Genesis

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Where does Genesis come into it?

Or is there a hidden Phil Collins song in it?

 

[Leviathan-at-play]

I appreciate your view, LAP. Unfortunately, I've only been able to ponder over the thinnest, wispiest glimpses of the presence of God's Divine Hand in Creation. It's why I usually identify as an Existentialist and Evidentialist.

But hey, if others think they see God's fingerprints, I won't poke them in the eye over it. I just hope they have some mercy on us who have spiritual cataracts.

I’d be very curious how, as a Christian and also existentialist/evidentialist, you see reality. Interested in elaborating how those aspects co-mingle? I could open a new thread if you’re game for exploration @2PhiloVoid

 

[Fromissouri]

Where does Genesis come into it?

Or is there a hidden Phil Collins song in it?

I wish that a lot of contemporary Christian music was as well composed, arranged, and performed as Easy Lover.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I wish that a lot of contemporary Christian music was as well composed, arranged, and performed as Easy Lover.

I love Easy Lover, but I prefer Jesus He Knows Me. I like the electric piano stuff in that song.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’d be very curious how, as a Christian and also existentialist/evidentialist, you see reality. Interested in elaborating how those aspects co-mingle? I could open a new thread if you’re game for exploration @2PhiloVoid

Oh, I suppose you could, but I think a lot of folks around here are tired of what it is they think I assert quite often, maybe all too often for their liking.

Most of what "I think" is, admittedly, not going to provide them the immediate religious special effects that they are so hoping for in a desperate world. I can't give them a Charlton Heston experience. Well, I can..................but it'll look more like The Planet of the Apes or The Omega Man than it will The Ten Commandments.

 

[Chesterton]

I can’t quite tell your level of seriousness or sarcasm here brother so forgive me when I invariably guess wrong

Yeah, I'm just kidding. I'm only serious when I need to be.

Even if we think we have learned something about OR, the question “How can we tell that that finding isn’t itself just a part of the simulation” looms large and unanswerable. There will always be infinite regress (outgress?) trying to claw ourselves into OR only to then wonder if we’re not just merely in another IR antechamber.

Maybe you should think about "I" rather than "we". C. S. Lewis wrote about this somewhere where he talked about a mailman delivering letters to people. You can only get the letter you get, and you have to go with the information you got. For you, as an individual, there's no question of an antechamber.

 

[Chesterton]

This misleading video doesn't have anything to do with a 2500-year-old Jewish religious text, an English rock band, or a current US government program to trash science by shoving AI into every orifice.

I know. I couldn't think of a better title. I hate the text almost as much as I hate the so-called rock band.

 

[Chesterton]

It never was. It was bong-hit philosophy and still is. Just because the stoners in question run tech companies doesn't make their nonsense fantasies real.

Who are you referring to?

...had ever tried to simulate anything real.

"simulate anything real" What could that possibly mean?

 

[sjastro]

It's no longer a theory or hypothesis.

But...but...the Nobel Prize in physics. That's better than Snopes.

And I thought you were being gullible for falling this nonsense and posting it in a mainstream science forum as if there was an element of credibility to it.
I have to the give credit to the motivational speaker masquerading as an informed individual for accurately describing the historical background given that rote learning only takes you so far.
His true understanding or more precisely the lack of it became crystal clear when the video transitioned to a we live in a simulation.

Posters of YT videos in mainstream science forums do so at your own peril, the chances are becoming increasingly smaller the content is an accurate portrayal of the science.
Legitimate individuals like Sabine Hossenfelder, a real scientist, have found the YT algorithms lead to larger audiences and greater financial rewards by bending the truth instead of discussing the science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And I thought you were being gullible for falling this nonsense and posting it in a mainstream science forum as if there was an element of credibility to it.
I have to the give credit to the motivational speaker masquerading as an informed individual for accurately describing the historical background given that rote learning only takes you so far.
His true understanding or more precisely the lack of it became crystal clear when the video transitioned to a we live in a simulation.

Posters of YT videos in mainstream science forums do so at your own peril, the chances are becoming increasingly smaller the content is an accurate portrayal of the science.
Legitimate individuals like Sabine Hossenfelder, a real scientist, have found the YT algorithms lead to larger audiences and greater financial rewards by bending the truth instead of discussing the science.

