My experiences that suggest an intelligent force exists

[excreationist]

Firstly I currently hardly have much belief that I'm likely to be in a simulation. I mean there is evidence that information can travel backwards in time and that could be a problem with the simulation idea. (unless they put that in there to reflect what the base level of reality is like?)

....Oh, I see, what this is a new form of solipsism: Nothing is real, except you. You don't think that every person in the world is being simulated at a high level, just you.

This is explained by a later comment by you: "Limited computing power?". In the "Hang the DJ" episode of Black Mirror, they run 1000 simulations of a few weeks on their phones in a short amount of time where 2 of the characters would be their own uploaded consciousnesses. To get that amount of performance (at least earlier on) would require cutting some corners like not making all of the characters fully conscious.

....Limited computing power?

Extra thoughts of a person doesn't require much computing power if you are already determining their basic thought process.

....a fundamental limit on computing.

Well space and time is pixelated making things theoretically computable. Also making things depend on observation (on a quantum level) might reduce the amount of computation required. Like I said it could use a "level of detail" concept which means that the simulation only simulates the level of detail that is required. So if you're looking at a star there could be less CPU involved vs interacting with a person even though a star involves a lot more atoms.

While you don't posit your machine is omniscient, nevertheless, you are proposing an extremely big machine: one that would have to be bigger than the world it is simulating.

You mustn't understand what I mean by "level of detail".

Why is it in many movies and TV series (e.g. Black Mirror, Rick and Morty, The Thirteenth Floor, etc) they discover that it is a simulation? I think it is mainly you who thinks that it should be impossible for a person to be aware that they're in a simulation.

Because the idea that the world is a simulation is a pop culture idea. That is all. It is no different than the UFO and alien abduction fads we used to have. And before that, demonic possession and witchcraft. It is just the latest in a long line of cultural fads that take a (sometimes) scientific idea and run with it.

BTW here are graphics that can run in real time at present on affordable hardware: (you could skim through it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh9msqaoJZw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDsRfbfnC_A
There is a lot of demand for huge open world games. Some even simulate a whole galaxy of planets. I don't see how this is like those other examples like demon possession.

....Oh I believe it too. I also believe it will be really expensive.

But a few years ago this would run on iPhones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0phPgXeRm78
Those links I gave run on affordable hardware... in years to come it would run on $400 phones and at present there is no sign of "Moore's Law" from slowing down which involves the price of a given number of transistors halving every 18 months or so (that's an alternative way of stating Moore's Law)

Why would someone pay so much money for the boring, extraneous details of my life?

That Black Mirror example I gave involved 1000 simulations being run on two strangers - to see how compatible they are. And in games like GTA V the thousands of NPCs you can see are usually pretty boring but the point is that it makes the game more realistic and immersive.

....So yes I believe that indistinguishable simulations are possible, I don't believe that anyone would build them just to simulate boring, everyday life for billions of people.

No-one? What about the appeal of games like the Sims, or this:
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/12/skyrim-mod-gives-npcs-their-own-lives-and-loves/
"...Social NPCs is a mod for Skyrim that takes the clockwork non-playable characters from two of the game's smaller locations and turns them into believable people with lives to lead completely independent of what you're up to...."

Also a few times I've fantasized about being in "Groundhog Day" which for almost everyone involves years of everyday life.

 

[excreationist]

.....Pick any six-digit number, at random. The chances against you picking that exact number are a million to one. But that fact doesn't keep you from picking the number. It might even be that number wins you a lottery, and makes you instantly rich.

There are, what, around 7 billion people in the world? That means that just by simple statistics, some million-to-one occurrence happens to around seven thousand people every day, on average. No miracles needed. No intelligence guiding anything. Just chance....

Well in my case I've been an atheist for about 20 years. I haven't had communion for at least 10-15, maybe more years. I'd skipped communion hundreds of times. Maundy Thursday is the only time I had had full communion though more recently I'd had the first part (and also heard a significant song on the radio).

