Say we're living in a simulation because of logical probabilities

Which thread was it?

>A series of rational, well explained arguments
That apply equally to the theory of a deity. In fact if the universe is simulated then by any definition the being doing the simulating is effectively God

The simulation hypothesis is fucking retarded anyway. Maybe I'll believe it when it's shown that "simulation" is actually possible.

IMO pure speculation is fine as long as it's acknowledged as such and nobody tries to build a business based on it.

>god means christianity
fedora pls go

The "simulation theory" has been around since Aristotle.

The universe is essentially infinite as we know of. That means essentially infinite amount of resources for a supercomputer to create a constantly expanding essentially infinite simulation.

No one takes the simulation hypothesis seriously. Not even himself (ergo why he voices it through PopSci channels instead of via a scientific paper, when he knows that any scientific publication would fucking die to publish something by Elon Musk).

Those atheists who "believe" in it are, you guessed it, not intellectuals. They are not scientists. They are just atheists because it is fashionable to not be Christian in this and age. A true skeptic atheist would not fall for creationism 2.0

What? I'm pretty sure it's not infinite.

I take it back, it could be infinite.

The universe being a simulation doesn't mean there is a "god".

The impossible to lift rock paradox destroys beyond all doubts the concept of omnipotent entities like that.

hurr durr god cant make 1+1=3 therefore god isn't real!!!

shoo shoo brainlets, aquinas defeated likes of you 500 years ago

Deity implies magic was involved. The simulation hypothesis implies our universe isnt real. Thats the main difference.

So you don’t believe simulating things is possible? Because you can run simulations of smaller systems on a home computer, so that kind of BTFOs your argument.

>any scientific publication would fucking die to publish something by Elon Musk

lol

>atheists who "believe" in it are, you guessed it, not intellectuals

very few people actually believe in the simulation theory, it's simply considered an interesting concept/possibility

...

i am an atheist and i think simulation and creation are both bullshit.

>Deity implies magic was involved
No it doesn't?

>book means bible
brainlet pls entertain me further

Belief in deism can come from pure logical arguments. No book needed of any kind. In fact most of the arguments used by creationists don't actually specify that it has to be their particular God, which is a common criticism levied against them. If you're not interested in proving that any specific God exists and there just is one of some kind then they work fine.

Guys I have a question and I couldn't find answer for it.

So Elon says going to Mars is easy every 2 years. He means Mars and Earth is close every 2 years.

What about Saturn's moon Titan? How would it be going there? How many years Earth and Titan gets close?

Thanks.

bump

Titan can't be reached because it will take decades worth of gravity assists.

So Titan is decades away from Earth or what?

Using conventional aka available technology, yes.

No. Voyager reached Saturn in 3 years. Cassini reached Saturn in 7 years and landed Huygens shortly after that.

No you're just too dumb to understand what "omnipotent" means.

what is the definition of god? What does it mean?

>Defines "omnipotent" in a way that it includes the ability to create logical paradoxes
>This logical paradox proves God can't be real
Dumbass.

An extradimensional being not constrained by the laws of our reality who created our universe and has total control over it

That covers most possibilities including alien being simulating our universe in his PC

It takes the same delta v to get out of our gravity well as it does to get the same payload to fucking jupiter.

Simulating something on your computer doesn't create a world, it just manipulates representations. If you are a simulation, what are you a representation of, and how are you self aware that you exist in this world?

Okay, but you see, most people are thinking about the god you find in religion. That might bring the confusion.
I think another term would be more appropriate.

Too bad creationists have consistently failed to create a logical argument based on true premises.

>Live in the multiverse.
>Atheists get put in a universe where they cease to exist after death.
>Tfw it is a black room.
>Tfw nothing in it.
>Tfw they think they are right.
>Tfw you play along because they were good people and didn't have the heart to tell them.

>most people are thinking about the god you find in religion
That definition covers what a Christian or Muslim would consider to be God. They just think it's some form of spirit than an alien.

How can they think they are right if they've ceased to exist?

>No it doesn’t?
Excellent argument, allow me to put forth my rebuttal.

