Termie, Ati We Are Living Inside a Computer Simulated Universe

[bittertruth]

• Tweet

Termie, I know u believe this.
Let me bang your head against a stone wall of reality and call it a illusion? Reluctant you say? But it's only a illusion...right?

Scientists will never be able to prove that we are ( currently, in this reality ) living in a simulation. Absolute proof could only be manifested from outside of such simulation.

http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm

[veritas]

This is what Brynn was talking about. The lattice. Too tiring for me.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Termie, I know u believe this.
Let me bang your head against a stone wall of reality and call it a illusion? Reluctant you say? But it's only a illusion...right?

Scientists will never be able to prove that we are ( currently, in this reality ) living in a simulation. Absolute proof could only be manifested from outside of such simulation.

http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm

It's a hypothesis.  If it explains and predicts the world.  You want run with it.

Could it be true?  Possible. 

Consider that we only perceive that which we are evolved to perceive.

 If our daily existence was dominated by things at the Planck scale.  Our view of how the world works would be very different indeed.  Because we are generally shielded from this aspect of reality does not make it untrue.

[kadame]

Termie, I know u believe this.
Let me bang your head against a stone wall of reality and call it a illusion? Reluctant you say? But it's only a illusion...right?

Scientists will never be able to prove that we are ( currently, in this reality ) living in a simulation. Absolute proof could only be manifested from outside of such simulation.

http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm

Bittertruth, if you have ever been interested in philosophy, you will know that the argument for God (the uncaused cause/prime mover etc etc) is based on one unprovable premise: That our experiences are real and not in our imagination. That at the very least, I (the thinker) exist. The conclusion for God flows from that in a straight trajectory. The other possibility, that our experiences are actually NOT real, is this one you are highlighting here. You will find militant atheists who will be open to this latter possibility--and it is a possibility--but the one that leads to God is rejected out of hand. Not because it does not make sense, and they will not be able to show you it doesn't besides just making the claim that it doesn't, but because the militant atheist simply fails to appreciate Socrates' definition of wisdom: The ability to know that which you don't know. You will find them foaming at the mouth worse than the most unfriendly bible-thumper from Texas while asserting this ridiculous assurance in what they cannot be so sure about: just watch Dawkins videos if you don't believe me. And those are rather tame. Some other lesser known names on the net are even worse.

[bittertruth]

Termie,
I find it hilarious though, that negros are open to this possibility but so hostile to the idea of creationism. Both amount to the same sort of situation- a created universe, rather than one devoid of any design or purpose.

If right now I'm in a simulation and it appears REAL to me , what would be the exact opposite?

It's a hypothesis.  If it explains and predicts the world.  You want run with it.

Could it be true?  Possible. 

Consider that we only perceive that which we are evolved to perceive.

 If our daily existence was dominated by things at the Planck scale.  Our view of how the world works would be very different indeed.  Because we are generally shielded from this aspect of reality does not make it untrue.

[veritas]

Termie, I know u believe this.
Let me bang your head against a stone wall of reality and call it a illusion? Reluctant you say? But it's only a illusion...right?

Scientists will never be able to prove that we are ( currently, in this reality ) living in a simulation. Absolute proof could only be manifested from outside of such simulation.

http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm

Bittertruth, if you have ever been interested in philosophy, you will know that the argument for God (the uncaused cause/prime mover etc etc) is based on one unprovable premise: That our experiences are real and not in our imagination. That at the very least, I (the thinker) exist. The conclusion for God flows from that in a straight trajectory. The other possibility, that our experiences are actually NOT real, is this one you are highlighting here. You will find militant atheists who will be open to this latter possibility--and it is a possibility--but the one that leads to God is rejected out of hand. Not because it does not make sense, and they will not be able to show you it doesn't besides just making the claim that it doesn't, but because the militant atheist simply fails to appreciate Socrates' definition of wisdom: The ability to know that which you don't know. You will find them foaming at the mouth worse than the most unfriendly bible-thumper from Texas while asserting this ridiculous assurance in what they cannot be so sure about: just watch Dawkins videos if you don't believe me. And those are rather tame. Some other lesser known names on the net are even worse.

