feelings that makes them more socially coherent than most insects.

Are you maintaining that the individuals in this universe, were it simulated (a mechanical algorithm, call it a "computer" if you want, but a turing machine could possibly describe it, if slowly; we already describe it, slowly, with turing machines), are not 'conscious' beings that are as real as, well, as we are?

It is common to fail to apply metaphysics consistently.

 

[skepticalbip]

Are you maintaining that the characters in a simulated 'universe' (a computer algorithm) are conscious beings that are as 'real' as humans?

It is common for people who confuse common metaphors for what that metaphor is referencing (like universe as a metaphor for algorithm) to develop rather muddled thinking.

Are you arguing that critters which interact and sexually reproduce and have conversations with each other about their lives, have likes and dislikes, whose experiences impact their existence, teach their children, and then die are not real after exactly the fashion they are extant in? Do you argue that it must not be like anything to "be a rock", or that it must not be like anything to be an atom, that it must not be like anything to be another person? Those things have behavioral shapes in space. And you know what? So do dwarves. And that shape is somehow interesting and absurd, but it most assuredly is. I argue it must be like something to be all those things because all those things are. So but that matter it must be like something to be a dwarf. And they definitely have a structure of feelings that makes them more socially coherent than most insects.

Are you maintaining that the individuals in this universe, were it simulated (a mechanical algorithm, call it a "computer" if you want, but a turing machine could possibly describe it, if slowly; we already describe it, slowly, with turing machines), are not 'conscious' beings that are as real as, well, as we are?

It is common to fail to apply metaphysics consistently.

As I said, we are not having a discussion. You are apparently talking metaphysics (whatever the hell you personally mean by that, not necessarily what another "metaphysicist' would mean) and I am talking physics. Actual discussions require people to be speaking about the same thing.

 

[Jarhyn]

Are you maintaining that the characters in a simulated 'universe' (a computer algorithm) are conscious beings that are as 'real' as humans?

It is common for people who confuse common metaphors for what that metaphor is referencing (like universe as a metaphor for algorithm) to develop rather muddled thinking.

Are you arguing that critters which interact and sexually reproduce and have conversations with each other about their lives, have likes and dislikes, whose experiences impact their existence, teach their children, and then die are not real after exactly the fashion they are extant in? Do you argue that it must not be like anything to "be a rock", or that it must not be like anything to be an atom, that it must not be like anything to be another person? Those things have behavioral shapes in space. And you know what? So do dwarves. And that shape is somehow interesting and absurd, but it most assuredly is. I argue it must be like something to be all those things because all those things are. So but that matter it must be like something to be a dwarf. And they definitely have a structure of feelings that makes them more socially coherent than most insects.

Are you maintaining that the individuals in this universe, were it simulated (a mechanical algorithm, call it a "computer" if you want, but a turing machine could possibly describe it, if slowly; we already describe it, slowly, with turing machines), are not 'conscious' beings that are as real as, well, as we are?

It is common to fail to apply metaphysics consistently.

As I said, we are not having a discussion. You are apparently talking metaphysics (whatever the hell you personally mean by that, not necessarily what another "metaphysicist' would mean) and I am talking physics. Actual discussions require people to be speaking about the same thing.

The discussion is specifically not about physics. This is a thread discussing specifically the metaphysical implications that "simulation" has on conceptions of creation and of creator gods.

Are you sure you are in the correct forum?

 

[Jarhyn]

What do you think about post #53?


It explains why Yahweh's morality can seem imperfect... See post #4 in the context of the Godhood....
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ext-of-Godhood&p=883556&viewfull=1#post883556

Of you want to point at simulation as being proof of a God, I can just point to a simulation that I created and both god of, and am a complete piece of shit to at the same time, and I can equally point to the fact that if I could have made a more high-fi simulation with more "real", less abstracted people in it, I probably would have.

As far as flawed gods go....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

"Viewing material existence as flawed or evil, Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the Yahweh of the Old Testament) who is responsible for creating the material universe"​

Interestingly, from the Context of Godhood thread, it implies that those two entities could in fact be the same person. I also argue that there is, in most games that don't suck ass, ways of learning the strategies therein of how to succeed.