Yes it does?

You are missing the point entirely. The simulation argument says that at the most basic level, our universe doesn’t exist. No need for the simulation to “create” a universe, it just needs to simulate the minds that inhabit it and the laws that govern it. Your “self awareness” is an illusion required to simulate the desired universe and the potential actions of the minds that inhabit it. Let me make it clear that i do not believe in the simulation argument, I am just playing devils advocate for a(n) (probably) unfalsifiable hypotheses.

I mean, if you define "magic" as interacting with the universe in ways we cannot currently understand with our current scientific models of reality sure, but it seems a little disingenuous. Like claiming alien technology that contradicts our knowledge of physics would be "magic".

Put another way if the being is an alien programmer and his way of interacting with the universe is changing lines of code is that "magic" and does it make him a "wizard"? Not really.

No, but if a deity who created the Earth in 7 days 6000 years ago does that then yes, I believe that would fall under “magic”. I define magic as performing fictional feats that defy known laws of physics with no explanation as to how or why, other than “divine power”. If there is an explanation then it becomes science or, at worst philosophy. The difference between the simulation argument and religious deism is that simulationists try to explain the “what”, “how” and “why”(albeit poorly with no concrete evidence) where as religion just says that God posesses the power to do anything because reasons and we should worship him by donating to the church because of it.

>No, but if a deity who created the Earth in 7 days 6000 years ago does that then yes
No-one mentioned Christians let alone Young Earth Creationists. Please refrain from strawmanning deism with your own prejudices against organized religion, thank you.

All sides "reeee" their heads off at everything else. Why are you being an idiot?

Way to point out the only anecdotal part of my post. “Deity” implies they have divine power. Godlike and out of reach of mere mortals. I suppose it depends on your personal definition of “deity” or “divine power” but if we are going by dictionary definitions im objectively right in the fact that deism is closer to religion than science and the simulation argument is closer to science than religion. Although both beliefs are retarded, those are the facts.

Why do people think atheists are a coherent group with any kind of shared beliefs on anything?
It's not a club, or a culture. Most buddhists are atheists, but you propably didn't mean them.

Magic, as in shape reality just by thinking and wishing it. See "Magical thinking" on wiki. That is what a god does.

A deity could interact with the physical universe through perfectly natural means that are not understood by humans. Characterizing it as "magic" is silly when you're not even certain of the underlying structure of the universe in the first place let alone what methods would be available to an extradimensional being to manipulate it. If our universe was simulated then creating matter out of thin air would be as simple as adding the code for that object. Such a thing violates what we understand to be the fundamental laws of our reality and would be called magic or a miracle but when you zoom out a step further and see that the laws of our reality are variables programmed then it becomes mundane. Get it?

"Divine power" is just shorthand for interacting with reality in an unknown way. If string theory is correct then divine power could just be twanging the strings to get them to change the nature of the matter they create.

>No need for the simulation to “create” a universe, it just needs to simulate the minds that inhabit it and the laws that govern it.
That doesn't change my objection.

>Your “self awareness” is an illusion required to simulate the desired universe and the potential actions of the minds that inhabit it.
If it's actually creating a mind then it's not simulating one. The entire concept of "simulation" in this context seems to be undefined and incoherent. The entire point of simulating something on a computer is that you aren't creating that thing.

>The entire point of simulating something on a computer is that you aren't creating that thing.
It doesn't matter to the simulated mind. The simulation still creates simulated stimuli to feed into the consciousnesses that it simulates. So yeah, the things you interact with aren't "actually" there but they're real enough to your mind that it doesn't matter. Just like the Matrix.

Its not that its “not currently understood by humans” its that “theres no way humans could possibly understand so dont bother trying” that makes the difference between magic and advanced science.

There's no real clear delineation between what is theoretically possible and what is fundamentally impossible though. If an alien species arrived with technology that allows them to create matter at will how do you make the determination that it's "magic" or it's using some mechanic of reality we're simply not aware of? Or even that our assumptions of what is possible and impossible are simply wrong and the aliens have a better understanding of how the universe really works than we do? The number of ways for an extradimensional being to theoretically interact with the physical universe are limitless so where is the line we can draw that seperates "Nuhuh, can't happen. Period" from "Can happen but we don't understand the underlying theory that allows it to happen"?

