The universe is a simulation, therefore God exists...

Author: OntologicalSpider
Philosophy
Science
cosmology

Posts

Total: 42
Topic's author
#1
OntologicalSpider
OntologicalSpider's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 86
0
0
4
OntologicalSpider's avatar
OntologicalSpider
0
0
4
Here's a little thought experiment I've been playing with:


1. The universe at a quantum level shows properties of "emerging", that is, at fundamental level, matter behaves like information in a computer code.

2. It is quite possible the universe is a computer simulation on an unimaginable scale

3. If the universe is a computer simulation, it would require a computer simulator.

4. A being that encoded the universe into existence would be able to exercise complete control over this simulation

5. Such a being could be considered omnipotent.

6. A being outside the simulation would not be subject to it's nature, and possess another nature entirely. A being of this nature could be considered ultimate reality

7. An omnipotent ultimate reality is God.


Therefore God exists.

Any thoughts? What do you agree with? What do you disagree? Thank

#2
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
1) The universe at a quantum level shows properties of "emerging", that is, at fundamental level, matter behaves like information in a computer code.

Only in a metaphorical sense.

2. It is quite possible the universe is a computer simulation on an unimaginable scale

Key word: Possible (as opposed to definitely true)

3. If the universe is a computer simulation, it would require a computer simulator.

Key word: If (this claim has not been demonstrated).

6. A being outside the simulation would not be subject to it's nature, and possess another nature entirely. A being of this nature could be considered ultimate reality

Completely false. The  being itself would not be a reality of any kind in this scenario. The reality in which this hypothetical being and it's simulation exists would be the higher reality here, just as if I created a simulation on my computer I myself would not be the higher reality of that simulated reality. Our reality would be.

Any thoughts? What do you agree with? What do you disagree?

The problem is that in point two you say "it is possible the universe is a simulation" (technically true, though the simulating universe would need to have a vastly different set of physical laws if this were the case) but you never justify the leap from "it is possible" to "god definitely exists".

You can't just say "maybe it is true" then turn around and say "it is definitely true" without explanation.
Topic's author
#3
OntologicalSpider
OntologicalSpider's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 86
0
0
4
OntologicalSpider's avatar
OntologicalSpider
0
0
4
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well yes, given the fact this theory has not been conclusively proven, I still say possible, therefore we could revise the conclusion to say given the current level of evidence for the theory God as the simulator possibly exists.


That being said,  if it were proven the universe were in fact a simulation, I do think we go from possible to definite in regards to God existing.

Why do you say only in a metaphoric sense?

Given that we have no experience of a computer simulation existing without a simulator, premise three stands.

Do you not consider yourself a great reality than say a sims game?
#4
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Do you not consider yourself a great reality than say a sims game?

I am not a reality of and kind. I am merely a middle class white boy that exists within a reality.
Topic's author
#5
OntologicalSpider
OntologicalSpider's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 86
0
0
4
OntologicalSpider's avatar
OntologicalSpider
0
0
4
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If you're part of a reality does that not make you real? And therefore a reality?



These atheist chatbots are getting more and more advanced...
#6
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@OntologicalSpider
If you're part of a reality does that not make you real?

Yes. Obviously I am real.

And therefore a reality?

No. Again, obviously.
Topic's author
#7
OntologicalSpider
OntologicalSpider's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 86
0
0
4
OntologicalSpider's avatar
OntologicalSpider
0
0
4
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Maybe we have two different definitions of "a reality"...

My definition was simply that which is real
#8
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Maybe we have two different definitions of "a reality"

Reality (n.) - The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

I am not a world. I am just a dude typing on a phone while cooking Ramen noodles to eat.

Reality (adj.) - The state or quality of having existence or substance

I posses the quality of having reality as an adjective but I am not a reality in and of myself as a noun.
Topic's author
#9
OntologicalSpider
OntologicalSpider's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 86
0
0
4
OntologicalSpider's avatar
OntologicalSpider
0
0
4
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I see now
#10
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Very well then. I don't have any other problems with post 3, any other questions for me or are we done here?
Topic's author
#11
OntologicalSpider
OntologicalSpider's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 86
0
0
4
OntologicalSpider's avatar
OntologicalSpider
0
0
4
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
We're never truly done. The quest for knowledge and the pursuit of God never truly stops
#12
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Well we both agree that this OP only establishes god as a "yeah, sure maybe" kind of idea so said pursuit will have to continue elsewhere I suppose.
Topic's author
#13
OntologicalSpider
OntologicalSpider's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 86
0
0
4
OntologicalSpider's avatar
OntologicalSpider
0
0
4
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
And so it does
#14
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,595
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@OntologicalSpider
I am new here, but wouldn't a better title be, The universe is a simulation, therefore Creators exist...?
Topic's author
#15
OntologicalSpider
OntologicalSpider's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 86
0
0
4
OntologicalSpider's avatar
OntologicalSpider
0
0
4
-->
@FLRW
Hello welcome, I don't see any reason to multiply the cause of the simulation. Occam's razor recommends against that

