How Can an Atheist Reject a Simulated Realities CPU?

[sealchan]

One of the barriers to creating a super-detailed simulation that IS the universe would be how to explain the amount of information that universe contained and how the simulator would be able to handle the ever-increasing amount of that information. Presumably cosmological consistency requires either...

• The system itself is the memory for its internal states
• The simulator keeps a record of all its internal states

Of these two it seems that the first option is the one most practical for the containing reality.

Now another consideration is the power draw required for the simulation. From our observation of this universe, is there a net power consumption involved in its maintenance? I believe that the answer to that is no. Energy is never created or destroyed in the Universe in any given event. This means that the power draw for the simulation comes entirely at the beginning of the simulation.

A third consideration would be how would the simulator make use of the simulation. That is, how are the states of the simulation measured. If you go back to the first consideration, the second option where the simulator keeps a record of the all its internal states sounds like it would provide that access to the simulation for the simulator.

Now for any given simulation the simulator may have a specific goal. He/she/it may not care for much of what goes on but wants only to follow the progress of some specific internal states. Then the Universe could run on its own internal memory of its states and there would be certain entities within the universe whose goals are to take measurements and send information outside of the Universe for the use of the simulator to gain knowledge.

Anyway some thoughts...

 

[suncowiam]

I'd say that, simply put, the video doesn't understand the 'observer' need not be a person, but can be anything with which the (in this case) photon interacts eg the detectors.

Here is the best article to further prove that the observation made by consciousness and not simply by a detector is what decided the photon to be a particle versus a wave. And this was actually described in the video. It was the last experiment involving various mirrors and refraction at %50. It is due to this probability that a human consciousness could not conclude what the photon's state should have been.

Do atoms going through a double slit ‘know’ if they are being observed? - physicsworld.com

 

[Twilight Hue]

Here is the best article to further prove that the observation made by consciousness and not simply by a detector is what decided the photon to be a particle versus a wave. And this was actually described in the video. It was the last experiment involving various mirrors and refraction at %50. It is due to this probability that a human consciousness could not conclude what the photon's state should have been.

Do atoms going through a double slit ‘know’ if they are being observed? - physicsworld.com

For a minute there, I thought it was going to be a Dr. Quantum link.

I'm somewhat relieved. "0)

 

[HonestJoe]

Maybe just personal experience, but it doesn't seem that long ago that ID was dismissed out of hand by atheists by any definition- as an inherently 'supernatural' belief. the universe and life came about by purely natural unguided mechanisms, and there are still plenty atheists on this forum who argue this position.

ID is specifically dismissed because it was created to be Creationism disguise and commonly presented is the same manner. That can make many people overly defensive of more honest philosophical discussions in the field but you have the Creationists to that for that.

Also, "atheists on this forum" is a tiny and particular subset of all atheists (plus a not insignificant number of trolls and fakes). In the real world you wouldn't even recognise most atheists as such in conversation.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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. There could also be a giant space turtle farting out the essence of consciousness and reality.

Yet there is no reason for a reasonable person to believe that

 

[Cobol]

Storing information about a couple of hundred electrons would require a computer memory that would physically require more atoms than exist in the universe. Given the physically impossible amount of computer power needed to store information, and that we might be unknowingly living in some vast version of The Matrix is not possible.
If our universe is a simulation, there is no reason that the laws of physics should apply outside it.

 

[suncowiam]

Storing information about a couple of hundred electrons would require a computer memory that would physically require more atoms than exist in the universe. Given the physically impossible amount of computer power needed to store information, and that we might be unknowingly living in some vast version of The Matrix is not possible.
If our universe is a simulation, there is no reason that the laws of physics should apply outside it.

We've gone over this in another thread.

The simplest way to prove your point is to prove that our universe is infinite. Otherwise, it's all relative to one another. If our universe has a finite size, who's to say that the outer universe (or outside the simulation) is not a bigger size than our own?

There's some other points I can suggest with simple 3d games concerning rendering objects in respect of each other, but I'll save that for later if needed.

 

[blü 2]

Which is fine, but the extra point about time being rewinded because of an observer (conscious or not) adds to the video's point. What other object or process known in material physics can travel back in time to change its state for it's whole existence?

The double slit experiments do NOT demonstrate retrocausality.

>Here's a link< that shows how physics interprets those experiments.

 

[Cobol]

We've gone over this in another thread.

The simplest way to prove your point is to prove that our universe is infinite. Otherwise, it's all relative to one another. If our universe has a finite size, who's to say that the outer universe (or outside the simulation) is not a bigger size than our own?

There's some other points I can suggest with simple 3d games concerning rendering objects in respect of each other, but I'll save that for later if needed.

The complexity of simulation increases exponentially with the number of particles being simulated.

If the complexity grows on an exponential scale – where the amount of computing power has to double every time a single particle is added – then the task becomes impossible.

 

[suncowiam]

The double slit experiments do NOT demonstrate retrocausality.

>Here's a link< that shows how physics interprets those experiments.

Your article at best, only suggests that the conclusion is still up for debate. In the same wiki page, other physicists debate the merit of Dr. Eberhard's conclusions.