>The simulation hypothesis is LITERALLY creationism
No, there is a lot of evidence for us living in a simulation. Quantum physics being one of them.

Please elaborate on how quantum physics points to us being in a simulation

I am an atheist and I can't answer your question on the basis that the premise is a lie entirely made up by you, OP.

>most arguments are wrong. Therefore, the argument you're making is probably wrong. Therefore, we don't live in a simulated universe

Is there an argument for simulation which isn't btfo by a basic understanding of Bayesian probability?

The problem with referring to a simulated universes creator as "God" is the baggage that comes with the term. Using the word God has implications of other religious beliefs that aren't in any way supported by the logic, and furthermore the use of the word God does not contribute anything to the discussion. It literally just lowers the entire discussion to an inferior level just by using the word.

Even though a Matrix admin would effectively have all the powers of a Jeudochristian God, I still think it would be a bad idea to call him God.

I think that has more to do with the prejudices of the people who commonly support the simulation theory, which was OPs point. If you can admit that the administrator of such a simulation would for all intents and purposes be a god to this universe then why sperg out over people calling it a deity

Because the way it works is the same as the solution to optimizing a simulation. Nobody looks = unload from memory.

Why did Voyager get there so much quicker? Was it a more ideal alignment?

This argument is inconsistent. You speak of "the logic" while you try to discuss hypotheses which are by nature unverifiable. Moreover, both of the premises you're discussing include the acceptance of one or more beings with capabilities not limited to the reality you perceive, and yet you try to force consideration of such capabilities into some idea of objective realism.

Here are two scenarios:
1. The Judeo-Christian God creates a reality existing lower than the plane of his own existence. Within that reality, that God creates the world as described in the Bible and subsequently interacts with it, causing people to record events in the Bible.

2. The simulator creates a creates a reality existing lower than the plane of his own existence. Within the reality, that simulator creates the world in the order described in the Bible and subsequently interacts with it, causing people to record events in the Bible.

If you can spot any difference, you're speaking from bias, not from any rational basis of what is "scientific" or "logical."

It's logical in the sense that you can use statistical reasoning to make it appear more likely than not that the universe is some sort of simulation. A concept can be arrived at logically even if there's no physical evidence to support it.

The scenarios you've just posted show exactly the problem with using the word God. You've drawn in the Bible and the idea of the server admin interacting with humans. That has absolutely nothing to do with the simulation hypothesis and is basically unrelated nonsense. It's like if you were trying to talk about many worlds and somebody said "well that means there's a universe where superman exists" and then went on to rant about super hero comic book canon. All you're doing is going off on a stupid tangent and distracting the discussion from the actually reasonable theoretical universe model. You have lowered the tone of the conversation to some non-statistically supported folk tales.

no

The scenarios I've posited are the human record of claims to have interacted with something that your simulation theory would call the "simulator."

If a simulation and a simulator exists, would it be able to interact with humans towards some ends? If it can, has it? If it has, do we have a record? And if it can, it has, and we have a record, is there something we can learn (or do?) about or from this simulator? This is quite literally a re-framing of the purpose of organized religion within the framework of your "simulation theory."

As for what I've done: what I've done is simply not blindly write off thousands of years of human experience as irrelevant to this (logically equivalent at the level of premises) "new" theory by positing a relationship between the two. You see folk tales because your bias prevents you from seeing the value in connecting two important parts of human thought.

Bayes was a pastor. Checkmate.

Brainlet here, why is that exactly? genuinely curious.

What about going the Buddhist route and saying our minds are not simulated but the reality we seem to inhabit is, but we lose all memory of one simulated body upon entering another

>A concept can be arrived at logically even if there's no physical evidence to support it.
You realize you can do the exact same thing for a creator deity and the only real counter that has been offered against that logic is "Yeah? Well it's not your specific God" which is irrelevant if you're simply trying to prove a deity exists and not that it's specifically God, Jehovah, Allah, etc.