"I am the bread of life" song only played AFTER I had communion and had completely assumed that it wouldn't play (since the second song was different)

Also this is the only time my sister has talked about having a dream about me and God. Things like her quoting “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” mirrored one of the songs, same with "How deep the Father's love for us, how vast beyond all measure". My other sister has written two books about the love of the Father. The blurb begins "No one on this earth will ever fully grasp just how deep and rich the heart of the Father is towards them." I could go on and on but there is a lot of significant similarities - and they happen to have interesting theological themes. Also there have been next to no times that I've tried to talk to God except where I'm praying.

But despite all that, it is still possible it is all chance and I guess I'm using that as an excuse not to pursue God very seriously.

 

[Sarpedon]

I'm not impressed by what you see on TV. That isn't reality. While increases in computing power have astonished everyone, there is no one in the actual field of development who thinks this will continue forever. Like I said, if all you go off of when you think of this is TV shows and pop culture, you PROVE my point that this is just a pop culture phenomenon.

Here's the main thing: Simulations work and are useful because they are simpler than the thing being modelled. That holds true no matter how good your graphics card is.

You are missing the entire point of my argument: You seem to assume that you are a PC in a simulation, whereas I assume that I am an NPC. That is why I compare the simulation fad to a new form of solipsism. You might think of other people as faceless drones that wait around until they are interacted with, but I don't.

There's no point, none whatsoever, for the computer to continue to simulate me when I'm alone. All it would have to do is note my position and schedule, and restore the simulation when one of the PCs shows up. You act as if I've never played a video game before! I tell you what, I've modded those bethesda games, and I know how much work goes into making a character behave correctly.

 

[Underseer]

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:


Anyway, it happened again


From my sister:

I had a dream where I was talking to a pastor at church, who shared an encounter he had where he saw Jesus talking to the Father in heaven. Jesus was asking the Heavenly Father when He is going to give [excreationist] to Him.

There was a sense of such longing – that Jesus was lovingly longing for relationship with [excreationist], having foreknowledge that it was the will of the Father for [excreationist] to come to Him, He was longing for the time [excreationist] would come to Him!

When I woke up from this dream, Jesus spoke to me about [excreationist], saying, “I desire oneness with him!” I sensed the loving desire He has for [excreationist].

Holy Spirit reminded me of how Jesus said in John 6:44 -

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

So Jesus was lovingly waiting with such longing for the Father to draw [excreationist] to Him, that [excreationist] might become one with Jesus and the Father (John 17:20-23).

This is the first time I've ever said to myself "it would be impossible if that specific song were to play". Also it is the first time my sister had told me about a dream she had about me becoming a Christian. As far as Apophenia goes, I have schizoaffective disorder and I have experienced that kind of thing. But some Christians I know tell me that it definitely wasn't a coincidence. I think the chances of that song being the third and final song would be at least dozens to one (maybe hundreds to one). Also like I said, this is the first time I've had communion in at least 10 years - maybe 15 years. Though I've been going to church a lot recently but I don't have it since I don't really believe in God. And that "I am the bread of life" song only played AFTER I had communion and had completely assumed that it wouldn't play (since the second song was different) The last song that played has the same lyrics that my sister talked to me about ("No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.") [well the version that played was a non-sexist version that I'd never heard before]

About the intelligent force in the universe idea:

I don't know - it is mysterious and often hard to know if it really even exists. BTW the message from the future in "Interstellar" was very intelligent though. BTW this video from "Quantum Gravity Research" I watched a few months ago is interesting how it talks about the future you influencing the past you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ztlIAYTCU
There is also an issue of New Scientist magazine from February that has a cover story about the future influencing the past: it says it is like a Sudoku game and that quantum physics isn't actually random if the future is involved.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-how-the-future-can-change-what-happens-now/

BTW there are 7 Lutheran song books with modern songs:

1980 All Together Now
1984 All Together Again
1991 All Together Everybody
1996 All Together OK
2001 All Together Whatever
2007 All Together For Good
2014 All Together All Right

"The bread of life" and "The servant song" are from the same book - All Together Again
http://www.robinmann.com.au/Songs-All-Together-Again-pg23735.html
They are songs 167 and 191.