William James and the first unchained mover, yes I remember studying him. He was the first to reconcile free will and fate i.e. you can make your decisions in a chess game, but heuristic moves and checkmate is ultimately decided not by you. In the end God wins. That notion would fit in nicely with a "lattice" the lattice to me seems good at illustrating age old thoughts which have largely been debunked. I dunno... maybe I haven't really looked into this "lattice" phenomena. Where's Brynn when it matters? I dreamt about that same guy again... he was showing me how to make a sliding conveyor belt... I was on my way to a picnic on a giant mountain and spent A LOT of time packing delicious foods. I began walking with a group of kids and was stopped by this chap. Let me show you some interesting stuff he told me. I declined but the kids insisted. He's like a magician showing all sorts of nifty science tricks. I asked him a question I can't remember and his eyes glistened. Then I went f this and woke up.... what a dream.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Termie,
I find it hilarious though, that negros are open to this possibility but so hostile to the idea of creationism. Both amount to the same sort of situation- a created universe, rather than one devoid of any design or purpose.

If right now I'm in a simulation and it appears REAL to me , what would be the exact opposite?

It's a hypothesis.  If it explains and predicts the world.  You want run with it.

Could it be true?  Possible. 

Consider that we only perceive that which we are evolved to perceive.

 If our daily existence was dominated by things at the Planck scale.  Our view of how the world works would be very different indeed.  Because we are generally shielded from this aspect of reality does not make it untrue.

I just now got a chance to actually see the link.  I had assumed all along that this was about the holographic principle currently being tested at the Fermi lab.  That talks not so much about a simulation as it does about a 2D reality that we perceive as 3D.

The problem with creationism is how one tests it.  It basically says God the almighty created the world.  But what does it predict?  If one can devise tests for this, it can start to garner some element of respectability.

Put another way.  If the world was created in 6 days, there should be certain predictions and observations one should be able to make from this claim that can be tested.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Termie, I know u believe this.
Let me bang your head against a stone wall of reality and call it a illusion? Reluctant you say? But it's only a illusion...right?

Scientists will never be able to prove that we are ( currently, in this reality ) living in a simulation. Absolute proof could only be manifested from outside of such simulation.

http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm

Bittertruth, if you have ever been interested in philosophy, you will know that the argument for God (the uncaused cause/prime mover etc etc) is based on one unprovable premise: That our experiences are real and not in our imagination. That at the very least, I (the thinker) exist. The conclusion for God flows from that in a straight trajectory. The other possibility, that our experiences are actually NOT real, is this one you are highlighting here. You will find militant atheists who will be open to this latter possibility--and it is a possibility--but the one that leads to God is rejected out of hand. Not because it does not make sense, and they will not be able to show you it doesn't besides just making the claim that it doesn't, but because the militant atheist simply fails to appreciate Socrates' definition of wisdom: The ability to know that which you don't know. You will find them foaming at the mouth worse than the most unfriendly bible-thumper from Texas while asserting this ridiculous assurance in what they cannot be so sure about: just watch Dawkins videos if you don't believe me. And those are rather tame. Some other lesser known names on the net are even worse.

Kairetu,

One might still want to make a distinction between real vs incomplete.  I subscribe to the notion that our experience of reality incomplete and will is necessarily that way in principle.

Two observers of the same event come away with different observations. 

Some people cannot see certain colors(wavelengths of light).  Their perception of this reality is less than that of someone who can see more wavelengths.

What I promote as an atheist is that the unknown is nothing but that.  Unknown.  That we should respect that.  Others may see it as an area where certain ideas lacking traction in the known, can seek refuge.

[kadame]

Bittertruth, if you have ever been interested in philosophy, you will know that the argument for God (the uncaused cause/prime mover etc etc) is based on one unprovable premise: That our experiences are real and not in our imagination. That at the very least, I (the thinker) exist. The conclusion for God flows from that in a straight trajectory. The other possibility, that our experiences are actually NOT real, is this one you are highlighting here. You will find militant atheists who will be open to this latter possibility--and it is a possibility--but the one that leads to God is rejected out of hand. Not because it does not make sense, and they will not be able to show you it doesn't besides just making the claim that it doesn't, but because the militant atheist simply fails to appreciate Socrates' definition of wisdom: The ability to know that which you don't know. You will find them foaming at the mouth worse than the most unfriendly bible-thumper from Texas while asserting this ridiculous assurance in what they cannot be so sure about: just watch Dawkins videos if you don't believe me. And those are rather tame. Some other lesser known names on the net are even worse.

Kairetu,

One might still want to make a distinction between real vs incomplete.  I subscribe to the notion that our experience of reality incomplete and will is necessarily that way in principle.

Two observers of the same event come away with different observations. 

Some people cannot see certain colors(wavelengths of light).  Their perception of this reality is less than that of someone who can see more wavelengths.

What I promote as an atheist is that the unknown is nothing but that.  Unknown.  That we should respect that.  Others may see it as an area where certain ideas lacking traction in the known, can seek refuge.

