Another religious thread of speculation

MarkD said:
I guess we think of "simulation" differently. For me simulations seem more like a deliberate copy or counterfeit whereas you seem to be using it for anything which is not what it appears to be.

For me the dream of a boat is not a simulation but a genuine presentation of the unconscious mind. If in our waking mind we analyze what it was we remember having experienced in our dream we could say it was like a boat, a dream of a boat. But of course, if we were dreaming, there is no reason to think it was an actual boat. To think of it as a simulation I would have to ask what is it which could be doing the simulating. I don't think we have any reason to think the contents of dreams are deliberate misrepresentations, so I wouldn't consider it a simulation.

Dreams are simply something our minds produce when we are asleep. It isn't even clear that dreams are produced by our non-waking mind for the benefit of our waking minds. We could just be catching glimpses of consciousness going on in our minds that is not of our doing. I assume there is more going on in our minds than our own deliberations, based only on the nature of the phenomena one finds there.

But I don't know why you throw in "it's just as real as a God existing". Of course dreams are real, they are genuine dreams. Comparing the likelihood of things we don't understand doesn't seem productive to me. If some people think fantastic things are real is no reason for me to do the same.
Click to expand...
I apologize. There was a complete misunderstanding here of what I was trying to explain.
The simulation I was speaking of is like an elaborate computer program where the characters in the simulation are living their lives unaware that the life they are living is a creation designed and orchestrated by someone more evolved or supreme.

I was using a dream as an example to illustrate that when a person is dreaming, they are unaware they are living in a dream. It seems real to them. I wasn't saying that a dream is a simulation. It was just used as a similar likeness.

Also, it seems you misread my statement. What I posted was: "It's just as possible as a God existing". Especially since we have nothing to allow a conclusion either way.

I hope that provides a better understanding.
 
bobcat said:
I apologize. There was a complete misunderstanding here of what I was trying to explain.
The simulation I was speaking of is like an elaborate computer program where the characters in the simulation are living their lives unaware that the life they are living is a creation designed and orchestrated by someone more evolved or supreme.
Click to expand...

No need to apologize but that idea just seems so out there, like the idea that we are brains in vats being fed a perceptual feed from an evil scientist using us a lab animals. that is in fact a simulation. How could we tell the difference? Who knows but does it matter? You'd have to be more prone to believing conspiracy theories than me for that to carry any weight. I apologize if I took out my frustration with the way ideas about how the operations of computers are thought to be like the way we function. I just don't buy any of that. Mechanisms and organisms are vastly different.


bobcat said:
Also, it seems you misread my statement. What I posted was: "It's just as possible as a God existing". Especially since we have nothing to allow a conclusion either way.
Click to expand...

The main point here seems to be that hypotheses regarding possible simulations cannot be verified. The same is true of claims about God/gods -whether for or against. I still don't see how pointing that out adds very much except to suggest it is no less respectable but I don't think that is true. Belief regarding God/gods are ancient where as the idea of simulations enjoy no such prestige. We may not find them credible but custom is only on the side of god belief, whatever that may be worth.
 
The meaning of Life??? Don't have any Idea. Of course I can look at a photo of the stars and be amazed, but have no idea of the expanse. How far does space go??.
In context the meaning of life becomes very confusing. If the universe, and I don't know if that is the correct word, is so big that I can't comprehend it, then life is incomprehensible as well.
Yet here we are debating, like a bunch of fools, things that we can not grasp in the first place.
Like the universe, we were created. When, how and by whom?
Here we are debating our origins without even knowing the answer to these basic questions.
Yet based on the finite wisdom and education we received, and the experiences we had, we offer our views, truths,,,,,,,, as we often say, about things we have no clue about if proof comes to shove.
The blind leading the blind.
 
Paco Dennis said:
I can imagine the Big Bang happening in a void that has no end. Which is the universe? The Big Bang phenomena, or what it happened in?
Click to expand...
Good question, good thought. A new way to look at it for me. Since we were created with thinking minds, this is what l guess we're supposed to be trying to do.
 