It still comes back to why atheists are willing to humor the simulation hypothesis while simultaneously pretending they find the idea of a deity absurd. Ignoring the fact that the operator of such a simulation actually IS a deity by the absolute definition (Being outside physical universe, no bound by laws of our universe, created our universe and has absolute control over it) the logic you use to arrive at the conclusion our universe might be a simulation is barely any different than the logic used to arrive at the conclusion our universe has a creator god. So why are people accepting of the simulation hypothesis but prejudiced against creationism?

>what I've done is simply not blindly write off thousands of years of human experience
human expirience is the opposite of good evidence
it is literally condensed bias, and the end of conversation

"but I feel this way, don't discard my expirience!" has no rebuttal, because it is never an argument (only exception being obviously when specificly talking about the nature of conciousness or discussing subjectivity)

When you bring out "muh expirience" and "but people just feel this!" as an argument in any of the hard sciences(like astronomy or physics, nature of the universe included), you basicly announce that you can be safely ignored

a deity violates natural law in principle, simulation does not

no part of the simulation hypothesis (note: not theory) goes against what we already know to be possible: things existing in a universe and computes that run a simulation being possible
only crux there is that no-one knows what conciousness is exactly, but seeing as a mere brain is enough to create it reliably, the "leap of faith" is that if it runs on meat, it could run on another substrate
thats it

enter god hypothesis: universes can be created by thought of a thing that needs nothing to exist, is infinitely complex, is the ONLY thing to exist really, uniquely has a conciousness with no substrate, is not subject to any laws whatsoever, and for some reason simulates things that are completely not like itself, even if being infinetly capable and complex it doesn't need to simulate anything since it knows the results immideately anyway

not the same

trying to change the term god to mean "just something that looks like a god to us" is changing the conversation, its not what anyone talks about when saying they believe in a god
noone actually believes or advocates praying to some random programmer from another dimension

Well first off the idea that anything that exists outside our universe has to adhere to the laws within it is a silly idea, that goes for both theories. The simulation hypothesis simply states that because it is theoretically possible for us to simulate a universe that ours could be as well. What kind of "hardware" this simulation is running on is almost certainly not constrained by the properties of our universe, after all why would the simulator be constrained by the properties they themselves placed into their simulation?

Secondly you're making the assumption that a deity couldn't interact with our universe through completely logical yet unknown methods. It's important to remember that the true underlying nature of reality is important here. What we know about the universe is that it's impossible for a planet to spontaneously pop into existence from nothing, yet if our reality was a simulation then the simulator could easily program in a new planet and create it from "nothing". In this case the fundamental nature of our reality being essentially programming code supercedes the laws of nature which that code embeds into our reality.

With that in mind the exact same logic applies for any deity. If the fundamental nature of our reality is different, if there is a "deeper" level that our physical universe is running on then it might be childs play to rewrite the laws of reality at will and make the impossible happen. If you were playing a super advanced version of the sims on your PC in the year 5000 and they had their own consciousness and they lived in a reality with similar laws to our own then you placeing a new piece of furniture would make it seem like you're a godlike being with the ability to break the laws of their reality on a whim. But you know that their reality is simply lines of code being executed and that what they regard as immutable laws of nature are simply variables you can change on a whim.

>goes against what we already know to be possible
If the universe is a simulation than what you know to be "possible" is defined by whatever is simulating our universe. Theoretically they could've simulated a universe with different properties and completely change what is logically possible within the bounds of their simulation

Can you explain your thoughts in a more simplified way for a brainlet like myself can understand?

