If we are living in a simulation does this mean God does not exist?

[Neogaia777]

@FrumiousBandersnatch

It's hard for us to think of, or conceive of a thing, a choice, etc, that would not at all be based on anything at all entirely at all, etc, but I do believe such a thing exists...

But I think the freest will we could have, would to be able to know of it/them all (all considerations, etc, or any and all factors that would influence us, etc) and know of them all, and being able to stop them all, and then be able to pick and choose from among them all, before deciding and/or acting or choosing, etc...

And I think that's as "free" as were maybe ever going to get, etc...

Or at least from among what we're capable of conceiving of right now, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Mark Quayle]

No; we just realise that logic hasn't changed (though there are alternative logics), but our experience of the world, and the conclusions we draw from it, are parochial; beyond the limits of our everyday experience the world differs from the assumptions we've drawn from that experience.

Causation is not, as far as I'm aware, a formal law of logic, but more... folk-lore

I guess, then, like 'chance', mere language. The way we tend to think...? (maybe I should add, 'etc.') I don't know much, that I will grant you. You have taken some of my assumptions and made me try to rethink them. I'm not at all sure they (like causation) are not logical, i.e. mathematically necessary fact, but it has been fun thinking about alternatives, (that still don't make sense to me) but I will happily admit I don't know how to prove them. Thank you for that.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That the big bang happened at a region in space and the universe was an infinitesimal object that expanded are two common misconceptions.

The big bang happened everywhere - the whole universe was very hot and dense and it all expanded rapidly; it didn't expand into anything because it was everything - everything moved further away from everything else. It could well have been spatially infinitely large at the big bang (this is often assumed by cosmologists, for convenience).

When informed people say that the universe was very small (estimates vary from the size of a grapefruit to sub-atomic) at the big bang, they mean the observable universe.

Not that I fully agree, but for the sake of understanding the dynamics involved I can imagine (were we there within that 'infinitesimal' object), it might have appeared to us as large as it appears now, no?

As you present it here, it seems the universe, since it 'didn't expand into anything [pre-existent], then there is no such thing as truly 'empty' nothingness --it would be self-contradictory to say there is 'empty (dimension-less (?)) space' for it to expand into, if I understand you correctly. Thus, I'm led to think you posit the notion that reality itself is bound by the expansion. That to me, implies that the universe, which does have dimension, (aaargh! --there goes my brain again!), and therefore definite boundaries, ....I don't know, this doesn't add up to me yet. I'm guessing there is something to say the boundary might seem infinite, but only within this reality, since space/time curves at those extremes or something, etc....? (lol, sorry).

Seems to me some sort of blending of philosophy with physics going on here. I hear there is math to show the truth of whatever it is, ('it', that I am unable to grasp as yet), but it escapes description even from those who to any degree understand it. I'm trying.

 

[Taodeching]

Whether or not we live in a simulation is still up for debate but it would be very interesting if we did but what I want to know is what are the implications this would have on whether or not God exists?

Maybe we created the machines and started a war they won, now we are the batteries

 

[Mark Quayle]

The problem here is that 'good by definition/assertion' debases the currency of the word, making it arbitrary, meaningless even. This is the second horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma, to paraphrase, 'Does God command what is good, or is it good because God commands it?' The former suggests moral value independent of God, the second that what God commands is good by definition. But if what God is, does, and commands, is good by definition, then it has no necessary relation to what we mere humans construe as good, bad, right, wrong, etc.

Logically, such equivalence-by-definition is tautological - in the statements "God is good", "God does what is good" and "God commands what is good", we can replace 'good' with its definition: "God is God", "God does what God does", and "God commands what God commands", and we can see that the semantics of 'good' have fled the scene, it's become meaningless - evil God, good God - however wonderful or horrific we might all find the acts or commands of God, they're all, by arbitrary definition, morally & ethically impeccable.

[One unfortunate consequence of this is that, in the continuing absence of the verifiable presence of God, anyone who purports to represent God potentially wields arbitrary and absolute moral power... by definition.]

This is one reason I love the first amendment --unlike some Christians, I do NOT want a state religion, as nobody accurately represents God (nor good, for that matter). To wield that sort of authority over others is antithetical to personal freedom.

I've never held that anyone truthfully represents God, though it seems we are expected in some way to represent him --hopefully to the best of our abilities (which isn't much). That is to say, if I wish people whose paths I cross to believe in God, I should behave well. (Ha! to some degree, I think you do a better job of that than I do --you certainly seem to have logic well in hand, including more intellectual integrity).