Olivia said:
Good question, good thought. A new way to look at it for me. Since we were created with thinking minds, this is what l guess we're supposed to be trying to do.
Click to expand...
your right. Think. realize your limitations but never the less, think. Pretty simple in the end but very hard to accept. We are the creation, not the creator.
Getting it right?? I haven't got it right either, so calm down about that.
Don't know if there is a right in the larger sense.
Know what I believe. Know how God works with me. Know that he has my back. Gives me comfort.
 
Olivia said:
Good question, good thought. A new way to look at it for me. Since we were created with thinking minds, this is what l guess we're supposed to be trying to do.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is way to operate your brain "correctly". It varies so widely the way people process the information they receive. Normal is silly. Correct is silly too. We are what we are, that's all that we are, we're Cock-eyed. :)
 
Paco Dennis said:
I don't think there is way to operate your brain "correctly". It varies so widely the way people process the information they receive. Normal is silly. Correct is silly too. We are what we are, that's all that we are, we're Cock-eyed. :)
Click to expand...
Agree and thank goodness we are. It would be a mess if we had to wake up every morning and decide who we are going to be that day. Interesting maybe, but very confusing.
 
spectratg said:
There is no edge to the universe. An edge would imply that something exists outside of the universe. It is meaningless to talk about non-existence. When the universe expands, it does not expand into "nothing." It simply expands period. Microwave background radiation (static) is the same in all directions--there is no center to the universe, no starting point.
Click to expand...
Inept said:
There is no merit to a single thing you just said.
Click to expand...

spectratg said:
Well you might not like it and/or be able to understand it, but that is the scientific truth.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should tell the world about it so they can stop searching for a God.
 
MarkD said:
No need to apologize but that idea just seems so out there, like the idea that we are brains in vats being fed a perceptual feed from an evil scientist using us a lab animals. that is in fact a simulation. How could we tell the difference? Who knows but does it matter? You'd have to be more prone to believing conspiracy theories than me for that to carry any weight. I apologize if I took out my frustration with the way ideas about how the operations of computers are thought to be like the way we function. I just don't buy any of that. Mechanisms and organisms are vastly different.




The main point here seems to be that hypotheses regarding possible simulations cannot be verified. The same is true of claims about God/gods -whether for or against. I still don't see how pointing that out adds very much except to suggest it is no less respectable but I don't think that is true. Belief regarding God/gods are ancient where as the idea of simulations enjoy no such prestige. We may not find them credible but custom is only on the side of god belief, whatever that may be worth.
Click to expand...
I have found it interesting that so many would be willing to believe that a superior being (God) has created everything we see and experience, but they would easily dismiss the possibility that a superior being (Creator) has created a simulation where everything we see and experience seems absolutely real (Like a matrix). We think our perception tells us everything, but it's just an illusion or a convenient lie.

One of the first lessons that physicists learned when they started examining subatomic systems in the early 20th century was that we do not live in a deterministic universe. This is known as superposition. For any experiment that can result in many random outcomes, before we make a measurement, the system is said to be in a superposition of all possible states simultaneously. When we make a measurement, the system "collapses" into a single state that we observe (Schrödinger's Cat). Bizarre right?

If we take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, then observation is the most important act in the universe. It transforms fuzzy probabilities into concrete results and changes an exotic quantum system into verifiable results that we can interpret with our senses.

There are many other reasons to consider that could point to a simulation. A simulation would have laws or rules governing the simulation, such as: Why does time always move forward? Why is there a speed limit (Speed of light)? Why are there laws of physics? Why are there mathematics that can solve things? Etc....

I am not stating that we live in a simulation. I'm just saying that it's possible and we likely wouldn't know it.
 
For me the confusion lies using the word god. Everyone has an opinion about god but no one can accurately describe god in a fashion that everyone can agree on. The best we can do to describe god is our relationship to god or no relationship at all on a personal level.