The bread of life is from 1964
http://www.godsongs.net/2017/04/i-a...-and-i-will-raise-him-up-on-the-last-day.html

The servant song is from about 1977
http://www.godsongs.net/2015/12/servant-song-brother-sister-let-me-serve-you.html

From Futurama - Godfellas: (season 3 episode 20)
http://www.imsdb.com/transcripts/Futurama-Godfellas.html

GOD
Bender, being God isn't easy, if you
do too much, people get dependent. 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.

After talking about the dream she wrote:

Keep sharing what God is doing and any questions,
concerns, prayer requests or curiosities you might have. I
am always here for you! How much more Jesus!!!
I love you and Jesus and your Heavenly Father love you so
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooo much!!! There wouldnt be enough space in this
email if I emphasised how much! Truth is, I cant even fathom
it, cos its more than all the sands on the sea shore if you
were to count them!! So great is His love for YOU!!!
God bless you bountifully,
[sister 1] and Jesus, Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx........to be continued.......FOREVER!!!

So she was talking about the Father loving me a lot - "beyond all measure".
My other sister has written two books about the incredibly deep love of God the Father. The blurb begins "No one on this earth will ever fully grasp just how deep and rich the heart of the Father is towards them."

So the second song, which I thought was quite insignificant has some significance too.

The second song from the Maundy Thursday dinner, "How Deep the Father's Love For Us" played at the church I normally go to. I remembered part of the song I was going to mention but had forgotten - "Ashamed I hear my mocking voice Call out among the scoffers". This has been true of me to some degree.

- - - Updated - - -

See also:
"Agnosticism and Intelligent Design"
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?15921-Agnosticism-and-Intelligent-Design

No one owes you an alternate explanation.

If you want to claim that a god exists, you need to provide evidence for that god.

If the best thing you have is "how else do you explain it?" then what you have is a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. Logical fallacies are not supporting arguments by definition.

 

[excreationist]

...No one owes you an alternate explanation.

If you want to claim that a god exists, you need to provide evidence for that god.

Though you quoted my entire original post, you don't seem to have read it very carefully. I'm talking about why my experience "suggests". I'm talking about an "intelligent force" - not God. Possibilities of this include an intelligence from the future (like the Interstellar movie), aliens, something to do with a simulation, disembodied beings that are a part of the universe, etc.

If the best thing you have is "how else do you explain it?" then what you have is a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. Logical fallacies are not supporting arguments by definition.

I didn't ask people how they explained it. Well the possibilities would include - an intelligent force, blind chance (that I've interpreted as being intelligent) or a mixture. Maybe I've missed something. But anyway a lot of this is just me thinking to myself - not me trying to prove to others that God exists.

And like I said recently:
But despite all that, it is still possible it is all chance and I guess I'm using that as an excuse not to pursue God very seriously.

 

[excreationist]

I'm not impressed by what you see on TV. That isn't reality.

My point is those movies and TV shows show that there are a lot of possible reasons to have a simulation. In my previous Black Mirror example it involved phones running 1000 simulations to determine the romantic compatibility of two people.

While increases in computing power have astonished everyone, there is no one in the actual field of development who thinks this will continue forever.

Check out these two videos (you can skim them)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh9msqaoJZw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDsRfbfnC_A
They are very close to photorealistic - in real time on affordable hardware. There isn't that much further to go to make photorealistic things more detailed like this:

And then simulate what things look like on a molecular level... it could do it "procedurally".
e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_Dangerous
"The player is able to explore the game's galaxy of some 400 billion star systems, complete with planets and moons that rotate and orbit in real-time, resulting in dynamic day/night cycles. Around 150,000 of the game's star systems are taken from real-world astronomical data, while the remainder are procedurally generated according to scientific models"

Like I said, if all you go off of when you think of this is TV shows and pop culture, you PROVE my point that this is just a pop culture phenomenon.

Here's the main thing: Simulations work and are useful because they are simpler than the thing being modelled. That holds true no matter how good your graphics card is.

When you use the "level of detail" method it is simpler... and using "procedural generation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_detail
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation

You are missing the entire point of my argument: You seem to assume that you are a PC in a simulation, whereas I assume that I am an NPC. That is why I compare the simulation fad to a new form of solipsism. You might think of other people as faceless drones that wait around until they are interacted with, but I don't.