So too, any existence that has complicated rules will have some correct "ethic" within it that defines best behavior for the fulfillment of a specific goal, and a function of ethics for the fulfillment of any arbitrary goal.

Metaphysically, ethics must exist in any situation where there are rules. And because goals are arbitrary, the goal has to be left as a set rather than a specific value.

So this hidden god of yours wouldn't be a creator of the universe, but rather they are creator of metaphysics and logic. But I do not see how such a thing can be "created". It merely exists independent of time. It is a descriptive framework that is itself emergent.

If you want to call "metaphysics and logic" God himself, I guess you could do that too? But metaphysics are the most impersonal thing that can possibly be.

 

[excreationist]

.....So this hidden god of yours wouldn't be a creator of the universe, but rather they are creator of metaphysics and logic. But I do not see how such a thing can be "created". It merely exists independent of time. It is a descriptive framework that is itself emergent.

I'm not a believer in gnosticism though just found the "hidden God" part somewhat relevant. I call it an intelligent force that doesn't want to be obvious. I think it does interact with the creation from time to time (in ways that skeptics could explain away with naturalistic explanations). I also think the force ("God") that created our simulation doesn't want to be obvious... so it gave the impression that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and that everything seemed to evolve on its own....
The mechanism that allows it not to be obvious (e.g. generating plausible coincidences or hallucinations) could involve an AI/AGI and it could be guided by a flawed intelligence (like a human or post-human).

I think gnosticism could be relevant to that cartoon about Yahweh though....

 

[atrib]

.....So this hidden god of yours wouldn't be a creator of the universe, but rather they are creator of metaphysics and logic. But I do not see how such a thing can be "created". It merely exists independent of time. It is a descriptive framework that is itself emergent.

I'm not a believer in gnosticism though just found the "hidden God" part somewhat relevant. I call it an intelligent force that doesn't want to be obvious. I think it does interact with the creation from time to time (in ways that skeptics could explain away with naturalistic explanations in ways that are indistinguishable from naturalistic processes like chance and human or manufacturing errors, and which are far, far, far more reasonable explanations than the proposition that such occurrences are the handiwork of a mischievous supernatural entity external to our universe).

Reworded for clarity, so everyone understands what we are talking about. The occurrences or alleged interactions in question being (1) a game with an incorrect number of colored pieces, and (2) a book in which some pages were oriented incorrectly. Based on the above occurrences, you concluded that a supernatural entity was trying to send you messages without being obvious about it, and these occurrences were evidence that our universe is a simulation because Elon Musk apparently believes that we may be living in a simulation. And if my memory serves me right, this is the fourth or fifth thread you have started to talk about this subject, perhaps because you did not have the opportunity to fully flesh out your hypothesis in the previous threads . Did I miss something?

 

[Jarhyn]

.....So this hidden god of yours wouldn't be a creator of the universe, but rather they are creator of metaphysics and logic. But I do not see how such a thing can be "created". It merely exists independent of time. It is a descriptive framework that is itself emergent.

I'm not a believer in gnosticism though just found the "hidden God" part somewhat relevant. I call it an intelligent force that doesn't want to be obvious. I think it does interact with the creation from time to time (in ways that skeptics could explain away with naturalistic explanations). I also think the force ("God") that created our simulation doesn't want to be obvious... so it gave the impression that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and that everything seemed to evolve on its own....
The mechanism that allows it not to be obvious (e.g. generating plausible coincidences or hallucinations) could involve an AI/AGI and it could be guided by a flawed intelligence (like a human or post-human).

I think gnosticism could be relevant to that cartoon about Yahweh though....

I doubt it. You can be much dumber than something purpose built to be smart to write a universal simulation.

You just need the algorithms and the hardware that can run it. I have zero faith in any Creator God to be one iota past "just intelligent enough to be making computational hardware and learning enough about physics to feasibly pull it off".