Since you're here, brother Sjastro, I have a quick question for you since I think you are educated about this stuff more than most here: Do you think some of the apparent confusion and overt willingness to imbibe the Simulation Hypothesis comes in because someone like Tom Bilyeau who is apparently a game designer (?) may think in more Functionalist terms when handling computer data rather than in Physicalist terms and that the Functionalist set of assumptions is then imputed into a sort of pseudo-metaphysics?

I'm just wondering what you think since I was reading something in the book, The Human person in science and theology by Gregersen, N.H., Görman, U. and Drees, W., 2000, and I was wondering if it applies on this issue. Thanks!

 

[sjastro]

Since you're here, brother Sjastro, I have a quick question for you since I think you are educated about this stuff more than most here: Do you think some of the apparent confusion and overt willingness to imbibe the Simulation Hypothesis comes in because someone like Tom Bilyeau who is apparently a game designer (?) may think in more Functionalist terms when handling computer data rather than in Physicalist terms and that the Functionalist set of assumptions is then imputed into a sort of pseudo-metaphysics?

I'm just wondering what you think since I was reading something in the book, The Human person in science and theology by Gregersen, N.H., Görman, U. and Drees, W., 2000, and I was wondering if it applies on this issue. Thanks!

In all honesty I don't know but can only speculate on what goes on in people's minds.
Sabine Hossenfelder is (was?) a theoretical physicist trained in high energy physics and quantum gravity, has now become a social media celebrity making comments on science well outside her area of expertise which resemble pop-sci articles that are high on drama and very little on substance.

There is a financial incentive to make YT videos that are 'controversial' and against mainstream science, perhaps Hossenfelder and Bilyeu are motivated by the same monetary reasons.......who knows?

One of the better known simulation hypothesises is by the physicist Frank Tipler, which might hold more relevance in the light of your referenced book.
I asked ChatGPT-5.4 to summarize it but instead was drowned in a sea of mathematics and therefore requested it to produce a simplified image we can all understand including the rebuttals from scientists, who would pay more attention to one of their own particularly when the hypothesis is presented in a published article, not some YT video.

Scientist / critic	Field​	Main criticism of Tipler’s Omega Point	Why it matters
George F. R. Ellis	Cosmologist​	Ellis strongly criticized Tipler’s Omega Point theory as pseudoscientific and overly speculative. He argued that Tipler’s conclusions do not follow from established physics in the way Tipler claims.	This attacks the core claim that the Omega Point is a serious consequence of accepted cosmology rather than a speculative metaphysical construction. (Wikipedia)
David H. Coule	Theoretical physicist​	Coule, with Ellis, challenged the physical assumptions behind Tipler’s end-of-universe scenario, especially the feasibility of life controlling the entire universe near a final collapse.	Tipler’s theory requires universal control, communication, and computation. If realistic cosmology prevents that, the Omega Point mechanism fails. (Christians in Science (CiS))
David Deutsch	Physicist / quantum computation theorist​	Deutsch was initially sympathetic to some physical aspects of Omega Point cosmology, but later rejected it as ruled out by observation.	Modern cosmological evidence points toward accelerating expansion, not a future universal recollapse. Without a final Big Crunch, Tipler’s Omega Point cannot occur in its original form. (Wikipedia)
Sean M. Carroll	Theoretical physicist / cosmologist​	Carroll has dismissed Tipler’s later Omega Point/theological claims as non-serious physics, while noting that Tipler had done legitimate earlier work in general relativity.	This separates Tipler’s technical physics career from the much more speculative claim that physics entails resurrection, God, or simulated afterlives. (Preposterous Universe)
Lawrence M. Krauss	Physicist / cosmologist​	Krauss criticized Tipler’s arguments as uncritical and unsubstantiated, especially where Tipler tries to derive Christian theological conclusions from physics.	The objection is that Tipler moves from speculative cosmology to theological certainty without adequate empirical support. (Wikipedia)
John Polkinghorne	Physicist and theologian​	Polkinghorne criticized Tipler’s extreme reductionism and the attempt to make resurrection depend on a future cosmic computer.	This is important because Polkinghorne was himself sympathetic to religion, so his criticism was not simply anti-religious; he objected to Tipler’s attempt to reduce theology to speculative physics. (ZygoN Journal)
Anders Sandberg	Researcher in future studies / philosophy of technology​	Sandberg has argued that Omega Point theory contains major gaps, including missing proofs for key claims.	This challenges the logical chain from “advanced future intelligence” to “infinite computation” to “resurrection/simulated universes.” (Wikipedia)
Michael Shermer	Skeptic / science writer​	Shermer criticized Tipler’s thesis as an example of highly speculative reasoning dressed in scientific language.	This objection is methodological: the theory may use physics vocabulary, but that does not make its theological or metaphysical conclusions scientifically established. (Wikipedia)