Their behaviour could still be simulated - on a very simple level - rather than simulating billions of neurons.

There's no point, none whatsoever, for the computer to continue to simulate me when I'm alone. All it would have to do is note my position and schedule, and restore the simulation when one of the PCs shows up.

I'm saying that NPC's may not be genuinely self-conscious (but be "philosophical zombies"). Also if the player locked you up on the other side of the world and asked you to write a novel and they came back a day later and you hadn't written enough that would make the PC think something is wrong. You said that people can't be aware that they're in a simulation. Whether or not a NPC is simulated in low detail or frozen would depend on what the player is expecting to see. The simulation could know what the player expects so that it doesn't discover that NPC's are sometimes simulated in low detail or frozen.

You act as if I've never played a video game before! I tell you what, I've modded those bethesda games, and I know how much work goes into making a character behave correctly.

Well don't you think it is reasonable that a simulation could involve level of detail so that if you look at a star it doesn't need to simulate all of the atoms in it - but if you used an electron microscope and wrote some letters using molecules/atoms it would simulate on a low level.

 

[excreationist]

Could it possibly involve the "god" of pantheism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

"Pantheist belief does not recognize a distinct personal anthropomorphic god"

List of pantheists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pantheists

About Jung, a pantheist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity
"...Jung used the concept (Synchronicity) in arguing for the existence of the paranormal..."

 

[Sarpedon]

I get that there are reasons to simulate reality. Of course, there are many, that's why simulations are a thing. There is no reason to simulate reality to the extreme level of detail that I experience, ASSUMING I AM A BACKGROUND CHARACTER. I assume that because I am not a solipsist, and I don't base my worldview on the idea that I am special and unique.

That picture is a still from the movie "Honey, I shrunk the Kids." Which was done with physical models. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pV0BARbe0...he+Kids+1989+Disney+movie+special+effects.jpg


Everything else you posted is Solipsism. You don't seem to get it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here’s the thing (and likely why you’re obsessed with it). You—the animated “self” that represents the totality of the body “excreationist”—most definitely is a “simulation.” The brain creates it, updates it, animates it in real time. You also have many different parts as a result of being a real time animation (and can even have several different “selfs” as well).

The brain maintains this analogue, animated “self” because it has social value. It started as a survival technique. The fifth or sixth guy in the tribe that was tapped next to go into the valley 50,000 years ago (or whenever) to kill the tiger that had killed the previous five strongest men of the tribe suddenly realized that they didn’t have the strength and would definitely be killed, so the very first analogue—or self—popped into their head when they picked up a rock to indicate themselves in order to show the other surviving men in the tribe the plan for killing the tiger.

Get it? “This rock, Grog. These rocks, all of you. This twig, tiger.” Or grunts to that effect. Once we had the ability to think of ourselves in terms of an analogue—a pebble or a stick figure in the dirt—for the purposes of strategically role playing how we would kill our food and protect against predators, we had the ability to maintain an abstract concept/representative of our us.

So, you’re absolutely correct in that your “self” is in fact a “simulation.” What you’re perhaps not connecting yet is that it’s inseparable and always being animated by your brain. Your skull is the vat that your brain is in, but there is no other “real” Neo in some other vat. Neo is a construct. Of your brain.

And so, yes, there is in fact an intelligent force in the universe. Your brain. This has always been our model of god, “we” just never made the connection (until now). It’s why we seem to somehow intuitively are capable of holding mutually exclusive/contradictory concepts—like the trinity—without our heads exploding.

We are both our brain and the construct of that brain. It’s symbiotic. And we apparently have the ability—or our brains imbue us with the belief that we have the ability—of autonomy; of free agency. Which makes sense, because our original necessity that led to our ability to create such analogues was to place us—just like in a video game—into a map of (or “virtual”) reality so that the brain could run multiple different scenarios (i.e., “simulations”) of any given situation in order to determine which course of action would be the most beneficial before we actually acted.

This is likewise where we got the idea for video games. Everything we write about and “invent” is pretty much just more revelations coming from deeper and deeper understandings of how our brains operate to animate our analogue selves.

