My experiences that suggest an intelligent force exists

[bilby]

It is about Elon Musk’s *belief*.

Reality doesn't care about anyone's *belief*.

 

[excreationist]

In post #41 I talk more about simulations and have videos of realtime photorealistic graphics.

There are also videos generated by AI:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/3/...deo-game-graphics-nvidia-driving-demo-neurips

I think that is a bit like how dreams work... (a neural network is involved)

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is about Elon Musk’s *belief*.

Yeah, yeah, got that.
What it SHOULD be about, though, is some sort of actual evidence.

He's impressed by simulation technology. Like creationists are impressed by complexity.

Doesn't actually mean reality reflects their belief. Doesn't ACTUALLY indicate probability.

 

[excreationist]

...What it SHOULD be about, though, is some sort of actual evidence.

Within 40 years there has been a big jump in graphics... some are almost photorealistic. Graphics cards can have thousands of cores. There doesn't seem to be a slowing down in terms of next-gen graphics and AI.

He's impressed by simulation technology. Like creationists are impressed by complexity.

Doesn't actually mean reality reflects their belief. Doesn't ACTUALLY indicate probability.

Do you think that AI will reach human-level and beyond? If so then that AI could be used in NPC's.

 

[Keith&Co.]

...What it SHOULD be about, though, is some sort of actual evidence.

Within 40 years there has been a big jump in graphics... some are almost photorealistic. Graphics cards can have thousands of cores. There doesn't seem to be a slowing down in terms of next-gen graphics and AI.

Yes, as communications improve, our ability to leverage, collaborate, and plagiarize others' work improves. The state of the art is a huge pyramid, constantly building on itself to reach greater and greater heights.

Stipulated.

Now, where is the evidence that this has happened at least once BEFORE now?
What reason is there to believe it happened to someone else who put us here?

He's impressed by simulation technology. Like creationists are impressed by complexity.

Doesn't actually mean reality reflects their belief. Doesn't ACTUALLY indicate probability.

Do you think that AI will reach human-level and beyond?

In the future, yes.
Does that mean it happened to someone else's tech in the past? Not in any sort of compelling way.

If so then that AI could be used in NPC's.

Yeah, if, when, IOU.

NOT the same as evidence that we're IN a simulation that MAY be possible in the not-too-distant future.

 

[Sarpedon]

The fact that Musk is a genius does not mean he is not also a nutcase. These things frequently coexist. Whether he is a genius or not he is a mechanical/electrical engineer, speaking about matters far from his specialty. The world is full of people who work hard and get good at one thing, and then think that means that they are 'smart' and understand everything, even things that they haven't worked hard to get good at. Musk seems to have this kind of ego.

I explained, at length, my reasons for not believing it earlier in this thread. You replied, or at least reacted to them at the time. Maybe you should try thinking for yourself rather than slavishly following the opinions of the guy with the fat wallet.

You call quantum entanglement evidence that we are in a simulation? Why, praytell, would anyone simulate entangled particles if they didn't exist in nature? How do the people running our simulation know that they are not themselves part of a simulation?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The fact that Musk is a genius does not mean he is not also a nutcase.

-Henry Phillips - On the Shoulders of Freaks


(lyrics)

 

[Learner]

But of course, investigations could work for me too. If it becomes NOT the mystery I thought it was, I become atheist...

But that's not what's going to happen. Every step, every inch that the 'mystery' is pushed back, the believer clings to their belief that their god is somewhere, back there, behind the now-revealed.
Such as, oh, gosh, is there anyone one this board that insists on asking 'But then, where did those natural laws COME FROM!?!'

In regards to the biblical version of Intelligent forces etc.. There would be several things that would convince theists to change their minds,..at least in regards to the biblical concept of God , although... some may switch and still take to Intelligent design but dropping the scriptures. This would depend on the individuals personal understanding (POV) of what the bible means to him or her.

For example , there is no mention of humans visiting or inhabiting other planets like living on Mars, living on the moon etc.. This gives to some believers some indication , according to their interpretation : that the return of Christ and the wrath of GOD is to be taking place, before humans even advanced to that stage of space exploration. So basically , to some theists, this would contradict revelation or other parts of the bible, should there ever be colonies on other planets. The prophesy could therefore be broken, the implication would in a manner of speaking mean: God is not true to HIS word!

(There are of course believers who don't think there's a problem with this type of advancement going along sde the bible e.g. perhaps seen as not significant or neccessary to mention space exploration and inhabiting planets.)

Or another example:

If it were possible to create from the basic materials to spark into life , new lliving organisms into creatures, then that would also destroy the belief and concept of the bible: since not even Satan himself could create life. Not to mean "new life" forms or variations created by genetic / bio manipulation , which is different and only possible so far , from what is/was already alive. If its possible from the bottom basics , from scratch, then this would contradict the bible. This would change my view on the bible and scriptures.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No. They do not change their minds, they declare NASA to be a satanic conspiracy. Already seen it with the Flat Earthers, deciding everything claimed to be above 100,000 feet is an unbiblical lie, just like tho see thst say there is no science behind evolution.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ultimately, the Faithful do not tend to accept any science that runs counter to their beliefs. Any science that forwards, or appears to forward, or can be made to appear to forward their beliefs, they flog the shit out of that.