I will agree with you that retro-causality has not been concluded and should be withdrawn from the video or at least place a big disclaimer.

Thanks

 

[suncowiam]

The complexity of simulation increases exponentially with the number of particles being simulated.

If the complexity grows on an exponential scale – where the amount of computing power has to double every time a single particle is added – then the task becomes impossible.

You can add any exponential applier here. If it's not infinite, then it's doable.

Computer power is inconsequential. You can tick at an operation per second in the real world and it would still appear in real-time to those in the simulation.

Your argument on size can only be won if you prove an infinite nature. Otherwise, any size or speed is relative.

 

[David T]

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.

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.

Is not a forest but an accurate rendering of a forest. It's actually not remotely a forest at all. So like a photo so as to math as well. Accuracy does not = reality. Breathing actual breathing there ya go that is reality. Idea of that to define that? There ya go confusion..I never am confused out in the wilderness nor is it confused., it always exists in the city.

 

[blü 2]

Thanks

All good. And if retrocausality ever turns out to be the case, the world will be a more interesting place. Maybe there are tachyons after all.

 

[sayak83]

You are making the points for that of a simulation. Our universe is quantized with finite values which is the same analogy you are making. It is an illusion that our reality is continuous.

No, that not what I am saying. The computer, like any Turing machine, is a set of sequential On/Off or 0/1 states. It requires a context external to the computer itself to interpret this series as a simulation. This is just like a novel. The interpretation of the squiggles in the piece of paper as characters living a life in the magical world of Hogwarts exists in a context external to the ink squiggles in the paper itself. It seems to me that saying "could we be a simulation in a computer" is exactly like saying "could we be the characters existing within the ink symbols of a paper book"? It's clear the answer is no for the latter, and it seems that the same consideration occurs for the simulation as well.

 

[suncowiam]

No, that not what I am saying. The computer, like any Turing machine, is a set of sequential On/Off or 0/1 states. It requires a context external to the computer itself to interpret this series as a simulation. This is just like a novel. The interpretation of the squiggles in the piece of paper as characters living a life in the magical world of Hogwarts exists in a context external to the ink squiggles in the paper itself. It seems to me that saying "could we be a simulation in a computer" is exactly like saying "could we be the characters existing within the ink symbols of a paper book"? It's clear the answer is no for the latter, and it seems that the same consideration occurs for the simulation as well.

No, it does not take a consciousness outside the simulation to interact with it. We're not there yet in our technology roadmap but someday I'm fairly confident that will be able to program consciousness to the same level as a human being. It's basically AI. Simulators can simulate AI and each AI would act indepedently without ever knowing that it was in a simulation. A basic coding principle here is object oriented programming. Another principle is virtual machine. This is already being done on a very simple level in computer games. When you play a single player game, your enemies are AI controlled. They're more like insects concerning their IQ but who's to say that it can't evolve to the level of human being one day.

 

[sayak83]

No, it does not take a consciousness outside the simulation to interact with it. We're not there yet in our technology roadmap but someday I'm fairly confident that will be able to program consciousness to the same level as a human being. It's basically AI. Simulators can simulate AI and each AI would act indepedently without ever knowing that it was in a simulation. A basic codind principle here is object oriented programming. Another principle is virtual machine. This is already being done on a very simple level in computer games. When you play a single player game, your enemies are AI controlled. They're more like insects concerning their IQ buy who's to say that it can't be interpolated to the level of human being one day.

Those enemies are interpretations of 0/1 computer voltage states interpreted in the context of the video game story by my mind. The only thing that is happening there is voltage states are entering the electrical circuit from keyboard presses and a different of voltage 0/1 states are being generated by the chip in the computer. The entirety of the story and its enemies are interpretations projected onto these voltage states by my mind.

 

[suncowiam]

Those enemies are interpretations of 0/1 computer voltage states interpreted in the context of the video game story by my mind.

Those enemies have input and output even in the code. It's very basic input and output.

1s and 0s combine to offer more values. A byte being 8 bits has 256 values. Every extra bit adds a factor of 2. When you have enough combined bits, it can be seen as indiscrete and infinite.

 

[suncowiam]

Those enemies are interpretations of 0/1 computer voltage states interpreted in the context of the video game story by my mind. The only thing that is happening there is voltage states are entering the electrical circuit from keyboard presses and a different of voltage 0/1 states are being generated by the chip in the computer. The entirety of the story and its enemies are interpretations projected onto these voltage states by my mind.

Ok, do you believe that someday computer science can program a human consciousness?

 

[sayak83]

Ok, do you believe that someday computer science can program a human consciousness?

Sure. But only in the context of what any programming is. It would still be a just another set of 0/1 voltage states on which we would project our own external interpretation that its conscious because of an illusion created by how those discrete voltage states are presented to our perceptions. That's why its called a simulation.

 

[suncowiam]

Sure. But only in the context of what any programming is. It would still be a just another set of 0/1 voltage states on which we would project our own external interpretation that its conscious because of an illusion created by how those discrete voltage states are presented to our perceptions. That's why its called a simulation.

Yes?
Let me back up.
What is your position then?