We do, I think, right (as in your mathematical proposition), to say that if God is good we can equate that with 'God is God'. It comes to the same thing, but is only meaningless if WE must be the ones to present the meaning of God (or good); but it is not in our understanding to say that Good is God, since we do not know what Good is. To me, at least, in some philosophical sense, all the Creator made is a digital 1, not 0. Even logic, or fact, to me is itself a digital positive, (a mathematical absolute value), and if God is first cause, then he 'invented' them. Shame they are not falsifiable, so we can talk about them more easily

Anyhow, "Morally impeccable", to me, is implied by first cause. I'm not sure how that is arbitrary. It seems to me it is only so if WE are the ones to define good. Many things we do and believe that we may put into words according to our worldview, including our notion of cause-and-effect, that don't do justice to what we wish to be able to explain, many things we trust in, may well be trustworthy, even if our concepts of them are not. But no, we can't trust the concept, except as better than some others, according to conscience and reason as far as we can take it.

To me, it makes no sense to call anything that is not first cause, 'God'; I'm hoping you would agree that if God (i.e. first cause) is Good, all that he made is good, though, not knowing how he did what he did, I can't prove that as yet, probably never, unless by a different route or reasoning [than through HOW he did it]. I think a rock is good, the universe is good, the principles by which the universe operates, and math, are all good. They are not morally neutral, except to our use of 'morality'. (Wow, sorry for the word salad --my brain is scrambling again, trying to get into words what I think I mean, lol)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Whether or not we live in a simulation is still up for debate but it would be very interesting if we did but what I want to know is what are the implications this would have on whether or not God exists?

From what I understand, it is not very uncommon to suppose we are simply figments of God's imaginations. I can see how at least, the difference between what we consider real, and solid reality from which God operates, is that different.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You could make a choice with full knowledge that does not show partiality, which is the same thing as a preference, and it, or that, or those choices, does not have to be based on any kind of prior events...

We maybe can't right now, but there might be some other being, or beings, or set of beings, who can or could, or could or can, etc...

I don't see how that can be possible, even if we had full knowledge. By cause and effect, it is impossible to do something that is not effect. It makes no sense to say there is anything but one first cause.

Also, it makes no sense to say that we will choose two things at once, so no, we cannot be wise enough to make two or more choices equally possible.

 

[Neogaia777]

I don't see how that can be possible, even if we had full knowledge. By cause and effect, it is impossible to do something that is not effect.

It's all that we know right now, unfortunately...

It makes no sense to say there is anything but one first cause.

From which all else after it or that is all only only effect after that, and not really choice at all, etc, yes, I would say you are 100% right about that right now, etc...

Also, it makes no sense to say that we will choose two things at once, so no, we cannot be wise enough to make two or more choices equally possible.

Where did I ever talk about choosing two or more things at once, or at the same time, etc...?

Cause I'm not understanding what you mean by this, could you perhaps explain or elaborate a bit more maybe, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I don't see how that can be possible, even if we had full knowledge. By cause and effect, it is impossible to do something that is not effect. It makes no sense to say there is anything but one first cause.

Also, it makes no sense to say that we will choose two things at once, so no, we cannot be wise enough to make two or more choices equally possible.

It's all that we know right now, unfortunately...

The question both I, and @FrumiousBandersnatch seem to be grappling or wrestling with right now, is how to ever be truly free of it/that, etc...?

All being cause and effect, or only effect from after what was the very first cause, etc...? In whatever was the very beginning, or very first original first true cause, etc...?

How we make a true choice in that context or framework, or apart from "this context or framework here", etc...? That we exist in now here, etc...?

Cause it's always based on something, or some prior things prior to it, etc, and how do we ever make a truly unbiased, or not already chosen for us choice, etc, apart from any or all of that or it ever, etc...?

How do we either know or don't know, that all our choices are either not, or were not already, all already made or made up for us already, in that context specifically speaking, etc...?

The context of all being cause and effect from the very beginning, etc...?

And I do mean "all", etc...

How are we ever free of it, etc...?

And "what would that even look like", etc...?

Would full knowledge of all or any of that first, really even help, etc...?

Or would you, me, or we, still be bound to it still, etc...?

"Causality", "forever and always", etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

The question both I, and @FrumiousBandersnatch seem to be grappling or wrestling with right now, is how to ever be truly free of it/that, etc...?

All being cause and effect, or only effect from after what was the very first cause, etc...? In whatever was the very beginning, or very first original first true cause, etc...?

How we make a true choice in that context or framework, or apart from "this context or framework here", etc...? That we exist in now here, etc...?

