Are the Programmers Gods?

[Heyo]

For my 1000th post I like to make an OP that handles two of my favorite topics: the Simulation Hypothesis and the question towards the nature of god(s).
Suppose we live in a simulation. This one is an accurate simulation of all quantum fields and particles. I.e. it is indistinguishable from the world we live in. I don't go into details as that isn't relevant to the question but feel free to ask when you have questions.
If we are living in such a simulation, it was created. Thus the programmers check one attribute that is often connected with deities. There are other attributes that also fit. Most notably:

• (Limited) omnipotence. The programmers could do anything to the simulation that doesn't break logic.
• (Limited) omniscience. The programmers could possibly know any state the system is in at the moment (but not the future).
• Transcendence. The programmers are "out of this world", in fact, they are not only in a parallel world but in a completely different state of being. They are also
• Out of Time. Their time doesn't have to correlate to our time. They could possibly speed up the simulation or halt it indefinitely. They were there before the universe started and they will be there when it ends.

Now to the title question: is a team of omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creators of the universe worthy to be called gods?

Of course I am most interested to hear from theists but non theists are also invited but please state the form your (non-) belief.

 

[syo]

the Simulation Hypothesis

The what?

Gods are connected in the highest possible degree with our reality. There is no simulation. In my opinion and in my religion.

 

[Heyo]

The what?

Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia
I thought that was common knowledge, especially as there have been several OPs on the topic in the recent past.

I'll put you down as: "No (theist)" if I have understood you right?

 

[syo]

Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia
I thought that was common knowledge, especially as there have been several OPs on the topic in the recent past.

I'll put you down as: "No (theist)" if I have understood you right?

I see. I disagree. Our reality isn't a simulation, it is perfection. You and I and everything exist to perfect the Cosmos. We are needed, not for simulation, but for the perfection of the Cosmos. What I mean ''perfection'' I mean ''complete''. What point is there to have a God of the mountains, if no mountains exist?

 

[osgart]

To be considered God you would have to be supreme innocence. Our programmed universe is real, and really inept on morals. It's a hackjob! It functions on trial and error.

What's a few billion years to eternal beings though! It could be that the programmers have transcendent qualities and they live in a superior existence. Though superior to ours, I am quite sure it would have its share of monumental problems.

Our programmers would have to be the source reality. We are offsprings of the source reality.

I even have a name for the program they run. I call it Logia! Because they know the logic and building blocks of life. Logia shapes and forms our universe by trial and error until the desired output of a real universe with life forms arises. It's self correcting and autonomous. Once the system started it keeps replicating and adjusting while building off its successes, and limiting it's failures. Everything novel arises out of specific conditions the programmers are trying to achieve. We are the grande experiment and the universe is a test universe of an advanced eternal civilization.

They definetly are nowhere near omnipotent. Who knows maybe our programmers have reached the outer limits of their own infinite existence. They probably created our dimensionality and physicality and materiality from scratch. Anyways its a fleeting universe destined to run down.

I don't think our universe has anything perpetual about it.

I am speculating but find it very believable.

I don't buy into the idea that this universe is a total fake.

If the programmers come from within the universe then they must lie beyond our part of it in a perpetual state in higher dimensions. If they are within our existence then they are a crudely advanced form of life. Learning and adapting all the time.

 

[Howard Is]

We are needed,

No we aren’t. You get what you get. You make up stories about it. You know nothing. Then you die.

If you have a good heart you can learn to let suffering ennoble you.
If you’re a bit smart you work out how to have some good times.

But all that religious stuff is fairy stories.

 

[Heyo]

I see. I disagree. Our reality isn't a simulation, it is perfection. You and I and everything exist to perfect the Cosmos. We are needed, not for simulation, but for the perfection of the Cosmos. What I mean ''perfection'' I mean ''complete''. What point is there to have a God of the mountains, if no mountains exist?

So you are in the "I can"t handle / don't understand hypotheticals" camp?