I change my mind often as I try to make sense of god. I wish i had a firm decisive understanding of god with or without Christianity, in truth I just don't know. It would be comforting to believe as seemingly other people believe, instead I find myself rebelling against Christianity and its concept of reward and punishment based on salvation and sin, heaven, hell and the great divide between sinners and saints. Yet I do not know and that is what bugs me.
What is happiness and contentment for the living except security in knowing one is secure in one's self without doubt? Certainly if I had the solution I would not waste my time seeking answers to questions that have no answers.
 
Mr. Ed said:
For me the confusion lies using the word god. Everyone has an opinion about god but no one can accurately describe god in a fashion that everyone can agree on. The best we can do to describe god is our relationship to god or no relationship at all on a personal level.

I change my mind often as I try to make sense of god. I wish i had a firm decisive understanding of god with or without Christianity, in truth I just don't know. It would be comforting to believe as seemingly other people believe, instead I find myself rebelling against Christianity and its concept of reward and punishment based on salvation and sin, heaven, hell and the great divide between sinners and saints. Yet I do not know and that is what bugs me.
What is happiness and contentment for the living except security in knowing one is secure in one's self without doubt? Certainly if I had the solution I would not waste my time seeking answers to questions that have no answers.
Click to expand...
Your honesty is refreshing, and I've been there.
I have found that there are two paths to take.
One path is the detective approach, where you are willing to keep an open mind and keep looking for what might be evidence, and then let that lead you to the most likely conclusion. It is Bayesian logic.

The other path is the lawyer approach, where you go into court and ignore all evidence that doesn't support your argument (No matter how credible the source), and you stand firmly on your position using all evidence that supports your belief (No matter how credible the source).

One would think that most would take the detective path, but sadly, because of confirmation bias, they don't.

To me, whatever created the universe (If anything), the clues would be found in things not created by us. For me, that is nature and the cosmos.
 
Mr. Ed said:
What is happiness and contentment for the living except security in knowing one is secure in one's self without doubt? Certainly if I had the solution I would not waste my time seeking answers to questions that have no answers.
Click to expand...
I don't know. I just need to be confident in myself enough so that I know I can only change the things I can. That makes me content. I don't waste my time trying to imagine a god that makes sense. I did that for 50 years. It's a fool's errand.
 
bobcat said:
I have found it interesting that so many would be willing to believe that a superior being (God) has created everything we see and experience, but they would easily dismiss the possibility that a superior being (Creator) has created a simulation where everything we see and experience seems absolutely real (Like a matrix). We think our perception tells us everything, but it's just an illusion or a convenient lie.

One of the first lessons that physicists learned when they started examining subatomic systems in the early 20th century was that we do not live in a deterministic universe. This is known as superposition. For any experiment that can result in many random outcomes, before we make a measurement, the system is said to be in a superposition of all possible states simultaneously. When we make a measurement, the system "collapses" into a single state that we observe (Schrödinger's Cat). Bizarre right?

If we take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, then observation is the most important act in the universe. It transforms fuzzy probabilities into concrete results and changes an exotic quantum system into verifiable results that we can interpret with our senses.

There are many other reasons to consider that could point to a simulation. A simulation would have laws or rules governing the simulation, such as: Why does time always move forward? Why is there a speed limit (Speed of light)? Why are there laws of physics? Why are there mathematics that can solve things? Etc....

I am not stating that we live in a simulation. I'm just saying that it's possible and we likely wouldn't know it.
Click to expand...

Yes physics got interesting about a hundred years ago when they realized there wouldn’t be simple answers to their questions and that our naive assumptions don’t always apply.

Interestingly the living sciences have yet to have their world turned upside down. There are a few pushing the boundaries out there now but most continue to think of living bodies mechanistically. I’m half way through Phillip Ball’s How Life Works right now and have learned a lot. Great writer for the layman which is what I need.

As someone who does not believe in a superior being who engineered our world, comparing its likelihood to that of our experience being a simulation just confirms both as being extremely unlikely for me.

I’m comfortable using the G word now because I don’t think “God” refers to a being with special powers. The physicists reached the point where they had to wax poetic to express what they were finding out. To understand god you also must approach it as you would poetry. But you find that none of our naive assumptions apply there either and it can’t be translated to plain speak without loss or distortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top