Cause it's always based on something, or some prior things prior to it, etc, and how do we ever make a truly unbiased, or not already chosen for us choice, etc, apart from any or all of that or it ever, etc...?

How do we either know or don't know, that all our choices are either not, or were not already, all already made or made up for us already, in that context specifically speaking, etc...?

The context of all being cause and effect from the very beginning, etc...?

And I do mean "all", etc...

How are we ever free of it, etc...?

And "what would that even look like", etc...?

Would full knowledge of all or any of that first, really even help, etc...?

Or would you, me, or we, still be bound to it still, etc...?

"Causality", "forever and always", etc...?

God Bless!

At any rate, this seems to have happened, or been a result of "the fall", etc, and from that time, we have all been caught up in it, this trap of a causality, or causality loop, etc...

Even God in and of the OT Himself seems to have been caught up in it after that, etc, although He still kind of was, or was still able to still somewhat stay, at least still somewhat outside of it still maybe, a little bit maybe after that maybe, etc, or during that maybe, etc, but I don't think He was very happy about it after that, etc...

That now, even everything He was going to do, or would be able to do now, would all only be just be only cause and effect after that now only maybe, etc... or just, just only maybe just only "effect" after that now only maybe, etc... And that this would now last, maybe for a very, very long time after that now maybe only, etc...?

I can only hope that there might come a day, that if those effects, or the result/results of the fall are ever fixed, or repaired, or reversed, that maybe we will all be truly free again after that again, etc...

But for now, it is what it is, and is all that we know right now, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Where did I ever talk about choosing two or more things at once, or at the same time, etc...?

Cause I'm not understanding what you mean by this, could you perhaps explain or elaborate a bit more maybe, etc...?

You said if we could have full knowledge, we could make decisions that were not according to preference of partiality. That necessarily implies that we could do either of two choices. We can only do what we do, never the other option. We cannot do both, so both are not equally available. Our preference, even if only for that instant, is what we choose. We always prefer one option over the [apparently viable] other.

I was using the self-evident fact that we cannot choose both of two mutually exclusive options, to show that even if we knew everything, we still could not choose both in the same decision.

 

[Neogaia777]

You said if we could have full knowledge, we could make decisions that were not according to preference of partiality. That necessarily implies that we could do either of two choices. We can only do what we do, never the other option. We cannot do both, so both are not equally available. Our preference, even if only for that instant, is what we choose. We always prefer one option over the [apparently viable] other.

Not if we're not going by our own will or choosing, etc, but something else instead, etc, like a rule of law or code, or something like that, to where our own will or choosing is never really ever chosen exclusively, etc...

Like in the case of a "God", etc...

And a God that was now maybe caught up in "causality", etc... (See my post just before/above this one, etc)...

Or that was now bound up in and by His own laws and/or rules now in a fallen world now, etc...

I was using the self-evident fact that we cannot choose both of two mutually exclusive options, to show that even if we knew everything, we still could not choose both in the same decision.

Well, that's a given, isn't it...?

I mean no one can choose two or more, especially mutually exclusive, things, and or wills or choices or options, at the very same time exclusively, right...?

But I still don't think I was talking about that or saying that though, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

At any rate, this seems to have happened, or been a result of "the fall", etc, and from that time, we have all been caught up in it, this trap of a causality, or causality loop, etc...

Even God in and of the OT Himself seems to have been caught up in it after that, etc, although He still kind of was, or was still able to still somewhat stay, at least still somewhat outside of it still maybe, a little bit maybe after that maybe, etc, or during that maybe, etc, but I don't think He was very happy about it after that, etc...

That now, even everything He was going to do, or would be able to do now, would all only be just be only cause and effect after that now only maybe, etc... or just, just only maybe just only "effect" after that now only maybe, etc... And that this would now last, maybe for a very, very long time after that now maybe only, etc...?

I can only hope that there might come a day, that if those effects, or the result/results of the fall are ever fixed, or repaired, or reversed, that maybe we will all be truly free again after that again, etc...

But for now, it is what it is, and is all that we know right now, etc...

God Bless!

Not if we're not going by our own will or choosing, etc, but something else instead, etc, like a rule of law or code, or something like that, to where our own will or choosing is never really ever chosen exclusively, etc...

Like in the case of a "God", etc...

And a God that was now maybe caught up in "causality", etc... (See my post just before/above this one, etc)...

Or that was now bound up in and by His own laws and/or rules now in a fallen world now, etc...



Well, that's a given, isn't it...?

I mean no one can choose two or more, especially mutually exclusive, things, and or wills or choices or options, at the very same time exclusively, right...?