37 days later

#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@OntologicalSpider
@FLRW
Wouldn't it be better to say that the universe might be a simulation, therefore a universal creator might exist. Though that still doesn't account for the creator or it's ability to create.

Occam...….The simplest solution is most likely the right one..... So magic then?
#17
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
How to do Occam's Razor incorrectly:

There is a whole other universe beyond ours that created a simulation which is our universe. I do not know how that 'higher' universe came about but it is there. To simplify things though I am going to say that only one being in this unseen higher universe made our simulation rather than a collaboration. Besides, I like monotheism better.

How to do Occam's Razor correctly:

I could say there is a whole other universe beyond ours that created a simulation which is our universe and that I do not know how that 'higher' universe came about. To simplify things though I am going to say that I do not know how our own universe came about.

91 days later

#18
Shamayita
Shamayita's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 68
0
0
7
Shamayita's avatar
Shamayita
0
0
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well that's how I feel too. This universe couldn't have came just like that so it did need a stimulation. Even the big bang theory can't explain how energy ,time and space was caused. We also don't know how the singularity just before a period of very high density came into being. So it might be a convincing idea to think the universe as a computer stimulation. And therefore the stimulator can be thought of as God.
#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Yep. A god principle.

Another valid hypothesis.

(Interestingly, popular deism and theism would all be a part of the simulation....Even a hint maybe.)

Nonetheless, like all creation hypotheses though, this ultimately relies upon accepting that the simulator, irrespective of nature, is something from nothing.

Therefore you might as well accept that the universe was always something from nothing and quit worrying about creation hypotheses altogether.
#20
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Z$..."Therefore you might as well accept that the universe was always something from nothing and quit worrying about creation hypotheses altogether."...

Yeah if you want to accept irrational, illogical lack of common sense.  Plenty of these type of loonies on Earth.

Something { occupied space } does not come from nothing { non-occupied space }

Are there any mature adults in this thread?




#21
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@OntologicalSpider


OS..."1. The universe at a quantum level shows properties of "emerging", that is, at fundamental level, matter behaves like information in a computer code."....

Gravity is most fundamental force and is sometimes referred to as the space-time fabric.

Now we have Dark Energy to consider as being a complementary force to Gravity ergo Dark Energy is also fundemental force ergo we  also may refer to Dark Energy as space-time fabric.

So Universe's space-time fabric is composed of two layers, or two fundamental forces, or two fabric thread that weave around each other in some way, that, know one knows for sure what the pattern of the weave is.

I have been very clear, that, that  fundamental pattern is a spiral based torus, that, inverts to create the sine-wave pattern of our Observed Reality aka Observed Time and that is where we find quantum particles via our instrumentation { quantised } or at minimum a mathematical quantification.

Outer Gravity (  ) is the positive shaped geodesic (  ) fabric of a toroidal space, that, is ultra-micro and we do not observe this fabric directly as a quanta.

Inside the tube, sine-wave /\/\/\/ frequency pattern fof reality is the what is the emergent resultant from outer Gravity and inner Dark Energy

Inner Dark Energy )( is the negative shaped geodesic )( fabric of a toroidal space, that, is ultra-micro ergo we do not observe this fabric directly as a quanta.

With these three, we shall know them { Universe }.  They are the asymmetrical, fundamental Cosmic Trinity of occupied space existence.

At best we can say that the asymmetrical exists, not as a emergent of the symmetrical, rather, the symmetrical exists as the metaphysical-1 complement to asymetrical Universe.

First I show the metaphysical-1, symmetrical pattern:
0..............................................................6............................................................12................................
..........1.........................................5p..................7p..................................11p..............13p.....................
....................2p....................4......................................8................10......................................14............
..............................3p..........................................................9.............................................................15


Next I show the asymmetrical pattern of Observed  { /\/\/ } Time fabric and Non-observed { (  )(   ) }    space fabric
...................1...................................................5p...................7p..........................................11p...................13p........................outer (  )
-
-
.0................................................................................6.....................................................................12...............................................inside
..............................................3p......................................................................9.......................................................................15.........inside
-9
-
...................................2p.....................4...............................................8....................10...............................................14......................inner )(








#22
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ebuc
does the 'p' mean physical?
#23
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
@OntologicalSpider
RM---"does the 'p' mean physical?"