What you've described is not atheism. It is called agnosticism. It does not claim to know that which it does not. Atheism is a position that there is no immaterial reality, or rather, that only material reality exists. It is not an "I don't know" position at all. An agnostic is not a theist, and neither does he purport to over-rule theism, because he knows he cannot do such a thing. An atheist has convinced himself that he can.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Bittertruth, if you have ever been interested in philosophy, you will know that the argument for God (the uncaused cause/prime mover etc etc) is based on one unprovable premise: That our experiences are real and not in our imagination. That at the very least, I (the thinker) exist. The conclusion for God flows from that in a straight trajectory. The other possibility, that our experiences are actually NOT real, is this one you are highlighting here. You will find militant atheists who will be open to this latter possibility--and it is a possibility--but the one that leads to God is rejected out of hand. Not because it does not make sense, and they will not be able to show you it doesn't besides just making the claim that it doesn't, but because the militant atheist simply fails to appreciate Socrates' definition of wisdom: The ability to know that which you don't know. You will find them foaming at the mouth worse than the most unfriendly bible-thumper from Texas while asserting this ridiculous assurance in what they cannot be so sure about: just watch Dawkins videos if you don't believe me. And those are rather tame. Some other lesser known names on the net are even worse.

Kairetu,

One might still want to make a distinction between real vs incomplete.  I subscribe to the notion that our experience of reality incomplete and will is necessarily that way in principle.

Two observers of the same event come away with different observations. 

Some people cannot see certain colors(wavelengths of light).  Their perception of this reality is less than that of someone who can see more wavelengths.

What I promote as an atheist is that the unknown is nothing but that.  Unknown.  That we should respect that.  Others may see it as an area where certain ideas lacking traction in the known, can seek refuge.

What you've described is not atheism. It is called agnosticism. It does not claim to know that which it does not. Atheism is a position that there is no immaterial reality, or rather, that only material reality exists. It is not an "I don't know" position at all. An agnostic is not a theist, and neither does he purport to over-rule theism, because he knows he cannot do such a thing. An atheist has convinced himself that he can.

I think we differ on a fundamental point.  An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. 

You want to make the distinction between knowledge and belief.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Not belief.  When you consider that, in fact everybody is an agnostic.

[kadame]

I think we differ on a fundamental point.  An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. 

You want to make the distinction between knowledge and belief.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Not belief.  When you consider that, in fact everybody is an agnostic.

Indeed we do (differ), the distinction between knowledge and belief as far as the monikers atheism, theism and agnosticism are concerned, is frankly meaningless. As you rightly note, no body claims to possess infinite/absolute knowledge, so introducing that there only muddies waters.

The terms define positions regarding the existence of God: it's that simple. They don't care what knowledge/data has been used to arrive at whatever position. What they signify is the end-point/conclusion. An atheist's answer is that God does not exist. A theist's answer is that he does. An agnostic's answer is that he does not take a position either way.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I think we differ on a fundamental point.  An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. 

You want to make the distinction between knowledge and belief.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Not belief.  When you consider that, in fact everybody is an agnostic.

Indeed we do (differ), the distinction between knowledge and belief as far as the monikers atheism, theism and agnosticism are concerned, is frankly meaningless. As you rightly note, no body claims to possess infinite/absolute knowledge, so introducing that there only muddies waters.

The terms define positions regarding the existence of God: it's that simple. They don't care what knowledge/data has been used to arrive at whatever position. What they signify is the end-point/conclusion. An atheist's answer is that God does not exist. A theist's answer is that he does. An agnostic's answer is that he does not take a position either way.

An atheist does not believe in God.  I have to emphasize that.  Whether he makes a definite statement of God's existence or lack thereof is not material.  What he does not believe is the key.

[vooke]

Termie,
If it now boils down to test and predictions, both creationism and evilution world views fall short. In fact evilution fairs worse

What does it predict?
How do we test evilution? You will retort that it takes eternities so it can't be tested

]I just now got a chance to actually see the link.  I had assumed all along that this was about the holographic principle currently being tested at the Fermi lab.  That talks not so much about a simulation as it does about a 2D reality that we perceive as 3D.

The problem with creationism is how one tests it.  It basically says God the almighty created the world.  But what does it predict?  If one can devise tests for this, it can start to garner some element of respectability.

Put another way.  If the world was created in 6 days, there should be certain predictions and observations one should be able to make from this claim that can be tested.

[bryan275]

Esh people.... seeing wordy theories like these prove to me everyday that it was wise to read a numerate degree at uni.  This is too much "thinking" over a hypothesis... Bejesus...

[kadame]

I think we differ on a fundamental point.  An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. 

You want to make the distinction between knowledge and belief.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Not belief.  When you consider that, in fact everybody is an agnostic.