But I still don't think I was talking about that or saying that though, etc...?

God Bless!

God in the OT, starting out as early as when Adam and Eve disobeyed, etc, was constantly saying things like, "Because you have now done this or that, etc, here I am now doing (having to be doing) this or that", etc, etc, etc...

"Etc", etc...

Or, "For this or that reason", etc, was another one He would use or say a lot also, etc...

There are many forms of it, but it's in there, in the OT, a lot, in there, "a lot", etc...

Seems like being caught up in some form of causality, or causality loop maybe, to me, etc...?

And maybe bound by some form of rule of law, or certain set of rules or laws now also maybe, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

God in the OT, starting out as early as when Adam and Eve disobeyed, etc, was constantly saying things like, "Because you have now done this or that, etc, here I am now doing (having to be doing) this or that", etc, etc, etc...

"Etc", etc...

Seems like being caught up in some form of causality, or causality loop maybe, to me, etc...?

And maybe bound by some form of rule of law, or certain set of rules or laws now also maybe, etc...?

God Bless!

He did seem to know how it all worked though...? (God in the OT, etc)...?

Which is probably way much more than we know, etc...?

But still seemed to caught up in it now though, along with the rest of us now though, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

God in the OT, starting out as early as when Adam and Eve disobeyed, etc, was constantly saying things like, "Because you have now done this or that, etc, here I am now doing (having to be doing) this or that", etc, etc, etc...

"Etc", etc...

Or, "For this or that reason", etc, was another one He would use or say a lot also, etc...

There are many forms of it, but it's in there, in the OT, a lot, in there, "a lot", etc...

Seems like being caught up in some form of causality, or causality loop maybe, to me, etc...?

And maybe bound by some form of rule of law, or certain set of rules or laws now also maybe, etc...?

God Bless!

And it was/is/still is, etc, a "curse", etc... that Jesus was supposed to have supposedly delivered us all from, and freed us all from, etc, though I think that still has yet to be fully realized by most of all of us yet, myself included right now yet, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

God in the OT, starting out as early as when Adam and Eve disobeyed, etc, was constantly saying things like, "Because you have now done this or that, etc, here I am now doing (having to be doing) this or that", etc, etc, etc...

"Etc", etc...

Or, "For this or that reason", etc, was another one He would use or say a lot also, etc...

There are many forms of it, but it's in there, in the OT, a lot, in there, "a lot", etc...

Seems like being caught up in some form of causality, or causality loop maybe, to me, etc...?

And maybe bound by some form of rule of law, or certain set of rules or laws now also maybe, etc...?

God Bless!

He did seem to know how it all worked though...? (God in the OT, etc)...?

Which is probably way much more than we know, etc...?

But still seemed to caught up in it now though, along with the rest of us now though, etc...?

God Bless!

I've got to wonder sometimes though, as I have wondered sometimes though, if even God in and of the OT, didn't break with His own rules or codes of law sometimes though, etc...?

Like with the flood, as just one example, etc, cause I don't know if that was part of the "program" or rule of law or code right then, etc...?

And there are maybe just a few other times that I wonder this, in the OT, as well, etc...?

But, hey, He's God right, so I guess He gets to do whatever He wants, correct...?

Anyway...

Anyway, but I wonder how much of it was all just "causality" for Him also I wonder, etc...?

Or sometimes at times I wonder maybe, etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

Then it's not mainstream science.
String theory is not mainstream science, neither is a holographic universe nor the multiverse.
At best these theories are classified as protoscience as general relativity and quantum mechanics were at one stage until supportive evidence was found.

History will show if the above examples of protoscience will become mainstream or fringe science.

Yes I agree but it seems like these ideas are promoted as already being validated. I think that this is because they offer so much support for existing theories and there is nothing else around that offers any hope of explaining what we are observing.

 

[stevevw]

Sure; but you can't validly argue against the implications of a proposal by questioning its validity. Denying the antecedent is fallacious.

But I can go along with the idea when necessary which can allow me to support other points I may be making. Like that a simulation is just another way of trying to explain how humans think there is something beyond what they see. The point isnt about the simulations validity but rather the philosophical idea of something beyond reality.

Assumptions and expectations are not, and don't imply, knowledge. There are many 'obvious' or 'commonsense' assumptions and expectations that are simply wrong. Commonly seen in superstitions, commonly exploited in gambling.

The support for humans having an innate knowledge or understanding of dualism and immaterialism is based on scientific tests. It is not something that is based on superstitious or is indoctrinated into humans but a default cognitive position we seem to be born with.