Which is why any damage to that system—schizophrenia, dementia, etc—causes such havoc. The self starts to think it’s a real boy, because the brain imbues it with that thought. But a damaged brain can imbue that self with all kinds of different thoughts, which the imbued self obviously can’t stop. To it, it feels “real.”

But of course, it is all real, because “real” simply means, that which is experienced. The problem comes in trying to remember that any such experience is always indirect for the self. It is always—and that’s ok—generated by the brain.

That’s why it’s so important for those who have various issues with their brains to take their medications. The projector has to be functioning properly to watch the movie. It’s just that, in this case, the “movie” thinks that it’s the projector.

Get it?

It’s also why you’re having issues with time. In a dream, time doesn’t exist, right? Why? Because the brain isn’t really controlling things during sleep; it’s rebooting, if you will. But the self is always being animated, so some part of the brain is always engaged in animating the self and it’s seeming autonomy continues to “experience.”

The point being that an animated analogue is imbued with a sense of continuity—of time—but it can also (as in dreams) be imbued with a sense of time that isn’t objective, let’s say. Not tied to any atomic clock in the external sense. So the idea of a communication from “the future” or the like is easily understood in this context.

Everything the self experiences is created by the brain. It can’t, in fact, experience anything other than the brain.

 

[Sarpedon]

That is absolutely not what we are talking about. That the mind interprets the information from the senses is a given. The question is whether or not the external world is a simulation. I agree that the question of how one tells the difference between an external simulation and an internal simulation is difficult. That's why I dismiss the idea that the external world is a product of the internal simulation as 'Solipsism,' and continue on.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That is absolutely not what we are talking about.

It’s what I am talking about.

The question is whether or not the external world is a simulation.

That can’t ever be determined, only assumed to be true.

 

[Sarpedon]

Correct. But useless.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Correct. But useless.

How so? To the self, the external world is in fact a simulation created by the brain. Which means the brain must have the ability to discern the objective from the subjective and in turn base its simulation upon an objective condition.

PROVING the brain/senses are simulating an objective condition isn't possible, since it would require the self--a simulation--to be the one affirming that proof. But deriving that understanding isn't difficult.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

How do we demonstrate a simulation is a simulation within the simulation? This is the part that always bothers me about the hypothesis. It seems inherently non-demonstrable. It's the same as believing we're all brains in vats. We can't expect the logic in the simulation to be the same outside of it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

How do we demonstrate a simulation is a simulation within the simulation?

"Demonstrate" is of course the problem. It's the wrong word. We can look at the preponderance of evidence and each determine for ourselves what is (or is not) sufficient to conclude one way or the other.

It's the same as believing we're all brains in vats.

We are all brains in vats, we just call them skulls.

We can't expect the logic in the simulation to be the same outside of it.

We can see that the sensory input device (aka, the "body") is essentially nothing but a highly evolved sensory gathering apparatus and trust in its abilities and that's it. That's as far as it is possible to go.

 

[ruby sparks]

How do we demonstrate a simulation is a simulation within the simulation?

Ask the cosmic elves.

I'm not entirely joking.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

We are all brains in vats, we just call them skulls.

This is a bit unfair. There is a difference between being one brain in a skull, and being a brain in a vat that's dreaming up a brain in a skull.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

We are all brains in vats, we just call them skulls.

This is a bit unfair.

But nevertheless an accurate assessment of the situation.

There is a difference between being one brain in a skull, and being a brain in a vat that's dreaming up a brain in a skull.

What is the difference?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

But nevertheless an accurate assessment of the situation.

There is a difference between being one brain in a skull, and being a brain in a vat that's dreaming up a brain in a skull.

What is the difference?

For one thing a vat was set up by someone intentionally for the purpose of experimentation. A skull was not.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What is the difference?

When the infant pees into our mouth during a diaper change, the difference is whether

1) shit happens
2) someone made that shit happen to me because they're a dick
or maybe
3) I made that shit happen to myself...because I am a dick.

Then we would know whether or not to be angry at someone* for having to brush our teeth for twenty minutes...



*meaning, of course, someone other than the infant, who probably isn't the architect of the moment, and a separate issue from being mad at the wife who cannot stand because she's laughing too hard