A simulation from nothing?

[DavidFirth]

Typical theist non-answer.

Typical atheist dodge/deflection. Youre the champ at such things. I see no one on here anywhere near as good as you at deflecting. Congratulations.

 

[McBell]

Typical atheist dodge/deflection. Youre the champ at such things. I see no one on here anywhere near as good as you at deflecting. Congratulations.

It is clear you also do not know what the word "deflection" means.

One wonders, do you know how to use a dictionary?

 

[viole]

First of all, only nothing comes from nothing.

There had to be a first something. That first something was the great I AM.

And what happened at I AM? Was that the first hour of the first morning of the first creation day?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

He loves you

Everybody loves me.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Lester Tryon]

It is clear you also do not know what the word "deflection" means.

One wonders, do you know how to use a dictionary?

I'm new here, but reading this thread is what prompted me to register. I spoke with a physician yesterday and he gave a rather sage piece of advice. "There is a large part of the population that is not sane. You cannot use logic to argue with insanity, it won't work. You will only drive yourself insane trying."

 

[Lester Tryon]

The simulation argument as stated, is correct. But, that doesn't in anyway state, that our reality is necessarily a simulation. Only that one of the 3 statements made by Professor Bostrom is. The idea I'm proposing, while similar, has nothing to do with a "Post Human" civilization.
I still think there is a pretty good chance that this universe is a simulation. As far as the computing power required, or storage space for data etc., As a mere function of Clarke's 3rd law "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", it is not necessary for us to understand all of the mechanics involved for the idea to bear weight (a religious analogy of that is "the Lord works in mysterious ways" or "It's not for us to understand".
A study published online this year:
From Planck Data to Planck Era: Observational Tests of Holographic Cosmology,
shows evidence of the universe being a hologram. For those interested enough to read the paper, there is a follow up paper as well. I am making a leap here, so please bear with me (I've only really been contemplating this idea, as a whole, for a day or so). If the universe we live in is a simulation, it answers many questions and even ties multiple philosophies together into a coherent whole. Let us suppose, for the sake of this argument that we do live within a simulation run on a cosmic supercomputer. Setting aside the reason for the simulation, or the purpose of being within it, here are a few possibilities of this idea:

a. The computer the "simulation/program" is run on, is by the mere fact of doing so, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent in relation to the simulation. This does not mean the computer is conscious or has a personality.
b.The programmer, would have access to all the information as well as the ability to make changes to the "code".
1. Prayer/faith could be the way users put in requests. (In our universe, nothing is absolutely still. There is constant motion from the quantum to the macro. Many faiths, including Christianity, teach that to commune with the Higher power, God, Creator, etc.; a person should seek the still, quiet place within.
2. Miracles no matter how grand, including Healings, Resurrection, ect., could be explained as the replies.
3. For the stories of major religious archetypes, if taken literally, that could perform grand feats and seem to deny physics, think maybe some sort of Super-user status?
c. The simulation could run at whatever speed it was programmed to, so that "time" (one definition: The phenomena that prevents the entire universe from happening at once) could occur at any rate the programmer set it to. Also, consider that time needs to exist in order to have a linear experience.
d. The Big Bang. The theory that the universe exploded into being could be explained by this; The programmer ran the program.
e. Dark Matter, Dark Energy. There is plenty of evidence that the majority of the universe is made of this stuff. If we think of Light Matter and Energy as the GUI (graphical user interfaces) then the Dark stuff could be the system code behind the scenes, so to speak.
f. The fact that the universe is ever expanding, from every point, could be explained by system updates and more data being input.
g. Black holes could be the universe's trash bin, with unnecessary data being stored in the "Apparent Horizon", until the bin is emptied.
h. The entire universe being represented in holographic form on surface of every particle, at the boundaries would be necessary for a shared continuity of experience. (serious oversimplification here, but think of the fictional "Holodeck" of the Star Trek universe.)
i. Life after death, could be getting off of the ride.
j. Reincarnation, could be as simple as someone getting back on the ride.
k. Although we all live on the same planet, with the same evidence of our physical realities, the fact that it is near to if not impossible to actually exchange ideas with some others, could be explained as, well, they got a different package.​