 

[Samael_Khan]

For my 1000th post I like to make an OP that handles two of my favorite topics: the Simulation Hypothesis and the question towards the nature of god(s).
Suppose we live in a simulation. This one is an accurate simulation of all quantum fields and particles. I.e. it is indistinguishable from the world we live in. I don't go into details as that isn't relevant to the question but feel free to ask when you have questions.
If we are living in such a simulation, it was created. Thus the programmers check one attribute that is often connected with deities. There are other attributes that also fit. Most notably:

• (Limited) omnipotence. The programmers could do anything to the simulation that doesn't break logic.
• (Limited) omniscience. The programmers could possibly know any state the system is in at the moment (but not the future).
• Transcendence. The programmers are "out of this world", in fact, they are not only in a parallel world but in a completely different state of being. They are also
• Out of Time. Their time doesn't have to correlate to our time. They could possibly speed up the simulation or halt it indefinitely. They were there before the universe started and they will be there when it ends.

Now to the title question: is a team of omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creators of the universe worthy to be called gods?

Of course I am most interested to hear from theists but non theists are also invited but please state the form your (non-) belief.

I actually had a recent post about using analogy as reasoning to determine whether there must be a creator or not, since theists use analogy all the time to prove that there must be a God.

The Great Architect of the Universe

A direct analogy to a creator creating a world is video games. And using analogy we can say that the more complex the game world the more likely it is that there are multiple creators each in charge of different aspects of the universe.

Another question I have been thinking about is whether we are playable characters or NPC's?

I would disagree that the programmers are limited to doing anything to the simulation that doesn't break logic. In the gaming world there are set rules and logic but a programmer can disrupt that system without breaking the game. Although there might be limits. So a miracle for instance would be editing the world to do something that is against the logic of the world.

According to the Bible, God must be called such because he created everything. If programmers create worlds then they are gods of that world.

 

[Stevicus]

For my 1000th post I like to make an OP that handles two of my favorite topics: the Simulation Hypothesis and the question towards the nature of god(s).
Suppose we live in a simulation. This one is an accurate simulation of all quantum fields and particles. I.e. it is indistinguishable from the world we live in. I don't go into details as that isn't relevant to the question but feel free to ask when you have questions.
If we are living in such a simulation, it was created. Thus the programmers check one attribute that is often connected with deities. There are other attributes that also fit. Most notably:

• (Limited) omnipotence. The programmers could do anything to the simulation that doesn't break logic.
• (Limited) omniscience. The programmers could possibly know any state the system is in at the moment (but not the future).
• Transcendence. The programmers are "out of this world", in fact, they are not only in a parallel world but in a completely different state of being. They are also
• Out of Time. Their time doesn't have to correlate to our time. They could possibly speed up the simulation or halt it indefinitely. They were there before the universe started and they will be there when it ends.

Now to the title question: is a team of omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creators of the universe worthy to be called gods?

Of course I am most interested to hear from theists but non theists are also invited but please state the form your (non-) belief.

I guess programmers would create the "software," but I would think the level of "gods" would be whoever created the "hardware."

 

[Polymath257]

So you are in the "I can"t handle / don't understand hypotheticals" camp?

If I was in that camp, what would I do?

 

[Heyo]

A direct analogy to a creator creating a world is video games. And using analogy we can say that the more complex the game world the more likely it is that there are multiple creators each in charge of different aspects of the universe.

Another question I have been thinking about is whether we are playable characters or NPC's?

In a simulation there are only NPCs. If we were influenced by something outside this universe (analog to having a soul or "being played"), we'd be in a game, not in a simulation. E.g. The Matrix is a game. If the programmers knew the outcome, we'd be in a play, not a simulation. (Analog to our world + determinism).

I would disagree that the programmers are limited to doing anything to the simulation that doesn't break logic. In the gaming world there are set rules and logic but a programmer can disrupt that system without breaking the game. Although there might be limits. So a miracle for instance would be editing the world to do something that is against the logic of the world.

The programmers could break the rules, but they can't break logic. They can't make a stone that is so heavy they can't lift it.

According to the Bible, God must be called such because he created everything. If programmers create worlds then they are gods of that world.

Thanks.

 

[Heyo]

I guess programmers would create the "software," but I would think the level of "gods" would be whoever created the "hardware."

That would be a bad analogy. God is usually called what created our universe (the software) - not the computer our universe is running on.

 

[Stevicus]

That would be a bad analogy. God is usually called what created our universe (the software) - not the computer our universe is running on.

Yes, but there's also the common question of "Who created God?"

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, but there's also the common question of "Who created God?"

It's simulations all the way down.

 

[Heyo]

Yes, but there's also the common question of "Who created God?"

The programmers of the simulation they are living in, of course.