That doesn't speak well for their ethics; ours trail our technological abilities significantly, owning to the fact that despite all the arguments I make about how god, if he exists, is a bastard, went and did it myself anyway knowing full well what I was doing and I already have admitted to considering that I might pull the trigger on one of these, an actual Adult Sized universe, if I had the tooling and the opportunity.

 

[excreationist]

I'm not a believer in gnosticism though just found the "hidden God" part somewhat relevant. I call it an intelligent force that doesn't want to be obvious. I think it does interact with the creation from time to time (in ways that skeptics could explain away with naturalistic explanations in ways that are indistinguishable from naturalistic processes like chance and human or manufacturing errors, and which are far, far, far more reasonable explanations than the proposition that such occurrences are the handiwork of a mischievous supernatural entity external to our universe).

Reworded for clarity, so everyone understands what we are talking about.

Well that is from the A God without compelling evidence? thread while the focus of this current thread was about arguments that have some evidence. It is based on a quote from Futurama about "God": "people won't be sure you've done anything at all". BTW my usual explanation talks about "coincidence, delusion, hallucinations or fraud" which I think is concise and covers everything.

The occurrences or alleged interactions in question being

These are my main examples.

(1) a game with an incorrect number of colored pieces,

While in a mental ward I realized a "special" number (42) was the same as the number of pieces in their Connect 4 set so I decided to count the pieces (for the first time). There were two extra yellow pieces and two missing red pieces. (making 19 and 23 pieces, which are interestingly prime numbers) I wrote "It seems my life is not as balanced as it should be". I've tried counting many Connect 4 set pieces (and knock-offs/clones) but so far they always have the correct number of pieces (or missing pieces). I was interested that the Connect 4 set from the mental ward looks a lot more expensive than typical sets. I've also never come across a similar looking set on the internet.
From a library:

and (2) a book in which some pages were oriented incorrectly.

It involved a sealed Bible where all of the pages were upside down. This happened in the same hospital visit. It also happened within a couple of days of me trying to curse myself by reading the Gideon's Bible upside down. (it was also a very good translation - NIV 2011 - the same translation used at my church - this translation says clearly when passages were added or changed later on)
Note for me those two examples are related to the meaning of life (joke) and "God's" word....

Based on the above occurrences, you concluded that a supernatural entity was trying to send you messages without being obvious about it,

I think the message basically is "I'm here watching you".

and these occurrences were evidence that our universe is a simulation because Elon Musk apparently believes that we may be living in a simulation

He says "it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality [NOT a simulation] is one in billions"

And if my memory serves me right, this is the fourth or fifth thread you have started to talk about this subject,

Well this is my world view and like Christianity it can have quite a lot of implications....

perhaps because you did not have the opportunity to fully flesh out your hypothesis in the previous threads . Did I miss something?

Do you think it is possible that a non-obvious intelligent force could have guided chance so that these events would happen?

I guess there are some main world-views
1. God doesn't exist because there is no evidence
2. God exists because there is evidence
3. In many ways there is no evidence for God but he could still exist (my view)

BTW I've talked to pastors about those two examples but they generally think that it just involved coincidence. I feel like I have a form of hidden "knowledge" (which is the appeal of gnosticism, etc)

BTW I think my non-obvious God theory will stop me from having more very strong delusions.... I mean not insisting that some paranormal beliefs are definitely true... you know in my last hospital visit (partly because of a nurse) I even toyed with the idea that Mormonism was true and that the earth could be flat (since it is possible within a simulation) I think I can think about possible supernatural phenomena more objectively now....
In the hospital I believed in a malicious deceptive force.... so any specifics about the paranormal within a simulation could be a deception.... (more likely to just be a personal delusion)

 

[excreationist]

I'm glad that I don't have very good evidence that this could be a simulation....

I mean I already experience the following sometimes:

Derealization is a mental state where you feel detached from your surroundings. People and objects around you may seem unreal.

Depersonalization disorder is marked by periods of feeling disconnected or detached from one's body and thoughts (depersonalization). The disorder is sometimes described as feeling like you are observing yourself from outside your body or like being in a dream.