I don't want anyone reading this to misconstrue my intention with this post. I'm not stating that this is how it is, only proposing that it may be. And thinking that it is at least worthy of some interesting conversation.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The simulation argument as stated, is correct. But, that doesn't in anyway state, that our reality is necessarily a simulation. Only that one of the 3 statements made by Professor Bostrom is. The idea I'm proposing, while similar, has nothing to do with a "Post Human" civilization.
I still think there is a pretty good chance that this universe is a simulation. As far as the computing power required, or storage space for data etc., As a mere function of Clarke's 3rd law "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", it is not necessary for us to understand all of the mechanics involved for the idea to bear weight (a religious analogy of that is "the Lord works in mysterious ways" or "It's not for us to understand".
A study published online this year:
From Planck Data to Planck Era: Observational Tests of Holographic Cosmology,
shows evidence of the universe being a hologram. For those interested enough to read the paper, there is a follow up paper as well. I am making a leap here, so please bear with me (I've only really been contemplating this idea, as a whole, for a day or so). If the universe we live in is a simulation, it answers many questions and even ties multiple philosophies together into a coherent whole. Let us suppose, for the sake of this argument that we do live within a simulation run on a cosmic supercomputer. Setting aside the reason for the simulation, or the purpose of being within it, here are a few possibilities of this idea:

a. The computer the "simulation/program" is run on, is by the mere fact of doing so, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent in relation to the simulation. This does not mean the computer is conscious or has a personality.
b.The programmer, would have access to all the information as well as the ability to make changes to the "code".
1. Prayer/faith could be the way users put in requests. (In our universe, nothing is absolutely still. There is constant motion from the quantum to the macro. Many faiths, including Christianity, teach that to commune with the Higher power, God, Creator, etc.; a person should seek the still, quiet place within.
2. Miracles no matter how grand, including Healings, Resurrection, ect., could be explained as the replies.
3. For the stories of major religious archetypes, if taken literally, that could perform grand feats and seem to deny physics, think maybe some sort of Super-user status?
c. The simulation could run at whatever speed it was programmed to, so that "time" (one definition: The phenomena that prevents the entire universe from happening at once) could occur at any rate the programmer set it to. Also, consider that time needs to exist in order to have a linear experience.
d. The Big Bang. The theory that the universe exploded into being could be explained by this; The programmer ran the program.
e. Dark Matter, Dark Energy. There is plenty of evidence that the majority of the universe is made of this stuff. If we think of Light Matter and Energy as the GUI (graphical user interfaces) then the Dark stuff could be the system code behind the scenes, so to speak.
f. The fact that the universe is ever expanding, from every point, could be explained by system updates and more data being input.
g. Black holes could be the universe's trash bin, with unnecessary data being stored in the "Apparent Horizon", until the bin is emptied.
h. The entire universe being represented in holographic form on surface of every particle, at the boundaries would be necessary for a shared continuity of experience. (serious oversimplification here, but think of the fictional "Holodeck" of the Star Trek universe.)
i. Life after death, could be getting off of the ride.
j. Reincarnation, could be as simple as someone getting back on the ride.
k. Although we all live on the same planet, with the same evidence of our physical realities, the fact that it is near to if not impossible to actually exchange ideas with some others, could be explained as, well, they got a different package.​

I don't want anyone reading this to misconstrue my intention with this post. I'm not stating that this is how it is, only proposing that it may be. And thinking that it is at least worthy of some interesting conversation.

the question remains: If this proposition is true, in whichever form, is there any possible way to PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that this is indeed a simulation?

Because the programmer and the computer are by human standards all-knowing and all-powerful, it is likely that any possible test we humans, as small packets of code within a larger simulation, could conceive would be provided for by the programmer...

"Look! We found the Higgs Boson!"
"Really? Or were some programmed to look for and find the illusion that our reality is made up of 'particles' and 'energy' within interacting 'fields?' Or maybe it's just an illusion that they looked and found it...after all, all they really experienced was a pattern in the data generated by...for all intents and purposes...a large computer."

As others have pointed out, if you can't make any testable predictions that couldn't be foreseen and created by the computer and its programmer, can you really be said to have a theory, or even a hypothesis?

 

[Lester Tryon]

the question remains: If this proposition is true, in whichever form, is there any possible way to PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that this is indeed a simulation?

Because the programmer and the computer are by human standards all-knowing and all-powerful, it is likely that any possible test we humans, as small packets of code within a larger simulation, could conceive would be provided for by the programmer...

"Look! We found the Higgs Boson!"
"Really? Or were some programmed to look for and find the illusion that our reality is made up of 'particles' and 'energy' within interacting 'fields?' Or maybe it's just an illusion that they looked and found it...after all, all they really experienced was a pattern in the data generated by...for all intents and purposes...a large computer."

As others have pointed out, if you can't make any testable predictions that couldn't be foreseen and created by the computer and its programmer, can you really be said to have a theory, or even a hypothesis?

