It's all real

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God is not depicted as just a universe-engineer.

Yes.

Partially. God is not merely depicted as a creator, but as something self-creating, the source not just of us but of all, and with an inherent moral 'integrity' (for want of a better description) by its nature. This is a significantly more encompassing description than 'just' a creator of us.

Except that it wasn't, the main point about ID was that it was an attempt to squeeze religious ideas into school science lessons.

It was discarded because they overstepped what a scientific hypothesis could carry - a higher-level computer engineer concept is valid (although perhaps unfalsifiable) but it doesn't give the option of introducing prayer or worship or moral lessons, which ultimately was the point of the ID movement.

No, irreducible complexity is a nonsense argument attempted in support of the theory, but it's independent and demonstrably false.

O.

We are thinking at present of a simulation being run in a machine. That isn't the only place we can run simulations is it?

We cannot on the face of it say what creator lies beyond the simulation, whether it is self creating, whether it isn't the source of all, but in positing the scenario that the universe is intelligently designed we must accept that is a possibility.

ID as proposed wasn't science but the intelligent designer has cropped up again. It is a persistent idea.

I'm not sure about irreducible complexity and not sure how it helps ID certainly no biological irreducibility could be found.

Bostrom proposes we can know we are in a simulation/creation if there are ''windows'' from the other side.
That has a correspondence with the idea of revelation and religion IMO.

[Outrider]

We are thinking at present of a simulation being run in a machine. That isn't the only place we can run simulations is it?

At the risk of being thought to be mocking, that rather depends on what you mean by 'machine'? If, like me, you think that living organisms are biological machines, then yes, it's just machines.

We cannot on the face of it say what creator lies beyond the simulation, whether it is self creating, whether it isn't the source of all, but in positing the scenario that the universe is intelligently designed we must accept that is a possibility.

No, we don't have to accept that possibility - you still need to explain why a 'self-creating' intelligence is a viable concept in what is, to the best of our knowledge, an otherwise exclusively deterministic existence.

ID as proposed wasn't science but the intelligent designer has cropped up again. It is a persistent idea.

So is 'trickle-down economics'...

Bostrom proposes we can know we are in a simulation/creation if there are ''windows'' from the other side. That has a correspondence with the idea of revelation and religion IMO.

Except that if we're a simulation, then we're coded to be fallible, and coding revelation is a questionable method of communication - it's no more reliable a notion of communication in a simulated universe than it is in a physical one. Rather more significantly, if we're in a simulation, that's an explicitly bad method of communication liable to a high error rate, which doesn't correspond well to the otherwise high-quality of the programme.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At the risk of being thought to be mocking, that rather depends on what you mean by 'machine'? If, like me, you think that living organisms are biological machines, then yes, it's just machines.

well thank you for sharing what you mean by a machine. I used the word in its more everyday use whereby living organisms are considered different from machines.
What I had in mind is that the simulation could be running inside a head or mind.

Sean Carroll has pointed out that we do not know what could constitute a living organism. Also we have no guarantees that the universe from which our universe is the simulation is much like ours. See Tegmark.

But a display of your intellectual flourish not withstanding it makes no difference to the point that in any case we have an intelligent designer outside the universe who has no dependence on it but on whom we have every dependence on.

[Outrider]

well thank you for sharing what you mean by a machine. I used the word in its more everyday use whereby living organisms are considered different from machines. What I had in mind is that the simulation could be running inside a head or mind.

Yeah, I got that, and yes, in theory a simulation could be running inside someone's (or something's) head - I'm not sure how consciousness for the individual simulacra within that would work, exactly...

Sean Carroll has pointed out that we do not know what could constitute a living organism.

I'd agree, we have no clear definition of what constitutes 'life' and what doesn't.

Also we have no guarantees that the universe from which our universe is the simulation is much like ours. See Tegmark.

We don't know, and we have a limited number of universes about which we know anything in order to extrapolate anything - that said, if our example is anything to go by, we have evolved so strongly along the mechanisms by which our universe operates that we struggle to reliably conceive of anything that fundamentally differs from it, so there's an argument to be made that there's no reason to presume that whomever is simulating our universe, if that turns out to be the case, is any different.

But a display of your intellectual flourish not withstanding it makes no difference to the point that in any case we have an intelligent designer outside the universe who has no dependence on it but on whom we have every dependence on.

And that's a possibility, though there's no direct evidence supporting the hypothesis - however, I'm failing to see what the actual point is, here.

O.

[wigginhall]

An interesting argument against simulated universes is that simulations tend to be skin deep.  Thus, if you are making an episode of the Simpsons, you don't actually have to fill their kitchen with everything they might need for the week, or provide them all with clothes ditto.   This is because simulations tend to deal in appearances, see video games.

So in a video game, you might have a large explosion, kapoww, and so on, but you don't have to fill in the chemical and physical things going on in an explosion, down to a microscopic level.   In fact, you probably couldn't do it, as the information required would be massive.  But there's also no point.

Well, you can get round this argument of course, by suggesting an hugely intelligent species, with very advanced computing techniques, so not only would they want to fill in the microscopic detail and the long periods of time required, they would have the means to replicate this.   

So your bored teenager in his mum's basement on a distant planet, is even now simulating the exact shade of spray tan on a Strictly contestant.   Why wouldn't he?