Main recurring objections​

Objection	Explanation
No Big Crunch	Tipler’s model depends on a universe that eventually collapses toward a final singularity. Current evidence instead supports accelerated expansion.
Event horizons and causal limits	If parts of the universe become permanently causally disconnected, no future intelligence can control or compute over the whole universe.
Infinite computation is not established	Tipler needs computational capacity to diverge toward infinity, but critics argue this is not a demonstrated result of known physics.
Speculative jump to resurrection	Even if future beings could run simulations, it does not follow that they would perfectly resurrect every historical person.
Physics-to-theology leap	Critics object that Tipler turns speculative cosmology into claims about God, immortality, and resurrection without sufficient empirical grounding.

So the compact summary is: the strongest scientific objection is that modern cosmology does not support the recollapsing universe Tipler’s Omega Point requires. The broader objection is that Tipler takes a speculative physical scenario and loads it with far stronger claims about infinite computation, resurrection, and simulated worlds than the physics justifies.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In all honesty I don't know but can only speculate on what goes on in people's minds.
Sabine Hossenfelder is (was?) a theoretical physicist trained in high energy physics and quantum gravity, has now become a social media celebrity making comments on science well outside her area of expertise which resemble pop-sci articles that are high on drama and very little on substance.

There is a financial incentive to make YT videos that are 'controversial' and against mainstream science, perhaps Hossenfelder and Bilyeu are motivated by the same monetary reasons.......who knows?

One of the better known simulation hypothesises is by the physicist Frank Tipler, which might hold more relevance in the light of your referenced book.
I asked ChatGPT-5.4 to summarize it but instead was drowned in a sea of mathematics and therefore requested it to produce a simplified image we can all understand including the rebuttals from scientists, who would pay more attention to one of their own particularly when the hypothesis is presented in a published article, not some YT video.

Although my inquiry comes at the OP topic from a different angle in that it's more from within the debates over the tensions in the Mind/Body divide and the contrasting approaches to the theory of mind that are found in Human Psychology vs. Artificial Intelligence. I like the info you posted and I think it's useful/valuable for other reasons, but I also asked the following question of a lesser AI and got the follow up in conjunction to what you stated about physicalism in posts above and what I was reading in the book I cited earlier. This doesn't clinch a definitive conclusion as to why someone in the Computer Gaming industry (or other Tech Industries) might be drawn to the Simulation theorizing that's being run about these days. But it does make for an entertaining movie....

Q: Does Functionalism vs Physicalism play a part in the acceptance of the Simulation Hypothesis?

AI Answer: Yes, functionalism and physicalism are relevant to the acceptance of the Simulation Hypothesis. Functionalism suggests that mental states are defined by their functions rather than their physical makeup, which aligns with the idea that consciousness could exist in a simulated environment, while physicalism posits that everything is physical, raising questions about the nature of reality in a simulation.

Role of Functionalism and Physicalism in the Simulation Hypothesis​

The Simulation Hypothesis suggests that our perceived reality may be a computer-generated simulation. The acceptance of this hypothesis is influenced by philosophical perspectives, particularly functionalism and physicalism.

Functionalism​

• Definition: Functionalism posits that mental states are defined by their functions rather than their physical composition.
• Implications for Simulation: This view supports the idea that consciousness could exist in a simulated environment. If mental states can be replicated through functional processes, then a simulated being could possess consciousness similar to that of a biological entity.