It could be due to having a limited amount of working memory (chunks) - which got bad after having 6 treatments of ECT (and I could no longer handle a programming job). When it happens I sometimes try to make myself feel some pain. It can also happen when everything is going well and I'm in a big crowd with no thoughts. Or sometimes what I'm saying echoes in my head.

Usually an aim of a simulation is for it to feel immersive and "real".....

The non-obvious intelligent force idea is for it to communicate its possible existence while not significantly affecting the perceived immersiveness or realness of the possible simulation.

When these feelings are happening I try to think things are real rather than encourage the feelings of unreality. I don't want to go to hospital again..

 

[GenesisNemesis]

So it's just the intelligent design argument but with extra steps?

 

[excreationist]

So it's just the intelligent design argument but with extra steps?

In the intelligent design argument there is apparent evidence such as "irreducible complexity" while I'm saying I think evolution gives the impression that it evolved completely naturalistically over millions of years though actually had a more recent origin. The evolution would involve a plausible virtual history based on some designs.

 

[skepticalbip]

So it's just the intelligent design argument but with extra steps?

I would say it is closer to Last Thursdayism than the traditional intelligent design arguments.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In the intelligent design argument there is apparent evidence such as "irreducible complexity"

Heehee. No, there isn't.

 

[excreationist]

So it's just the intelligent design argument but with extra steps?

I would say it is closer to Last Thursdayism than the traditional intelligent design arguments.

Yes....

 

[excreationist]

Related thoughts:

Why our simulation will probably end relatively soon...

In the single player Roy game, the simulation would usually end as soon as the player "dies".

In the "M. Night Shaym-Aliens!" episode there are nested multiplayer simulations that are three levels deep. These would have ended when the spacecraft that the simulations ran on exploded.

As far as our possible simulation goes, it gives players and NPCs the impression that it is 13.8 billion years old, but like most simulations in fiction, it could have a relatively recent origin. This means that it won’t necessarily exist in the far future.

I think if our simulation continues to exist in many centuries time, it could be billions or trillions times more computationally intensive. It could involve having to simulate billions of simulations that might exist in it by that time. It would also be less immersive to players and NPCs because they would know that simulations are definitely likely - not just theories. Being more computationally intensive means the simulation would become more expensive… though the game's budget might not be able to be increased....

An exception to this is that there could be immortal beings that are simulated forever in the same simulation. Examples of this include eternal heaven and eternal hell. There are problems with an eternal heaven though - people’s personalities would need to be modified to stop boredom. The inhabitants would also eventually run out of memory in their minds… in the show “The Good Place” people in heaven end up having their minds go to mush. In those examples there would still probably be an end to the simulation due to reasons like the outer universe running out of useful energy.

 

[Learner]

Hey ex, have you ever seen the movie that came out around 1998 (before the Matrix) called 'Dark City?' Was one of my favs which was well made; an interesting concept I thought at the time. Some of the things you mention in your posts, reminds me of this movie, which had these advance-beings who were regularly changing the realities of humans, inplanting artifical memories of different pasts that never happened. May solve the boredom issue in your simulation.

 

[excreationist]

Hey ex, have you ever seen the movie that came out around 1998 (before the Matrix) called 'Dark City?' Was one of my favs which was well made; an interesting concept I thought at the time. Some of the things you mention in your posts, reminds me of this movie, which had these advance-beings who were regularly changing the realities of humans, implanting artificial memories of different pasts that never happened.

Yeah I was planning to watch it again soon. That sounds like a paranoid conspiracy type idea. I think it is like some of Philip K. Dick's stories. I think memories could be generated when required (e.g. there is a NPC that hadn't had their life fully simulated) - but generally I don't think their memories would be altered. It would have to involve very extreme circumstances..... an easier approach would be to make their apparent experiences involve a plausible case of delusion and hallucinations, etc, and lead them to become mentally ill to support this explanation.

May solve the boredom issue in your simulation.

If there was an eternal heaven simulation the easiest way of eliminating boredom would be to just modify their personalities.