[Nearly Sane]

I think that relates to the argument in the link in the OP, wigginhall. Not just is the information redundant, it is overwhelming. I suppose the argument against is for anyone inside the simulation, their idea of detail must be affected by the simulation. So the Simpsons lack of Tuesday and fingers is not important to them .


In addition, if the simulation is merely for me, I.e. given the problem of hard solipsism, there is only the detail I perceive, how complex is it?  (after all, there isn't a spoon)

[wigginhall]

I remember that T8 used to compare God with the writer of the Simpsons; I can't remember if we ever got onto the question of useless information, such as microscopic details.   I suppose your pimply teenager might do it because he can.

A friend was going on to me about tree rings.  Why would pimply teenager on planet XR280 want them?   

[Nearly Sane]

I remember that T8 used to compare God with the writer of the Simpsons; I can't remember if we ever got onto the question of useless information, such as microscopic details.   I suppose your pimply teenager might do it because he can.

I thought that was Alien?


Anyway before George RR Martin created Game of Thrones and exercised his right to kill anyone, he wrote one of the great sci fi stories. It isn't about a simulation but it tracks some theist portrayals of their gods.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandkings_(novelette)

[wigginhall]

Well, I am very willing to kneel and pay homage to pimply teenager on planet XR280, but in return, I demand multiple female worshippers of me, who will listen and obey.   OK, pimples?

[Nearly Sane]

Pimples got bored, wigginhall. It's thinking about killing us all now except for 8 best posters in its mind. It's time to dance to survive!

[wigginhall]

There is quite a lot written about glitches in any simulation - I think sci-fi films often show the machine code going haywire, and in the Truman Show, he actually reaches the physical limit of the artificial world.   Well, how about Trump and Brexit?  Pimples is having fun with us.   

[Nearly Sane]

The Truman Show is essentially a hard solipsism thing though, isn't it? He is the only 'real' thing in it.

[Outrider]

An interesting argument against simulated universes is that simulations tend to be skin deep.  Thus, if you are making an episode of the Simpsons, you don't actually have to fill their kitchen with everything they might need for the week, or provide them all with clothes ditto.   This is because simulations tend to deal in appearances, see video games.

That rather depends on the purpose of the simulation, surely? If it's for human entertainment or education then it's predisposed to cater for the human senses, and is therefore focussed on the visual. If you're simulating, say, weather patterns then the more discrete elements you can simulate, and the more precisely you can simulate them, the better. That simulation might only be mathematical, but it's not for human consumption directly, it's to be machine interpreted, and so the visual is no more important - arguably less - than other factors.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More on the quasipseudoscientificmetaphysicalphilosophy of Simulated Universes and more specifically it's central tenet that if this simulator exists then IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A PIMPLY TEENAGER PLAYING COMPUTER IN IT'S PARENTS GARAGE ............Dawkins in conversation with Greene comments that it would therefore have to be a remarkably disciplined pimply teenager. Greene then suggested that the be-acne-ed Simulator erases our memories after monkeying with the programme.
Actually researching what lead antitheists say on the subject has opened my eyes on how ostensibly sensible mature men can act vis NDG Tyson on Bill Maher recently.

[wigginhall]

That rather depends on the purpose of the simulation, surely? If it's for human entertainment or education then it's predisposed to cater for the human senses, and is therefore focussed on the visual. If you're simulating, say, weather patterns then the more discrete elements you can simulate, and the more precisely you can simulate them, the better. That simulation might only be mathematical, but it's not for human consumption directly, it's to be machine interpreted, and so the visual is no more important - arguably less - than other factors.

O.

Yes, fair enough, but the argument about 'skin deep' seems to be that our universe isn't.   Thus there are trillions of stars, the universe is billions of years old, plants and animals have microscopic detail.   Thus old Pimples is pretty obsessive about detail!  This doesn't rule it out completely, but it demonstrates the difference between a skin deep simulation and the universe.   I think it makes it a bizarre idea, but there we are, so are Venusian mermaids. 

[Nearly Sane]

Are there trillions of stars though, or is that just what you are meant to think?
 If there is no spoon, there does not need to be stars

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, fair enough, but the argument about 'skin deep' seems to be that our universe isn't.   Thus there are trillions of stars, the universe is billions of years old, plants and animals have microscopic detail.   Thus old Pimples is pretty obsessive about detail!  This doesn't rule it out completely, but it demonstrates the difference between a skin deep simulation and the universe.   I think it makes it a bizarre idea, but there we are, so are Venusian mermaids.

What would have been the definition of ''skin deep'' have been when space invaders machines were around I wonder.

[wigginhall]

Are there trillions of stars though, or is that just what you are meant to think?
 If there is no spoon, there does not need to be stars

Spot on.  I've seen the argument that the galaxies are just blurry spots of light, designed to get us excited, a bit like Christmas illuminations, in the dome of the firmament. 

[wigginhall]

What would have been the definition of ''skin deep'' have been when space invaders machines were around I wonder.

Well, you can apply it to films and novels as well.  We don't demand a complete inventory of someone's kitchen in a novel, or a film, as it would be boring, unless you are in a French avant garde film, and who wants to be there?

[Nearly Sane]

Given hard solipsism the total amount of detail only needs to be what you are aware of at the time.