Look at excreationists Flood/650 efforts, though he doesn't even HAVE To have the Flood.

 

[skepticalbip]

But they do tend to change their beliefs to more closely match scientific findings after several generations - after those scientific findings have been pretty much universally accepted by the general public.

Few of the religious today still accept a geocentric solar system.
Few of the religious today still engage in witch burnings.
Few of the religious today accept a 6,000 year old universe.
etc.

Progress is slow and painful for the religious but, in the next few hundred years, they will likely also accept some of the scientific common knowledge they currently reject. Of course, however, there will be scientific revelations during that time that they will then reject.

 

[excreationist]

.....I explained, at length, my reasons for not believing it earlier in this thread. You replied, or at least reacted to them at the time.

I think you complained about solipsism or something

Maybe you should try thinking for yourself rather than slavishly following the opinions of the guy with the fat wallet

What about the bold parts in #128? I don't think anyone responded to that. Also see the text below the bold text.

You call quantum entanglement evidence that we are in a simulation?

The fact there is instant distant communication is compatible with it being in a computer. On the other hand Einstein didn't think it was possible in a physical universe.

Why, praytell, would anyone simulate entangled particles if they didn't exist in nature?

The people who made the simulation (if it exists) might base it on their own reality.

How do the people running our simulation know that they are not themselves part of a simulation?

Well that's what happens in eXistenZ, Thirteenth floor and Rick and Morty https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5i8cvz So what's the big deal?

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes, I complained about solipsism. The significance of which you do not seem to understand. I also pointed out that this is just another pop culture fad, like alien abductions and seances. I also discussed the limits and economics of computing, which you just handwaved away, never explaining exactly WHY anyone would want to make such an elaborate and nonsensical simulation.

And as far the bolded part in post 128:

After I'd been in hospital for being manic for a week I posted this on facebook:

"We live in a retrocasual E8 block universe as sinners with a loving higher power who sometimes uses tough love. There is also a malicious deceptive force that the loving higher power allows to hurt people."

You are correct, I did not respond to that at the time, and will not respond to it now, because I am not in the habit of entering debates with the mentally ill. This is simply Christian beliefs jazzed up with faux philosophical technobabble.

You seem to think that just because you say something, that thing is a point worthy of consideration. That is not true.

I am not interested in what Elon Musk says about non-engineering or entrepenurial pursuits. I'm not interested in what you saw on Rick and Morty. And I'm certainly not interested in what unsupported assertion you posted on Facebook after being let out of the psych ward. Try to answer the questions of Why and How the simulation exists, and I might be interested.

 

[blastula]

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.

Exactly what a NPC would say.

 

[excreationist]

Yes, I complained about solipsism. The significance of which you do not seem to understand. I also pointed out that this is just another pop culture fad, like alien abductions and seances. I also discussed the limits and economics of computing, which you just handwaved away,

Do you think it is impossible for a simulation using "level of detail" and a brain interface to EVER fool a person into thinking they are in reality? Do you think it is impossible for a human brain to be simulated?
BTW there's this:
https://www.vulture.com/2019/02/15-irrefutable-reasons-we-might-be-living-in-a-simulation.html
Maybe there are one or two good reasons in there.

never explaining exactly WHY anyone would want to make such an elaborate and nonsensical simulation.

In Black Mirror there are a couple reasons - e.g. they have 1000 simulations between two people to see how compatible they are romantically. In another episode a guy puts copies of people's brains into a Star Trek like simulation where he's the boss and he has supernatural-type powers over them.

After I'd been in hospital for being manic for a week I posted this on facebook:

"We live in a retrocasual E8 block universe as sinners with a loving higher power who sometimes uses tough love. There is also a malicious deceptive force that the loving higher power allows to hurt people."

You are correct, I did not respond to that at the time, and will not respond to it now, because I am not in the habit of entering debates with the mentally ill. This is simply Christian beliefs jazzed up with faux philosophical technobabble.

Did you see the links below it? It included an article that was a front cover topic from New Scientist magazine! Also it is directly based on the topic of my thread.

You seem to think that just because you say something, that thing is a point worthy of consideration. That is not true.

It is my thread and it contains 3 links to what I think are pretty scientifically reasonable articles.

I am not interested in what Elon Musk says about non-engineering or entrepenurial pursuits.

This is about a type of engineering - making video games that can fool people into thinking it is reality. Note that to fool someone that they're looking at the sun you don't need to simulate every particle of it explicitly.

I'm not interested in what you saw on Rick and Morty.

Well it is an example of a simulation in a simulation - something you had a problem with.

And I'm certainly not interested in what unsupported assertion you posted on Facebook after being let out of the psych ward. Try to answer the questions of Why and How the simulation exists, and I might be interested.

How: procedural generation, level of detail (no need to simulate every particle in the universe explicitly). Why: entertainment, as an afterlife:
https://www.strangerdimensions.com/2012/09/28/simulated-immortality-at-the-end-of-the-universe/
for research/educational reasons

 

[Keith&Co.]

