How Can an Atheist Reject a Simulated Realities CPU?

[Guy Threepwood]

My intent was not to eek out or conspicuously choose anything. It was to refute the point that a simulation necessitates intelligence. That we have an example that contradicts this point is just like showing a black swan after being told that a black swan doesn't exist.

The point was it doesn't logically follow. Even if we only had examples of intelligently designed simulations it still doesn't follow.

We make these jumps when they are either self evident (a=a), or they are necessary inductive leaps (causality exists, free will exists)

But we do not make these jumps when they are neither necessary inductive leaps nor self evident. (All swans are white).

I think we agree then on this particular point then, we've seen the white swans here, we know that simulations can be created using creative intelligence

We have not seen the black swan of spontaneous simulation creation, but we can't say positively that it does not exist, it just does not enjoy the same level of confirmation, correct?


Having said that, not all unseen entities are equal, from a computer science standpoint, a hierarchical information system as sophisticated as our universe... inc. life in it, being spontaneously created without any creative input allowed whatsoever.. is not analogous to finding a swan that we knew once existed but was presumed extinct. A swan accidentally typing the entire works of Charles Dickens... while trying to get a crumb out of the keyboard,, would still be selling the universe very short.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I think they are isomorphic... we don't know which is true. But if we are in a brain vat that doesn't mean anymore that there is a God than before.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One of those, eh? I was brought up a lax atheist.
It still serves me well. "Staunch" is so much work.

true, I guess I must have crossed the lax atheist point at some stage though!

 

[Revoltingest]

true, I guess I must have crossed the lax atheist point at some stage though!

Over-shot it eh?

 

[suncowiam]

Please watch the following on the simulation theory. It's about an hour long but it's a great primer. It explains through science why the simulation theory is plausible.

 

[Curious George]

I think we agree then on this particular point then, we've seen the white swans here, we know that simulations can be created using creative intelligence

We have not seen the black swan of spontaneous simulation creation, but we can't say positively that it does not exist, it just does not enjoy the same level of confirmation, correct?


Having said that, not all unseen entities are equal, from a computer science standpoint, a hierarchical information system as sophisticated as our universe... inc. life in it, being spontaneously created without any creative input allowed whatsoever.. is not analogous to finding a swan that we knew once existed but was presumed extinct. A swan accidentally typing the entire works of Charles Dickens... while trying to get a crumb out of the keyboard,, would still be selling the universe very short.

More illogical jumps. I understand that you really, really want an intelligent creator to be self evident.

I do think you have missed my point and focused on latching on to this very familiar but still not logical argument. I get that: We all have the arguments that tip us one way or another. Your argument certainly has an appeal to many reasonable minds. You can hear the watchmaker argument told from so many different perspectives. You can also hear it attacked from so many different perspectives. But we are not discussing the watchmaker argument. We are discussing whether intelligent design logically follows from the premise that reality is a simulation. I say no. We cannot deduce such a fact.

You seem to want to say yes, and then you make fallacious appeals. I am going out on a limb here, but I think it is more likely that a swan typed the entire works of Charles Dickens while trying to get a crumb that fell into the cracks of a keyboard, than I am wrong in asserting that Intelligent design does not follow from the premise that reality is a simulation.

 

[blü 2]

It explains through science why the simulation theory is plausible.

I did a quick sampling of the video, and at least one of the major claims is simply wrong ─ the claim that the conscious mind of the observer can without more alter the results of the two-slit experiment. If you're interested, you can read more >here<.

As to what else may be wrong, others more patient than I am might care to explore.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you do not believe in creationist God,
then how can you believe that our world is a creation in a computer?

Essentially what is the intrinsic difference between the two in real analytical terms.
There is no difference.

Who says God cannot use something like a computer to compute the
laws of physics in the universe.

The only major difference is that if we are a mere simulation then our
creator is not necesarily omnipotent.

But it does beg the question:
How did the simulation come into being?

Are you asking me to teach you theology?

 

[Milton Platt]

Taking for granted that our reality is a simulation; which is why it is mathematically precise in atomic science, cosmology, physics, etc...

Plus mathematically theorized that there was a Singularity somewhere that manifested reality at a quantum level.

Is it then logical for an Atheist without belief, to accept that there could be a CPU that creates the reality we are within?

In my opinion.

An atheist can have pretty much any belief he/she wishes, other than a belief in a god. I personally don't believe in the concept you refer to, but it is an interesting philosophical concept.

 

[leibowde84]

Taking for granted that our reality is a simulation; which is why it is mathematically precise in atomic science, cosmology, physics, etc...

Plus mathematically theorized that there was a Singularity somewhere that manifested reality at a quantum level.

Is it then logical for an Atheist without belief, to accept that there could be a CPU that creates the reality we are within?

In my opinion.

Sure. Why wouldn't it be logical? The problem atheists have with "the creator" rest with the lack of evidence of any supernatural creator (short of the pathetic and logically flawed argument ... "well, how did the universe begin then"). The situation you stated above doesn't involve anything supernatural.

 

[james bond]

I'm an atheist and do support the theory of simulated life. There are physical traits in our reality that support this: quantum levels of measurements, the act of observation forcing a physical state...

