Simulation Theory.

Zed Aliz Zed · Oct 10, 2017

AV1611VET said:
God did not create Satan; God created Lucifer.

If you get in trouble, it is not because your parents created you that way.

Because it [sic] believes that if it [sic] can get one little prophecy to fail, then God fails.

And we know that scientists and educatees today swear by the fact that some ... if not most ... if not all of God's prophecies have failed.

Then you don't know how scientists think, do you?

If that plot was torn apart by movie critics, scientists would step in and put it back together.

and I gave you the reason behind my premise. and if evidence comes along that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe through his magic noodle. then I will accept that as truth. "of course it's going to need a sheer sun size of evidence" and if your God makes his presence known not through a flawed contradicting book or vague natural phenomenon we can easily explain that I will accept that as truth. still, won't follow him. but will except truth as truth. though it's going to need more evidence than what we have currently supporting evolution, the big bang. and everything else that states other than a light switch and someone to set up the natural laws. we don't need a God. so until that comes along i am sticking to the higher ground

AV1611VET · Oct 10, 2017

Zed Aliz Zed said:
and I gave you the reason behind my premise. and if evidence comes along that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe through his magic noodle. then I will accept that as truth. "of course it's going to need a sheer sun size of evidence" and if your God makes his presence known not through a flawed contradicting book or vague natural phenomenon we can easily explain that I will accept that as truth. still, won't follow him. but will except truth as truth. though it's going to need more evidence than what we have currently supporting evolution, the big bang. and everything else that states other than a light switch and someone to set up the natural laws. we don't need a God. so until that comes along i am sticking to the higher ground

Are we done now? I need to pray for you.

Strathos · Oct 10, 2017

Meanwhile I'll pray for both of you

George Tolson · Aug 16, 2019

We finally got a book trying to reconcile Simulation Theory and Christian religion - "Answers In Simulation". It is on amazon as ebook. I was expecting something like that as both world views - Simulation and Christian are not really contradictory. Just finished reading it. I think what they describe as Christ is exactly what happened.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 17, 2019

George Tolson said:
We finally got a book trying to reconcile Simulation Theory and Christian religion - "Answers In Simulation". It is on amazon as ebook. I was expecting something like that as both world views - Simulation and Christian are not really contradictory. Just finished reading it. I think what they describe as Christ is exactly what happened.

Do they say what the world is supposed to be a simulation of?

Tone · Aug 17, 2019

George Tolson said:
We finally got a book trying to reconcile Simulation Theory and Christian religion - "Answers In Simulation". It is on amazon as ebook. I was expecting something like that as both world views - Simulation and Christian are not really contradictory. Just finished reading it. I think what they describe as Christ is exactly what happened.

What do they "describe as Christ?"

variant · Aug 18, 2019

Zed Aliz Zed said:
see that's the real irony and paradox of it. even if ours is the simulation one of them has to be real and has to be the original and the first. in which case how did it come into being. but if ours is the simulation we might be able to hack it or something else. it opens the door to a lot of things.

Does it? It could be turtles all the way down.

Or failing that a circular set of simulations.

If the simulations aren't made of anything but rather a series of relationships inside of another simulation, then why do we need any substance aside from the relationships?

variant · Aug 18, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Do they say what the world is supposed to be a simulation of?

I would suppose it is a simulation of a universe.

Nithavela · Aug 18, 2019

I'm so happy you resurrected this thread.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 18, 2019

variant said:
I would suppose it is a simulation of a universe.

I was wondering what universe, i.e. the simulator's universe, or just some 'arbitrary' one.

variant · Aug 18, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
I was wondering what universe, i.e. the simulator's universe, or just some 'arbitrary' one.

My guess would be the massive amounts of difference you can get with similar stable starting conditions.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 19, 2019

variant said:
My guess would be the massive amounts of difference you can get with similar stable starting conditions.

Ah, OK - that's an interesting idea; much like a large-scale version of the question of what you'd get if you re-ran evolution with the same initial conditions, but without the problem of whether you duplicate all the environmental events too (plate tectonics, vulcanism, solar variation, meteorite impacts, etc.).

But it seems to me that there are definitional problems with simulation hypotheses, of purpose, granularity, and focus; i.e. given an applicable and complete set of laws of physics, it's not necessary to model every subatomic particle to know how atoms and molecules will behave, and it's not necessary to model every atom or molecule to know how bulk matter will behave, and so-on. If you're interested in planet formation, you don't need a whole universe; if you're interested in planetary life, you don't need much more than a solar system; if you're interested in intelligence, you don't need much more than a simulated brain fed with simulated inputs that vary in detail according to the focus of attention of the simulated brain...

George Tolson · Aug 19, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Do they say what the world is supposed to be a simulation of?

I don't want to give off spoilers, but they have a character there who represents Christ and they also have pretty sad look at the current simulated world full of sin and cruelty. The world they describe outside of the simulation is just nothing I ever thought would be....

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 19, 2019

George Tolson said:
I don't want to give off spoilers, but they have a character there who represents Christ and they also have pretty sad look at the current simulated world full of sin and cruelty. The world they describe outside of the simulation is just nothing I ever thought would be....

OK.

"ANSWERS IN SIMULATION is a story of a young man facing the challenges of the modern world. While the book offers a compelling and unpredictable plot, it also addresses the eternal questions of love, meaning of life, human sin, and the existence of God."

Meh.

variant · Aug 19, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Ah, OK - that's an interesting idea; much like a large-scale version of the question of what you'd get if you re-ran evolution with the same initial conditions, but without the problem of whether you duplicate all the environmental events too (plate tectonics, vulcanism, solar variation, meteorite impacts, etc.).