Physicalism​

• Definition: Physicalism asserts that everything is physical, meaning all phenomena, including consciousness, arise from physical processes.
• Challenges for Simulation: This perspective raises questions about the nature of reality within a simulation. If everything is physical, then the existence of a simulated reality must adhere to physical laws, which complicates the idea of a fully immersive simulation that can replicate all aspects of the real world.

Comparison of Functionalism and Physicalism​

Aspect	Functionalism	Physicalism
Focus	Functions of mental states	Physical basis of all phenomena
View on Consciousness	Can exist in non-physical systems	Tied to physical processes
Implications for Simulation	Supports consciousness in simulations	Questions feasibility of full simulations

Conclusion​

Both functionalism and physicalism contribute to the discourse surrounding the Simulation Hypothesis. Functionalism provides a framework that allows for consciousness in a simulated context, while physicalism challenges the feasibility of such simulations by emphasizing the necessity of physical laws. Together, they shape the philosophical landscape of this intriguing hypothesis.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Who are you referring to?

Simulation "theory", the topic of the opening of the video. What the title of the video claim was "just proved" by experiments that won the Nobel prize 3 years before the video was made.

"simulate anything real" What could that possibly mean?

Building a simulation of a physical system ( a hurricane, airflow over an aircraft wing, a galaxy forming, burning fuel in combustion chamber, turbine, or engine cylinder, the generation of magnetic fields by the convective dynamos of the Earth or the Sun, etc. requires compromises to be made so they can be calculated. For most of these things that is to replace the details of every atom or molecule with a fluid continuum. When we do experiments we can detect individual atoms and particles. A simulation that contained that much detail would require a computer with even more computational elements than particles in our "simulated" Universe. The easiest way to simulate a Universe at that level of detail would be to just make a Universe and let it evolve.

Clearly these "simulation fans" have no idea how actual simulations are constructed and the resources require to do so.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One of the better known simulation hypothesises is by the physicist Frank Tipler, which might hold more relevance in the light of your referenced book.
I asked ChatGPT-5.4 to summarize it but instead was drowned in a sea of mathematics and therefore requested it to produce a simplified image we can all understand including the rebuttals from scientists, who would pay more attention to one of their own particularly when the hypothesis is presented in a published article, not some YT video.

Tipler might be the first time a cosmologist got Jerusalem syndrome. It's too bad. I liked his Modern Physics text.

 

[sjastro]

Although my inquiry comes at the OP topic from a different angle in that it's more from within the debates over the tensions in the Mind/Body divide and the contrasting approaches to the theory of mind that are found in Human Psychology vs. Artificial Intelligence. I like the info you posted and I think it's useful/valuable for other reasons, but I also asked the following question of a lesser AI and got the follow up in conjunction to what you stated about physicalism in posts above and what I was reading in the book I cited earlier. This doesn't clinch a definitive conclusion as to why someone in the Computer Gaming industry (or other Tech Industries) might be drawn to the Simulation theorizing that's being run about these days. But it does make for an entertaining movie....

Q: Does Functionalism vs Physicalism play a part in the acceptance of the Simulation Hypothesis?

AI Answer: Yes, functionalism and physicalism are relevant to the acceptance of the Simulation Hypothesis. Functionalism suggests that mental states are defined by their functions rather than their physical makeup, which aligns with the idea that consciousness could exist in a simulated environment, while physicalism posits that everything is physical, raising questions about the nature of reality in a simulation.

Role of Functionalism and Physicalism in the Simulation Hypothesis​

The Simulation Hypothesis suggests that our perceived reality may be a computer-generated simulation. The acceptance of this hypothesis is influenced by philosophical perspectives, particularly functionalism and physicalism.

Functionalism​

• Definition: Functionalism posits that mental states are defined by their functions rather than their physical composition.
• Implications for Simulation: This view supports the idea that consciousness could exist in a simulated environment. If mental states can be replicated through functional processes, then a simulated being could possess consciousness similar to that of a biological entity.

Physicalism​

• Definition: Physicalism asserts that everything is physical, meaning all phenomena, including consciousness, arise from physical processes.
• Challenges for Simulation: This perspective raises questions about the nature of reality within a simulation. If everything is physical, then the existence of a simulated reality must adhere to physical laws, which complicates the idea of a fully immersive simulation that can replicate all aspects of the real world.