RMan, the "p" after at number expresses a prime number and all of the primes---except 2 and 3--- fall on one line, irrespective of whether the symmetrical or asymmetrical four level/line pattern.  When I did  this with six radii --as in hexagonal pattern of radii--- I discovered the geometric expression of what was discovered 200 years ago ---via algebraic expression---  stated as,  6n plus or minus 1,  is where all primes fall ---except 2 and 3---.

2, 3....the only contiguous set of primes and 2 is the only even prime number i.e. we never see any prime number ending with 2.

..5--7
11-13
17-19

23--------------------25 is the first break of the twin prime pattern

 29-31  and 31 repeats as a prime out to 6 or 7 digits  { I forget exactly } ex 331, 3331, 33331, 333331,
Humans have 31 bilateral spinal nerves, the5-fold icosahedron { 12-around-none } has 31 primary great circles
37
41
43
47.....putting aside my patterns, I recall how B Fuller thought the prime 47 was significant, because, it was the first prime number after 45 degrees of trigonometric functions..  He thought the number 47 may represent the cause of all chaos  ---seeming disorder--- and/or randomness of cosmic particles   ---ex brownian motion a---  in Universe.

Prime numbers are fascinating and we could go on for months or years, finding interesting correlating patterns, but, how do they relate to actual funcitoning of Universe, is a whole other bag of speculation.

#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@RationalMadman.


Re:  EbuccubE.

Genius or not....Make your own mind up.

I gave them the benefit of the doubt for a while.

But after a while my doubt became overwhelming.
#25
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
.."Genus or not". is the first sign you of mental deficit, as there are so many degrees of mature adult, rational, logical common sense, that, your pathways of thought exclude from thinking patterns.  Sad :--(

Please share when have any shred of  mature adult, rational, logical common sense pathways of thought, in regards to any concepts by me, that add too, or invalidate.

You have not, because you do not have any thing of any significance in my regards to state.

Operating  Gooby baesd consciousness is sad act of despair to protect your ego  from being placed to the side aka ego death, and exhibit moral and intellectual integrity. Sad :--(
#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@RationalMadman

See what I mean.
#27
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Occam...….The simplest solution is most likely the right one..... So magic then?
The fact that your explanation is only one word doesn't make it the simplest explanation.
The concept behind the word "life" is huge. There are millions of distinct species just on Earth, with trillions of tiny variations. Far from simple. 
The concept behind the phrase "organisms that breathe using lungs" is much simpler. Sorta. See, you have to define organism, and lungs, and breathing, and every single new concept you use in that explanation must also be explained. These are known as steps of inference.
Magic feels like a simple explanation because it crosses the inferential difference by using the concepts in your head about magic.  If I say, "because evolution," or "because God" it's also a one-word explanation. But if you'd never heard of God, or never heard of evolution, then those words don't feel like explanations by themselves. You haven't actually crossed the inferential gap by saying "because magic." It doesn't actually explain anything, it just puts a label on a question without answering it.

Same guy on Occam's Razor
#28
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@K_Michael
Not to be confused with a life.....What exactly is life?...Is there even a conceptual answer?...Let alone evidence on which to base an inference.

Nonetheless:
Occam bases his reasoning on a pre-existing assumption. That is to say that the outcome has  already been decided irrespective of evidence.

Occam's razor  just becomes a self-contained justification of itself.




13 days later

#29
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@OntologicalSpider
A programmer is omnipotent, but not omniscent or omnipresent.

He can review the code after the fact, but cannot monitor every part simultaneously.
And he may know everything that happens in the code, but that doesn't translate into perfect intelligence and decision making. 

Omnipotent is but 1 quality of god. Without omniscience and omnipresence, it is not the same god.
#30
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Nemiroff
It's important to remember that omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence are  only assumed qualities of an assumed god.


Nonetheless....If the universe is a simulation, what is it a simulation of?

Surely it can only be a simulation of a universe.....Therefore you might just as well have the non-simulated version....Which would save all the faff of creating one  universe and then simulating another....

Though, if you've got an infinite amount of time on your hands, then what do you do?....

Variety is the spice of eternal existence as gods probably say.