Classical physics is demonstrably wrong. To someone who knows only classical physics, the idea that space, time, and simultaneity are not absolute or that a single particle can have two opposite spins at the same time seems like science fantasy, yet they are demonstrably true. Don't be surprised that these theories predict other strange effects - given certain assumptions. The argument from incredulity is fallacious.

I have no problems believing what we are finding with quantum physics. As you say it is verified by the science. It is just counter intuitive. Some believe like Einstein did that there may be some underlying reason that is yet to be found which will unite classical physics and therefore make it the fundelmental cause of our reality.

Others believe that this counter intuition is confirmation of something beyond the classical physics that is at work and we will continue as you say to find these strange outcomes. That is why some say that it makes more sense to go with ideas that use something like consciousness and information as a non-physical basis of reality as this fits in better with what is going on and the classical science has reached its limits.

One is a prediction of an empirically demonstrable established theory, given certain reasonable assumptions, the other has no empirical or theoretical background whatsoever.

Lets say there is a simulation and the creators have discovered the theory of everything in uniting classical physics with quantum physics. In doing so they discovered consciousness is immaterial and there is some immaterial force at work. This allows them to create things that defy the material world. How is that different to what is said about God. Just because we can explain things and put some theory to it doesnt mean it is not something beyond the material world at work.

Posthuman refers to the level of technology (as I already said).

I find that this is not sufficently explained as it is misleading and can cause people to think that Posthuman is referring to the creators themselves and not just the level of technology. Bostrom and many supporters of the simulation refer to the creators of the simulation as Posthumans such as Posthuman civilization or Posthuman decendents.

That seems to speak about the creators rather than the level of technology. I guess this logically follows and causes people to think this because to be able to create that level of technology the creators would have to be tremedously clever to the point of being godlike anyway. It also as I have mentioned has many paralles with the creation story and it seems that many people agree with this. Some who support the simulation idea explain that the creators of the simulation can be other entities besides humans like aliens or even godlike creatures.

Who, or what, is the godlike entity that may have created a simulated universe? One possibility, supporters of the simulation hypothesis say, is that it’s a race of advanced beings — space aliens
Are we living in a simulated universe? Here’s what scientists say.
In the event of a simulation breakdown, the director — whether teenager or giant-headed alien — could simply “edit the states of any brains that have become aware of an anomaly before it spoils the simulation.
What is Simulation Theory and Why Does it Matter?
New York University philosophy professor David Chalmers has described the being responsible for this hyper-realistic simulation we may or may not be in as a “programmer in the next universe up,” perhaps one we mortals might consider a god of some sort — though not necessarily in the traditional sense. But it might be someone who is nonetheless omniscient, all-knowing and all-powerful about our world.”
What is Simulation Theory and Why Does it Matter?
Most religions state that God (or several gods) created us. If we exist in a simulation created by our advanced selves, our advanced selves are effectively our God.
11 Implications of the Simulation Hypothesis
Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Argument (SA) has many intriguing theological implications. We work out some of them here. We show how the SA can be used to develop novel versions of the Cosmological and Design Arguments.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15665399.2010.10820012

OTOH, who says that the simulation has to simulate every part of the universe to arbitrary levels of detail? A simulation can work the way the brain does and only provide fine detail for the tiny area in the immediate focus of attention of its inhabitants; the rest can be coarse-grained until it becomes the focus of attention - this is how the latest VR games work. Ideas for how to fool such a system and spot a simulation have already been suggested.

I guess its hard to say until we can come up with testing it in real situations. But if its anything like our reality I dont think we can just produce small sections of reality without causing some other effect that will make it unreal. There are too many people looking at too many different parts of reality at the same time and as we have seen we cannot predict what will happen at the quantum level.

The simulation would have to anticipate what will happen and in which area before it happens to mitigate anyone discovering any glitches or this affecting the entire system and reality itself. I dont think we could ever have that level of detail and power to cover all this and then make it so realistic as we have today. But then you never know. Maybe near enough is good enough and can fool some people. But it has to be fool proof otherwise once givenm away this would cause dramatic repurcussions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maybe, or maybe that that would guide Him, that "law", etc, along with any kind of exceptional rules or clauses in it, maybe might have always been, etc...

And He's not acting on any kind of personal past, or past experience or bias, but only the one who originally wrote or made the law/laws originally, etc...

You explicitly excluded "any kind of prior events".

Just own it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's hard for us to think of, or conceive of a thing, a choice, etc, that would not at all be based on anything at all entirely at all, etc, but I do believe such a thing exists...

It would, by definition, be random, so not a choice in any meaningful sense.