Indeed we do (differ), the distinction between knowledge and belief as far as the monikers atheism, theism and agnosticism are concerned, is frankly meaningless. As you rightly note, no body claims to possess infinite/absolute knowledge, so introducing that there only muddies waters.

The terms define positions regarding the existence of God: it's that simple. They don't care what knowledge/data has been used to arrive at whatever position. What they signify is the end-point/conclusion. An atheist's answer is that God does not exist. A theist's answer is that he does. An agnostic's answer is that he does not take a position either way.

An atheist does not believe in God.  I have to emphasize that.  Whether he makes a definite statement of God's existence or lack thereof is not material.  What he does not believe is the key.

Neither does an agnostic. The best use of that description is to tell us simply what the two have in common, but as far as what distinguishes an atheist as an atheist, it is that the agnostic does not claim that God does not exist either, which an atheist does.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

An atheist does not believe in God.  I have to emphasize that.  Whether he makes a definite statement of God's existence or lack thereof is not material.  What he does not believe is the key.

Neither does an agnostic. The best use of that description is to tell us simply what the two have in common, but as far as what distinguishes an atheist as an atheist, it is that the agnostic does not claim that God does not exist either, which an atheist does.

An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Not belief or lack thereof.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Termie,
If it now boils down to test and predictions, both creationism and evilution world views fall short. In fact evilution fairs worse

What does it predict?
How do we test evilution? You will retort that it takes eternities so it can't be tested

]I just now got a chance to actually see the link.  I had assumed all along that this was about the holographic principle currently being tested at the Fermi lab.  That talks not so much about a simulation as it does about a 2D reality that we perceive as 3D.

The problem with creationism is how one tests it.  It basically says God the almighty created the world.  But what does it predict?  If one can devise tests for this, it can start to garner some element of respectability.

Put another way.  If the world was created in 6 days, there should be certain predictions and observations one should be able to make from this claim that can be tested.

Predictions and tests are at the heart of science.  Evolution predicts that we are compatible enough with animals to have organ transplants from them.  I am sure creation does not.  By your own admission, it predicts nothing useful or testable.

[kadame]

An atheist does not believe in God.  I have to emphasize that.  Whether he makes a definite statement of God's existence or lack thereof is not material.  What he does not believe is the key.

Neither does an agnostic. The best use of that description is to tell us simply what the two have in common, but as far as what distinguishes an atheist as an atheist, it is that the agnostic does not claim that God does not exist either, which an atheist does.

An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Not belief or lack thereof.

That mixes up the words so that they become meaningless. We cant refuse to acknowledge that there's a distinct category of beliefs that neither believes nor disbelieves God, but is committed to remaining open on the question. It's like we want to say there are only atheists and theists, since nobody in the world can claim an absolute certainty of knowledge. Agnosticism stays open on the question, precisely because of that lack of certainty in knowledge, its not identical to it. If an agnostic believes in God then he is not an agnostic but a theist. The term arose as a response to both theism and atheism, so co-opting it confuses the reality it was intended to signify, that of those who denied both atheism and theism.

[vooke]

That is no prediction
We are similar to animals and the blind can see that; you and omena have eyes
Don't bother because you will come up empty
Creationism makes a commonsensical prediction; information can't create itself

Predictions and tests are at the heart of science.  Evolution predicts that we are compatible enough with animals to have organ transplants from them.  I am sure creation does not.  By your own admission, it predicts nothing useful or testable.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

An atheist does not believe in God.  I have to emphasize that.  Whether he makes a definite statement of God's existence or lack thereof is not material.  What he does not believe is the key.

Neither does an agnostic. The best use of that description is to tell us simply what the two have in common, but as far as what distinguishes an atheist as an atheist, it is that the agnostic does not claim that God does not exist either, which an atheist does.

An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Not belief or lack thereof.

That mixes up the words so that they become meaningless. We cant refuse to acknowledge that there's a distinct category of beliefs that neither believes nor disbelieves God, but is committed to remaining open on the question. It's like we want to say there are only atheists and theists, since nobody in the world can claim an absolute certainty of knowledge. Agnosticism stays open on the question, precisely because of that lack of certainty in knowledge, its not identical to it. If an agnostic believes in God then he is not an agnostic but a theist. The term arose as a response to both theism and atheism, so co-opting it confuses the reality it was intended to signify, that of those who denied both atheism and theism.

There are countless theists who say they don't know whether God exists or not.  But they believe.  On the basis of faith.

And there are plenty of atheists too that do not know if God exists or not.  But they do not believe in him.

These groups are both agnostics in my view.  Put another way, not all theists are gnostics.