But it seems to me that there are definitional problems with simulation hypotheses, of purpose, granularity, and focus; i.e. given an applicable and complete set of laws of physics, it's not necessary to model every subatomic particle to know how atoms and molecules will behave, and it's not necessary to model every atom or molecule to know how bulk matter will behave, and so-on. If you're interested in planet formation, you don't need a whole universe; if you're interested in planetary life, you don't need much more than a solar system; if you're interested in intelligence, you don't need much more than a simulated brain fed with simulated inputs that vary in detail according to the focus of attention of the simulated brain...

It's not very hard to find a problem that we might use a universe simulation to answer if we were capable.

In fact, I've been told any fool can ask a thousand questions that the wisest of us could never answer.

So imgine that you could simulate universes down to the finest detail and...

Give it a try.

How often does intelligent life arise via chance given different starting conditions for universes?

George Tolson · Aug 19, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
OK.

"ANSWERS IN SIMULATION is a story of a young man facing the challenges of the modern world. While the book offers a compelling and unpredictable plot, it also addresses the eternal questions of love, meaning of life, human sin, and the existence of God."

Meh.

The young man is not the Christ at all. And yes it is a book directed at millennials. I am a little bit older than that

. It is still very interesting how they connected the dots in the plot.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 19, 2019

variant said:
It's not very hard to find a problem that we might use a universe simulation to answer if we were capable.

In fact, I've been told any fool can ask a thousand questions that the wisest of us could never answer.

So imgine that you could simulate universes down to the finest detail and...

Give it a try.

How often does intelligent life arise via chance given different starting conditions for universes?

Sure; but the issue I have is why simulate a universe down to quantum level detail? i.e. if you have the relevant laws of physics worked out that well, you don't need to make a realistic simulation of every detail to see how universes evolve on cosmological scales - we can generate (admittedly crude) approximations of universe evolution even now. The same applies to smaller-scale phenomena; if you can work out the distributions and compositions of gas & dust given various starting conditions, and you can model how they would form celestial objects, and how they would reprocess and redistribute that material, you can then simulate planetary systems with those varying compositions without simulating the whole thing every time. IOW, I just don't see why an intelligent simulator would simulate a whole bunch of stuff that has no significance other than in a statistical sense, and which could be modelled statistically.

Of course, it's all pure speculation - aliens probably move in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform

variant · Aug 19, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Sure; but the issue I have is why simulate a universe down to quantum level detail? i.e. if you have the relevant laws of physics worked out that well, you don't need to make a realistic simulation of every detail to see how universes evolve on cosmological scales - we can generate (admittedly crude) approximations of universe evolution even now.

We do. Modern cosmology is working on problems in exactly that way.

The same applies to smaller-scale phenomena; if you can work out the distributions and compositions of gas & dust given various starting conditions, and you can model how they would form celestial objects, and how they would reprocess and redistribute that material, you can then simulate planetary systems with those varying compositions without simulating the whole thing every time. IOW, I just don't see why an intelligent simulator would simulate a whole bunch of stuff that has no significance other than in a statistical sense, and which could be modelled statistically.

Of course, it's all pure speculation - aliens probably move in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform

It wouldn't be an approximation but instead an exact result, including the exact circumstances for each case. Which obviously gives you more information.

Say you wanted to know ALL the circumstances under which intelligent life could evolve in a universe given various starting conditions and their probability.

Given, the prospect of AI and drastically increasing computing power; our physical limitations might outweigh our mental limitations. Building more and more detailed simulations may be how intelligent life (and intelligence in general) really explores universes.

They might simply make them.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 19, 2019

variant said:
It wouldn't be an approximation but instead an exact result, including the exact circumstances for each case. Which obviously gives you more information.

I'm not convinced - it would be limited by the precision of the simulation, and chaotic behaviour would make exactness impossible.

Say you wanted to know ALL the circumstances under which intelligent life could evolve in a universe given various starting conditions and their probability.

That would be a finite but incredibly large number of simulations - all the more reason to 'limit' it to all possible planetary configurations

George Tolson · Aug 19, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Sure; but the issue I have is why simulate a universe down to quantum level detail? i.e. if you have the relevant laws of physics worked out that well, you don't need to make a realistic simulation of every detail to see how universes evolve on cosmological scales - we can generate (admittedly crude) approximations of universe evolution even now. The same applies to smaller-scale phenomena; if you can work out the distributions and compositions of gas & dust given various starting conditions, and you can model how they would form celestial objects, and how they would reprocess and redistribute that material, you can then simulate planetary systems with those varying compositions without simulating the whole thing every time. IOW, I just don't see why an intelligent simulator would simulate a whole bunch of stuff that has no significance other than in a statistical sense, and which could be modelled statistically.

Of course, it's all pure speculation - aliens probably move in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform

You actually don't need to simulate the whole universe down to quantum level. The concept of Viewer can be used. Meaning if something a human doesn't interact with shouldn't be simulated precisely. That can even explain things like duality of particle and wave in physics. Waves are less computational to simulate than all individual particles. We don't even need to have all those stars in the universe since they can be stored as dots in memory and only expand into full blown solar systems once we start study them.

Simulation Theory.

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

No one important

Member

Well-Known Member

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

Happy Cat

Happy Cat

our world is happy and mundane

Well-Known Member

Happy Cat

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Happy Cat

Member

Well-Known Member

Happy Cat

Well-Known Member

Member

Similar threads