I'm also a computer engineer who now specializes in SW. We'll never be able to prove this, but I see it as plausible.

From an atheist/theist perspective, this has little do with religion or the basic view of God. To believe in this simulation does not answer much of our creation.

[Edited]

The following is a great primer on the simulation theory. It explains through science on why simulation theory is plausible.

Finally, we're moving somewhere. I'm a computer scientist and think we'll find the creation or creator when we find a glitch in order to fix.

 

[suncowiam]

I did a quick sampling of the video, and at least one of the major claims is simply wrong ─ the claim that the conscious mind of the observer can without more alter the results of the two-slit experiment. If you're interested, you can read more >here<.

As to what else may be wrong, others more patient than I am might care to explore.

By definition, the observer effect is what's being described by the video in the double split experiment. The observer effect is actually what is being presented in favor of the simulation theory. But do note, that by observing the photon not only did it change physically from a wave to a particle but also, its history since conception changed from being a wave to a particle. Please refer to the section of light that traveled millions of light years from a distant galaxy to us. It was a quick reference and didn't show much further proof, but it stated that once we observed the light, we were able to prove that it changed back to a particle since its inception at the distant point of origin.

I'm probably not making sense?

Simply put, the video IS talking about the observer effect and using it as further data even though it did not directly refer to it.

 

[james bond]

Sure. Why wouldn't it be logical? The problem atheists have with "the creator" rest with the lack of evidence of any supernatural creator (short of the pathetic and logically flawed argument ... "well, how did the universe begin then"). The situation you stated above doesn't involve anything supernatural.

I don't think a pathetic and logically flawed argument is the problem, but an artificial or human unintelligent argument or glitch. The dumb sh*t will cause more damage than a pathetic and logically flawed argument. It's easier to fix the latter than the former.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@wizanda an atheist is free to accept or reject any premise not related to god's existence

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think a pathetic and logically flawed argument is the problem, but an artificial or human unintelligent argument or glitch. The dumb sh*t will cause more damage than a pathetic and logically flawed argument. It's easier to fix the latter than the former.

What do you mean by "artificial or human unintelligent argument or glitch"? Can you explain what you mean here?

 

[suncowiam]

Finally, we're moving somewhere. I'm a computer scientist and think we'll find the creation or creator when we find a glitch in order to fix.

No, we might further prove we're part of a simulation but won't prove that the creator actually exists. It's a technicality. You can only assume that a creator exists knowing what we know of our own universe and how simulations in our world come to be. We do not know the outer universe that the simulation is being run in.

 

[james bond]

What do you mean by "artificial or human unintelligent argument or glitch"? Can you explain what you mean here?

If our consciousness is running a simulation, then we would have no way of knowing if it is a simulation or a real, physical world we are in. Just because we touch something means we still experience it in our brains. I think we already talked about this with one closing their left eye and trying to determining where a rope someone else stretched across a room unbeknownst to that person.

However, if we were aware of something that wasn't right such as a strange cube on our nightstand, and we know no one else was in the room, then we have some glitch or something popping up out from nothing. We can have you walking down Market St and suddenly you're walking down your hallway in your house. You popping up from a different location does not happen in classical physics unless you were being fed a simulation. In a simulation, there is a simple fix for the simulator program of you going back to where you were walking down the street.

 

[sayak83]

Taking for granted that our reality is a simulation; which is why it is mathematically precise in atomic science, cosmology, physics, etc...

Plus mathematically theorized that there was a Singularity somewhere that manifested reality at a quantum level.

Is it then logical for an Atheist without belief, to accept that there could be a CPU that creates the reality we are within?

In my opinion.

What's the point of this simulation?

 

[dfnj]

Taking for granted that our reality is a simulation; which is why it is mathematically precise in atomic science, cosmology, physics, etc...

Plus mathematically theorized that there was a Singularity somewhere that manifested reality at a quantum level.

Is it then logical for an Atheist without belief, to accept that there could be a CPU that creates the reality we are within?

In my opinion.

Absolutely not. The evidence from the latest quantum experiments show "idealism" is on the rise versus "materialism":

The evidence speaks for itself. But even then most people are not willing to give a clockwork Universe or simulation. What is IT than decides which quantum state gets realized is a very interesting question. The language of science explains "how" nature behaves. The language of science never explains "why" nature behaves at all. What is IT that chooses which quantum state gets realized when it comes in contact with an observer. Whatever IT is, without, the Universe just stands still have nothing ever gets done.

There is an assumption in science that language and abstract concepts can represent nature precisely and completely. I think this is absolutely wrong. Reality is many times more complicated than anything represented in a road map. A road map always has less detail than the reality it represents. The science of language is like a road map. Our representation of reality is NEVER the reality it represents. The clock-workers will never accept human language has fundamental limitations.

Nature is not discrete. Nature is just as much wave as it is particle. You just can't ignore the analog nature of reality.

 

[dfnj]

What's the point of this simulation?

Our omnipotent God's only purpose is to realize His omnipotence by sharing in our experiences of having limitations.