Comparison of Functionalism and Physicalism​

Aspect	Functionalism	Physicalism
Focus	Functions of mental states	Physical basis of all phenomena
View on Consciousness	Can exist in non-physical systems	Tied to physical processes
Implications for Simulation	Supports consciousness in simulations	Questions feasibility of full simulations

Conclusion​

Both functionalism and physicalism contribute to the discourse surrounding the Simulation Hypothesis. Functionalism provides a framework that allows for consciousness in a simulated context, while physicalism challenges the feasibility of such simulations by emphasizing the necessity of physical laws. Together, they shape the philosophical landscape of this intriguing hypothesis.

There's that word consciousness again which has received a bad rap from the likes of @Hans Blaster and myself when applied to quantum mechanics.
Since this is a science forum an obvious question which arises is what evidence supports consciousness under functionalism?
In the case for physicalism the philosophical or metaphysical question as to why neural activity produces consciousness science cannot answer but empirically there is a connection between neural activity and consciousness, such as how consciousness is affected due to brain damage, the effect of drugs etc.
For functionalism the scope for evidence is far weaker given that the Simulation Hypothesis shares the same problems with AI, namely how do you test either for consciousness which are non biological systems; it may turn out to be unfalsifiable like the using science to show God exists or does not exist.

Another point that needs to be mentioned simulations are not purely confined to the use of computers.
In my field of having used science in forensic engineering, the simulations are based on the use and development of experiments not computers.
Each shares the same objectives of using model based realities for real world problems but with the use of different tools.
I doubt anyone would consider emerging consciousness from a simulation based on an experiment.

 

[AV1611VET]

'October of 2022, the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for proving that the universe renders like a video game.'

That says it all.

 

[Chesterton]

Simulation "theory", the topic of the opening of the video. What the title of the video claim was "just proved" by experiments that won the Nobel prize 3 years before the video was made.

You mentioned the "stoners in question'. I asked who you were referring to.

Building a simulation of a physical system ( a hurricane, airflow over an aircraft wing, a galaxy forming, burning fuel in combustion chamber, turbine, or engine cylinder, the generation of magnetic fields by the convective dynamos of the Earth or the Sun, etc. requires compromises to be made so they can be calculated. For most of these things that is to replace the details of every atom or molecule with a fluid continuum. When we do experiments we can detect individual atoms and particles. A simulation that contained that much detail would require a computer with even more computational elements than particles in our "simulated" Universe. The easiest way to simulate a Universe at that level of detail would be to just make a Universe and let it evolve.

Clearly these "simulation fans" have no idea how actual simulations are constructed and the resources require to do so.

Agreed. Except he's not talking about a new simulation, he's talking about the one we're in.

 

[Chesterton]

And I thought you were being gullible for falling this nonsense and posting it in a mainstream science forum as if there was an element of credibility to it.
I have to the give credit to the motivational speaker masquerading as an informed individual for accurately describing the historical background given that rote learning only takes you so far.
His true understanding or more precisely the lack of it became crystal clear when the video transitioned to a we live in a simulation.

Posters of YT videos in mainstream science forums do so at your own peril, the chances are becoming increasingly smaller the content is an accurate portrayal of the science.
Legitimate individuals like Sabine Hossenfelder, a real scientist, have found the YT algorithms lead to larger audiences and greater financial rewards by bending the truth instead of discussing the science.

I don't have any particular problem with anyone making a buck however they can, but at least my guy didn't use two comic actors and an ad selling a personal thorium isotope emitter in the first minute as Sabine did last month when she chimed in on the topic. Anyhow, did you have anything to say about the topic?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You mentioned the "stoners in question'. I asked who you were referring to.

The people who have these "profound conversations" while using THC that lead to the "idea" about the Universe being a simulation.

Agreed. Except he's not talking about a new simulation, he's talking about the one we're in.

I talked about real simulations to illustrate how silly the "Universe = simulation" notion is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Agreed. Except he's not talking about a new simulation, he's talking about the one we're in.

What does Genesis have to do with it? Or are you using the original Greek definition of 'origin' here, which actually makes even less sense.