Why is the idea of a simulated universe acceptable in science..........But......

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?

The existence of an infinite intelligent universe (God) making a simulated universe (ours) fits the scientifically acceptable and the monotheistic creation narrative, IMHO.

[BeRational]

Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?

The existence of an infinite intelligent universe (God) making a simulated universe (ours) fits the scientifically acceptable and the monotheistic creation narrative, IMHO.

I think it would be that builders of the simulation arose from natural selection and evolution as did we.
There is no magic in there like there is for a God, a complex thing coming from nowhere.

A being so advanced to us perhaps billions of years in advance with technology, would probably look like gods to us. But ,they would not be, anymore than we are gods to ants.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?

The existence of an infinite intelligent universe (God) making a simulated universe (ours) fits the scientifically acceptable and the monotheistic creation narrative, IMHO.

I think it would be that builders of the simulation arose from natural selection and evolution as did we.
There is no magic in there like there is for a God, a complex thing coming from nowhere.

A being so advanced to us perhaps billions of years in advance with technology, would probably look like gods to us. But ,they would not be, anymore than we are gods to ants.

Thanks for your response.
I hope I have stayed within scientific parameters in that science does not dismiss an infinite intelligent universe or a simulated universe. I would also hazard that such a universe and intelligence does not necessarily have to arise (that universe being infinite) nor evolved through Darwinian evolution nor in fact the intelligence to be associated with life at all.

Funnily enough I think your main objection to my suggestion is theological. Can something which creates a simulated universe possibly be construed as God as understood by monotheism?

I would say yes since the creation, existence and maintenance of our universe if simulated is entirely dependent on that creator.

we could baulk and curse our creator or bless and be grateful or ignore our creator.

I would add that all this would remain true even if our creator had been evolved.

[jeremyp]

Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?

Is it?  I think a simulated Universe has exactly the same problems as a god created universe; it's not falsifiable and it only defers the questions to another level.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?

Is it?  I think a simulated Universe has exactly the same problems as a god created universe; it's not falsifiable and it only defers the questions to another level.

I can't see how a God created universe has any more problems than a universe that just poufed itself into existence or one that is infinite.

That aside, Bostrom one of the current thinkers in this area thinks
that epistemologically, it would be possible to tell whether we were living in a simulation. For example a window could popup saying: ''this is a simulation''. Theologically speaking revelation might be analogous to it....So you see science and theology both satisfied.

[jeremyp]

Is it?  I think a simulated Universe has exactly the same problems as a god created universe; it's not falsifiable and it only defers the questions to another level.

I can't see how a God created universe has any more problems than a universe that just poufed itself into existence or one that is infinite.

If you believe the Universe just poufed itself into existence, you don't have to explain the existence of a creator.

That aside, Bostrom one of the current thinkers in this area thinks
that epistemologically, it would be possible to tell whether we were living in a simulation. For example a window could popup saying: ''this is a simulation''. Theologically speaking revelation might be analogous to it....So you see science and theology both satisfied.

You'd have to have an obliging creator and you'd have to have a way to be sure you didn't imagine the pop-up/revelation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it?  I think a simulated Universe has exactly the same problems as a god created universe; it's not falsifiable and it only defers the questions to another level.

I can't see how a God created universe has any more problems than a universe that just poufed itself into existence or one that is infinite.

If you believe the Universe just poufed itself into existence, you don't have to explain the existence of a creator.

1: It's unfalsifiable
2: It has to be believed
3: It begs the question how can something pouf itself into existence when we don't observe that happening.
4: The explanation just seems to exist only to eliminate an explanation for the existence of the creator.

[Shaker]

1: It's unfalsifiable

God.

2: It has to be believed

God.

3: It begs the question how can something pouf itself into existence when we don't observe that happening.

God.

4: The explanation just seems to exist only to eliminate an explanation for the existence of the creator.

The explanation just seems to exist only to eliminate an explanation for the current lack of definite knowledge.

[jeremyp]

1: It's unfalsifiable

Yes.

2: It has to be believed

No.  It's not compulsory.

3: It begs the question how can something pouf itself into existence when we don't observe that happening.

Yes, how did God pouf itself into existence?

4: The explanation just seems to exist only to eliminate an explanation for the existence of the creator.

No.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1: It's unfalsifiable

Yes.

2: It has to be believed

No.  It's not compulsory.

No I mean It has to be believed rather than known and I thought that was precisely the kind of belief that was anathema to you guys......but seemingly acceptable in this case by you.

In terms of God having to pouf himself into existence. Firstly God could be an intelligent infinite universe or even an evolved being (see earlier reply).

[jeremyp]

No I mean It has to be believed rather than known and I thought that was precisely the kind of belief that was anathema to you guys......but seemingly acceptable in this case by you.

It doesn't have to be believed.  You can discuss the hypothesis without believing it to be true.

In terms of God having to pouf himself into existence. Firstly God could be an intelligent infinite universe or even an evolved being (see earlier reply).