I thought Rick always figures out he is in a simulation exactly because it fails to fully simulate reality?

And the examples where people voluntarily enter a simulation don't apply. If they already know it's a simulation, they're going to ignore any place where the simulation fails. Like the Star Trek episode, the fact that they CANNOT HAVE SEX would be an indicator that they're not in reality. Can't sleep, can't enjoy food, these little 'clues' that their reality isn't.

Kinda like your approach to the flood. Solve one little niggling problem at a time, but never look at the big picture. Certainly never solve the whole problem.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And I'm certainly not interested in what unsupported assertion you posted on Facebook after being let out of the psych ward. Try to answer the questions of Why and How the simulation exists, and I might be interested.

How: procedural generation, level of detail (no need to simulate every particle in the universe explicitly). Why: entertainment, as an afterlife:
https://www.strangerdimensions.com/2012/09/28/simulated-immortality-at-the-end-of-the-universe/
for research/educational reasons

Earth has about 10\(50\) atoms. I suppose one could say inert things could be modeled as blocks instead. Maybe around 10\(40\) in the atmosphere, which is in constant motion and interaction, and being effected by a rather large sun (10\(57\) atom sun). Then we have the gravitational interaction between the sun and moon with the 10\(46\) molecule oceans. That is a lot of particles to follow.

From another angle, we've got cancer. Cancer would be an accurate indicator of processes becoming corrupted at the cellular level. It'd be odd that a simulation would exist that would somehow create a system of cell generation in whales and elephants that would help prevent cancers, where as other animals, this wouldn't exist and cancers could thrive. Unless, the argument is that the simulation had evolution develop by chance.

 

[Sarpedon]

Jesus christ, can you talk for five minutes without making a reference to a TV show?

Like I've said before, I do think it is possible, and I also think it would be expensive. You STILL haven't explained what the purpose of the simulation might be and where the MONEY might be coming from to run it. This is why I don't take this theory seriously.

New Scientist is a popular science magazine, not a scientific journal. Sensationalist, pop culture views of science fiction is what they print. I reiterate: ALL of your sources are pop culture sources, NOT scientific ones.

The fact that you don't understand the difference between what Musk does and what this is shows how little you understand the technical details of process. I don't pretend to be an expert in this thing either, but I understand how different specialties are.

I don't have a 'problem' with imagining a simulation in a simulation. I am merely pointing out the problem of infinite regress that exists in your view. The very fact that you interpret my critiques of your worldview as being 'problems' of my own reinforces my belief that your worldview is borne out of your ego and sense of self importance. You want this to be true because it makes you feel special and that the world makes sense.

 

[excreationist]

Jesus christ, can you talk for five minutes without making a reference to a TV show?

Referencing a TV show shows that other people have similar beliefs about what would one day be possible and it gives examples of why and how.



Like I've said before, I do think it is possible, and I also think it would be expensive.

In "Hang the DJ" in Black Mirror, a person runs 1000 simulations in a short amount of time accessing it through their phone. So in that TV show it would be very cheap for an individual simulation. In a far future I think it is reasonable to believe that it would become affordable to individual people.



You STILL haven't explained what the purpose of the simulation might be


I wrote:
"Why: entertainment, as an afterlife:
https://www.strangerdimensions.com/2012/09/28/simulated-immortality-at-the-end-of-the-universe/
for research/educational reasons"


And dating, like in that Black Mirror episode. Also movies/TV I mentioned are examples of what the purpose would be.



and where the MONEY might be coming from to run it.

For simulations used for entertainment the money would come from ordinary people.



This is why I don't take this theory seriously.

Well you said "I do think it is possible" and even if it was expensive there would be a lot of demand for it.



New Scientist is a popular science magazine, not a scientific journal. Sensationalist, pop culture views of science fiction is what they print. I reiterate: ALL of your sources are pop culture sources, NOT scientific ones.

The things I was talking about aren't scientific "facts" but there is some scientific support for them.
 BTW I think this was in a philosophy journal: ("Philosophical Quarterly")
 https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html



......I don't have a 'problem' with imagining a simulation in a simulation. I am merely pointing out the problem of infinite regress that exists in your view.

The thing is, each computer simulating a world would have more particles than the world. e.g. say it was simulating a trillion particles - that would involve at least a few particles per simulated particle. So each outer world would have more and more particles. This can't keep on going forever because it would mean the computer would take an infinite amount of time to build and the universe we know of can only exist for a limited amount of time.



The very fact that you interpret my critiques of your worldview as being 'problems' of my own reinforces my belief that your worldview is borne out of your ego and sense of self importance. You want this to be true because it makes you feel special and that the world makes sense.

The thing is though there exists at least a certain amount of retrocausality and that conflicts with a realtime simulation so that makes me not strongly believe I'm in a straight-forward simulation.

 

[skepticalbip]

Referencing a TV show shows that other people have similar beliefs about what would one day be possible and it gives examples of why and how.

... snip ...

Movies and TV shows are quite often made to offer whimsical ideas or ideas of things/events so absurd that they could amuse the viewer so attract an audience.