An interesting question, very similar is there any way to prove God. However, I suppose that if we (as a species, not me as an uneducated idiot) can devise a way to actually decode the structure of the code? used in the holographic 2d image, we may find a crack in the "base/system" code and possibly be able to see other data both related to and not related to this reality. As to if we could devise the test, other than what the programmer had inserted in the packets of code; Well, I don't think you fully followed my idea, such as if a character aboard the fictional Enterprise goes onto the Holodeck for some R & R, does he/she have less free will than outside of it? Dreams can be thought of as simulations to keep the brain, and sensory input ports active while the body rests. Think of lucid dreaming, where the dreamer becomes aware of the dream and takes at least partial control. Have you ever read Tad William's Otherland series? Fantastic stories. Great read if you enjoy Science Fiction. The story line involves a fully immersive virtual reality that people get trapped in. The point I'm driving at here, sorry for the digression, is that just because the universe could be a simulation, it doesn't have to mean that we are NPC's (non player characters or computer generated personalities). In MMORPG's e.g.; World of Warcraft, the characters that inhabit the game are not necessarily real, right? But it doesn't mean the player isn't. And just because this type of game may have some preconceived boundaries and a structured theme, it doesn't limit the players into following a rigid preconceived script. I mean, why would you play?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

An interesting question, very similar is there any way to prove God. However, I suppose that if we (as a species, not me as an uneducated idiot) can devise a way to actually decode the structure of the code? used in the holographic 2d image, we may find a crack in the "base/system" code and possibly be able to see other data both related to and not related to this reality. As to if we could devise the test, other than what the programmer had inserted in the packets of code; Well, I don't think you fully followed my idea, such as if a character aboard the fictional Enterprise goes onto the Holodeck for some R & R, does he/she have less free will than outside of it? Dreams can be thought of as simulations to keep the brain, and sensory input ports active while the body rests. Think of lucid dreaming, where the dreamer becomes aware of the dream and takes at least partial control. Have you ever read Tad William's Otherland series? Fantastic stories. Great read if you enjoy Science Fiction. The story line involves a fully immersive virtual reality that people get trapped in. The point I'm driving at here, sorry for the digression, is that just because the universe could be a simulation, it doesn't have to mean that we are NPC's (non player characters or computer generated personalities). In MMORPG's e.g.; World of Warcraft, the characters that inhabit the game are not necessarily real, right? But it doesn't mean the player isn't. And just because this type of game may have some preconceived boundaries and a structured theme, it doesn't limit the players into following a rigid preconceived script. I mean, why would you play?

and that leads to the brain-in-a-vat proposition...that we're in a hallucination, the Dream of Brahman, a Matrix computer simulation, or etc.

No matter how hard you study it, how deeply you ponder it, how penetratingly you look...it's still just input through the sensory input channels--the nervous system--of a single brain that cannot guarantee that the input entering it's perception is indeed real...or an illusion of some sort. That anyone agrees that indeed you are both standing in front of a house or are watching the same sunset could be just part of the illusion/dream/hallucination/full-immersion-role-playing-game. Interobserver agreement is not evidence that we are not just a, or perhaps many, brains in vats, connected to an illusion generator...

 

[Lester Tryon]

and that leads to the brain-in-a-vat proposition...that we're in a hallucination, the Dream of Brahman, a Matrix computer simulation, or etc.

No matter how hard you study it, how deeply you ponder it, how penetratingly you look...it's still just input through the sensory input channels--the nervous system--of a single brain that cannot guarantee that the input entering it's perception is indeed real...or an illusion of some sort. That anyone agrees that indeed you are both standing in front of a house or are watching the same sunset could be just part of the illusion/dream/hallucination/full-immersion-role-playing-game. Interobserver agreement is not evidence that we are not just a, or perhaps many, brains in vats, connected to an illusion generator...

"No matter how hard you study it, how deeply you ponder it, how penetratingly you look...it's still just input through the sensory input channels--the nervous system--"

As are all aspects of reality, I suppose. Whether we are talking about the objective tangible world, or a meta-physical/spiritual experience, our individual perceptions are all we truly have to go on. Facts, no matter how well documented, are still subject the perception of the observer. For if one's internal belief system is based on anything other than the observable, then all judgement and behaviors will be skewed by that set of beliefs.

At any rate, every idea ever shared starts out as a proposition. And in science, never makes it any farther than being stated as a "Theory" which is then, in grand tradition of the grudgingly enlightened, attacked with attempts to disprove it.