That is adding a bunch of stuff to something when you don't have to, making the theory with more additions a lot weaker.
They might be simulating different physics, they might not. None of the parts needed for the simulation theory require new laws.

you missed the point. god hypothesis says there is inherently no natural law ever anywhere, its just a god and his thoughts and wishes.
simulation says observe what you can see happen already, and extrapolate from actual things that do occur. it just proposes more of those things. nothing about the god-hypothesis does this. it's all things with no observed precedent. not a universe which we know can exist, not computers we know can exist, not simulation we know can exist.
its "a mind with no matter/time/laws that can manifest thought and infinite complexity as the base building block of anything ever". Simulation has none of that magic shit. It's just "bigger computers, conciousness being able to run on hard-, not wetware, in fundamentally the same type of universe as ours". nothing similar.

nice

The simulation hypothesis changes nothing to the low quality of creationist "research".

>Nobody looks = unload from memory.
das not how it works

>Say we're living in a simulation
No, because that idea is retarded.

Except it is

>in b4 autistic screeching about how observation actually means interaction

>Because the way it works is the same as the solution to optimizing a simulation. Nobody looks = unload from memory.

Wrong, exactly the opposite is true. Nobody looks = simulate all the possibilities.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation

Quantum mechanics is much HARDER to simulate than classical physics. It points towards our universe NOT being a simulation.

backreaction.blogspot.sk/2017/03/no-we-probably-dont-live-in-computer.html

dude you don't understand, shit ain't "unloaded from memory", a quantum system is determined by its coordinates on the Bloch sphere. It's just that observables are distinct from actual quantum coordinates.

If anything, quantum systems make everything harder to simulate, by keeping track of probabilities associated to every degree of freedom.

You could simulate people who believe to have deduced correctly that this is not a simulation. And simulate a feeling of certainty that it is not.
Simulation of conciousness has weird options there.

I don't see how something with access to fiddle with our internal coherency/rationality detection could be disproven. It would just tell you to think everything checks out.

But these are called "ad-hoc rationalisations" I think. And make things less believable.

Given that our internal coherency/rationality detection is the only and final tool we have, and it seems to tell us this is not a simulation, seems reasonable to go with that conclusion for now.

Unless I see proof, like the matrix collapsing in places or some shit, I won't believe purely linguistical/logical propabilties.

>If anything, quantum systems make everything harder to simulate, by keeping track of probabilities associated to every degree of freedom.
No, you don't need to simulate all of the possible states. You only need to track one distribution for all particles if it is done deliberately by the simulation, otherwise it's just a side effect of the simulation system. Takes virtually no space.
You saying this means you have no idea about bayesian probability
>Nobody looks = simulate all the possibilities.
No fool, that's how we interpret the physics. The possibilities are never simulated, they don't even exist until you check. You need to understand wave function.
>Quantum mechanics is much HARDER to simulate than classical physics.
False. Think about what happens when a sim tries to access memory that is outside his scope. You never load the memory but the sim tries accesses it nonetheless and gets random results.

>The simulation hypothesis is LITERALLY creationism
More intelligent design than creationism but yes, /thread

You're absolutely right. Boths theists and atheists have the exact same bigotry, hypocrisy and arrogance. They can be equally annoying and obnoxious, but atheists are less likely to be so in my opinion. Though atheists do have a religion, it's called "Apple" and that's for retards who don't think for themselves as well.

Agnosticism is the only objective stance on religion. Both theists and atheists cant prove their point with our current knowledge.

>No fool, that's how we interpret the physics. The possibilities are never simulated, they don't even exist until you check. You need to understand wave function.
Bruh, the wave function takes much more space to store than just storing observables.
>False. Think about what happens when a sim tries to access memory that is outside his scope.
fucking lmao, you've never written a single line of quantum simulation code

No, omnipotence is best understood analogous to superposition and in this case a omnipotent deity would be able to create a rock so big he couldn't lift it WHILE AT THE SAME TIME not be able to lift it.

i feel convinced personally that life is a simulation but i think it could be a delusion. mental illness is a very common thing in my family.
but is it even a delusion if nothing can convince me this is real life?

Why does simulation preclude "real life"?

>Agnosticism = I don't KNOW if a god/gods exist.
>Atheism = I don't BELIEVE a god/gods exist.
Two answers to two different questions. Being an agnostic atheist is entierly possible and probably the most common type of atheist you'll find.