It could, but then the Universe didn't have to pouf itself into existence. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I mean It has to be believed rather than known and I thought that was precisely the kind of belief that was anathema to you guys......but seemingly acceptable in this case by you.

It doesn't have to be believed.  You can discuss the hypothesis without believing it to be true.

In terms of God having to pouf himself into existence. Firstly God could be an intelligent infinite universe or even an evolved being (see earlier reply).

It could, but then the Universe didn't have to pouf itself into existence.

But I think you'll agree that proving the universe is infinitely old is rather difficult.......given the big bang and all that.

So lets recap
Simulated universes an acceptable hypothesis
Infinite universes an acceptable hypothesis
Intelligent universes an acceptable hypothesis
plus it is acceptable theologically to refer to God as an infinite intelligent universe..........


What's your problem with God?

[jeremyp]

But I think you'll agree that proving the universe is infinitely old is rather difficult.......given the big bang and all that.

Much harder to prove God is infinitely old.  At least we are pretty sure the Universe exists.

So lets recap
Simulated universes an acceptable hypothesis
Infinite universes an acceptable hypothesis

OK so far.

Intelligent universes an acceptable hypothesis

But nobody has put that one forward on this thread.  Why have you suddenly brought it up?

plus it is acceptable theologically to refer to God as an infinite intelligent universe..........
[/quote]

This is the first tie you've mentioned pantheism. 

What's your problem with God?

There's no evidence of her and there is no hypothesis about the beginning of the Universe that works with a god but not without one.  There's no point in pretending God exists. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But I think you'll agree that proving the universe is infinitely old is rather difficult.......given the big bang and all that.

Much harder to prove God is infinitely old.  At least we are pretty sure the Universe exists.

So lets recap
Simulated universes an acceptable hypothesis
Infinite universes an acceptable hypothesis

OK so far.

Intelligent universes an acceptable hypothesis

But nobody has put that one forward on this thread.  Why have you suddenly brought it up?

plus it is acceptable theologically to refer to God as an infinite intelligent universe..........

This is the first tie you've mentioned pantheism. 

What's your problem with God?

There's no evidence of her and there is no hypothesis about the beginning of the Universe that works with a god but not without one.  There's no point in pretending God exists.
[/quote]
Well perhaps one day you'll explain your last assertion but I won't hold my breath. Simulated universes are an acceptable hypothesis so we could be merely in the mind of the simulator who or whatever that may be.

Nobody has stated that God exists merely that the simulated theory hypothesis makes him respectable as a hypothesis again and there ain't nothing you can do about that it seems.

Yes I suppose if we are classifying God as a complete universe then that is technically pantheism......
But not in our universe which is afterall the simulation.

I look forward to a clear exposition from you on the factors that would prevent God from being that which could simulate
a universe.

[Shaker]

That was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike comprehensible English.

[BashfulAnthony]

That was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike comprehensible English.

As indeed was that sentence!  Why not just say, "That was almost incomprehensible"?   

[Jack Knave]

Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?

The existence of an infinite intelligent universe (God) making a simulated universe (ours) fits the scientifically acceptable and the monotheistic creation narrative, IMHO.

Because Brian Greene exists.

[Shaker]

That was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike comprehensible English.

As indeed was that sentence!  Why not just say, "That was almost incomprehensible"?   

It was a Douglas Adams reference

[Jack Knave]

No I mean It has to be believed rather than known and I thought that was precisely the kind of belief that was anathema to you guys......but seemingly acceptable in this case by you.

It doesn't have to be believed.  You can discuss the hypothesis without believing it to be true.

In terms of God having to pouf himself into existence. Firstly God could be an intelligent infinite universe or even an evolved being (see earlier reply).

It could, but then the Universe didn't have to pouf itself into existence.

But I think you'll agree that proving the universe is infinitely old is rather difficult.......given the big bang and all that.

Except that gravity slows down time so if you wind back to the big bang the gravity of the universe increases. Half the size of the universe and time doubles. Half it again and time doubles again.....you never actually get back to the big bang as time tends towards infinity.

[BashfulAnthony]

That was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike comprehensible English.

As indeed was that sentence!  Why not just say, "That was almost incomprehensible"?   

It was a Douglas Adams reference

Did you google it?   

[Shaker]

Didn't need to. I have a memory.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?

The existence of an infinite intelligent universe (God) making a simulated universe (ours) fits the scientifically acceptable and the monotheistic creation narrative, IMHO.

Because Brian Greene exists.

..........although I think you'll find he himself has stated it is possible he could be a simulation.

[BashfulAnthony]

Didn't need to. I have a memory.

Yes, albeit sometimes a selective one.

[jeremyp]

Simulated universes are an acceptable hypothesis so we could be merely in the mind of the simulator who or whatever that may be.

I thought I had made it clear that I do not think that a simulated universe is an acceptable hypothesis.  It has exactly the same issues as the God hypothesis.  In fact, it is the God hypothesis.

[torridon]

I think of theism as an early form the Matrix idea. We live in a false reality contrived by some hidden higher power with its own agenda. Far out man, pass the joint.