 

[Polymath257]

One idea that I have thought amusing related to Simulation Theory is the question of hardware.

I'm coming from the question of what sort of hardware would give a simulation of what we see and how fast would it be able to run the simulation?

What if, to get the detail needed, we actually need a computer the size of the universe and it runs exactly at the rate the laws of the universe dictate? So, to model the universe takes something the size, complexity, and rate of the universe?

In that case, is it a simulation or not? It could still have a programmer/programmers, which would be god-like for those in the simulation.

For a while, i was on Second Life, and some of the 'moderators' had a 'God' mode allowing them to do things regular members could not do. Why not have that in the simulation of the universe? And there is no reason programmers need to actually have 'God mode'.

 

[syo]

So you are in the "I can"t handle / don't understand hypotheticals" camp?

If we are simulation, we are pointless and the programmers waste their time. Who cares if they are gods?

 

[Heyo]

One idea that I have thought amusing related to Simulation Theory is the question of hardware.

The hardware would have to be vastly bigger than our universe. But that is of no concern as the universe that computer is in could be any size.

I'm coming from the question of what sort of hardware would give a simulation of what we see and how fast would it be able to run the simulation?

What if, to get the detail needed, we actually need a computer the size of the universe and it runs exactly at the rate the laws of the universe dictate? So, to model the universe takes something the size, complexity, and rate of the universe?

I forgot who, but someone had the hypothesis that the speed of light in our universe depends on the signal time in the simulation.

In that case, is it a simulation or not? It could still have a programmer/programmers, which would be god-like for those in the simulation.

For a while, i was on Second Life, and some of the 'moderators' had a 'God' mode allowing them to do things regular members could not do. Why not have that in the simulation of the universe? And there is no reason programmers need to actually have 'God mode'.

I think it save to assume that the programmers are reluctant to interfere with the simulation. It's a simulation, not a game.

 

[icehorse]

"Recently" (3 years? 5 years? 10 years?..) Artificial Intelligence has made some huge leaps forward. AI is now dominated by "machine learning", "deep learning", "neural nets", "adversarial networks" and so on. (The Venn diagram of these ideas is complex.)

Anyway, the basic idea with this sort of AI is that programmers have taught machines to learn. So far, they are learning only in very narrow domains (chess, Go, facial recognition, fraud detection..), but in each of these narrow domains, the software and the data it generates are learning. Humans are not giving these programs "rules", the programs are learning to spot patterns.

To date, humans cannot make sense of the data that represents the program's expertise. There are some very new branches of AI called "interpretable" and/or "explainable", but they are still quite limited.

So the bottom line is that programmers are making software that becomes smarter than they are - hmmm. Not sure if that makes those programmers "gods" or not. If it does, it might stretch common definitions of "god".

So if we're living in a simulation, it's possible that the programmers who created the simulation, created something that grew and evolved well passed their ability to control, predict or explain.

 

[Brickjectivity]

For my 1000th post I like to make an OP that handles two of my favorite topics: the Simulation Hypothesis and the question towards the nature of god(s).
Suppose we live in a simulation. This one is an accurate simulation of all quantum fields and particles. I.e. it is indistinguishable from the world we live in. I don't go into details as that isn't relevant to the question but feel free to ask when you have questions.
If we are living in such a simulation, it was created. Thus the programmers check one attribute that is often connected with deities. There are other attributes that also fit. Most notably:

• (Limited) omnipotence. The programmers could do anything to the simulation that doesn't break logic.
• (Limited) omniscience. The programmers could possibly know any state the system is in at the moment (but not the future).
• Transcendence. The programmers are "out of this world", in fact, they are not only in a parallel world but in a completely different state of being. They are also
• Out of Time. Their time doesn't have to correlate to our time. They could possibly speed up the simulation or halt it indefinitely. They were there before the universe started and they will be there when it ends.

Now to the title question: is a team of omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creators of the universe worthy to be called gods?

Of course I am most interested to hear from theists but non theists are also invited but please state the form your (non-) belief.

No and here is why. Simulations are always a surprise. You don't know what they are going to do. You run a simulation to find out what happens. Simulations require experimentation. You don't just pull out a set of rules and have them work perfectly. If you manage this then you have already simulated them in your head enough times to come up with a correct solution. To run a simulation you must be interested in what is happening with it. That means its process affects you in some way. Its time affects you whether you experience time or not.