Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

[_BPS_]

Originally Posted by PaulFCB

So a computer simulation, made by some very smart programmers who argh making fun of us making us think everything is actually real, but who made them in the first place?

But how can you confirm that it is real and not, say for example, a dream? Most people when they are dreaming do not realize that it is a dream.

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Originally Posted by FREKI

^the hole thread is about whether or not the universe was created by a creator... religion is the core topic of the thread!

LOL, no its not. Dude seriously, you are really disappointing me. I would say 99% of the time when I read your posts, on most threads, I agree with you, and respect your knowledge, but here for some reason you have gone way off the rails. You are FORCIBLY redirecting and misinterpreting the purpose of this thread/conversion. No one is suggesting that a "creator", that needs our "worship", is the simulator.

This is just a thought experiment about potentialities. One hundred years ago we could only store data in books, before that on clay tablets, and before that, none at all. Now we can store everything ever written on just a few hard drives. The physical nature of books limited how much information could be stored in a book. Like one of your analogies, to store all the information about the EARTH you would need a book bigger than the Earth itself, but then we discovered electricity, and that lead to digital storage devices, and suddenly our data storage capacity multiplied a billion fold.

History shows us that discovery is never ending. Or are you suggesting that we have reached the END OF DISCOVERY, and nothing new lies on the horizon? The four forces of reality(weak/strong nuclear forces, electromagnetism, gravity) are probably not the only ones. We may discover more, I mean hell, up to a hundred years ago there was only one, gravity, then we discovered three more in just the last hundred plus years. It is going to happen, maybe not in my life time, but something will be discovered, that will give us the ability to store the entire galaxy's digital data, on a single device. It is impossible today, like building a Helicopter was impossible for Leonardo Da Vinci, but that did not stop him from his own "thought experiment" and envisioning one.

That is what we are doing here, trying to envision something that can not possibly exist today, but will more than likely be possible in the future. You are looking backwards afraid that we are turning the future into God, while we are looking forward turning God into our future selves.

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

It like saying the only reason we can't travel at warp speed like in star trek is because we haven't worked out how to do it yet. You can't just assume we will find out a way to do it.

But we have to assume that and work backwards, theoretically speaking, otherwise we will never know if it is possible or not. The human tendency is to settle into comfort, "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Cultures that do that, do not evolve but repeat the same rituals, generation after generation. On the other hand cultures like Europe, China, and the ancient middle east, evolved, because there individuals pushed the bounds of their knowledge.

The more I learn about history the more I discover that major developments in human history are most of the time the result of the actions of just ONE single individual. Take ancient Egypt for instance. A single man, Imhotep, decided to change hundreds of years of his people's history by deviating from the traditional mastabas, made of mud brick, by making them of stone and staking them on top of one another building the first ever pyramid, the step pyramid. He then went on to build the first ever smooth faced pyramid, and is also credited with building the first stone column in human history. So everything that came later, the Greeks, Romans, Persians, owe their technology to just ONE individual. And the same pattern repeats over and over again across the world.

One individual comes up with an idea, at first it is ridiculed and rejected, but something about it sparks others to question, think, analyze, experiment, and over centuries tremendous discoveries result.(just look at the European Renaissance and how it began) This is our history, and this is how we will continue making history into the future. What is impossible today, becomes possible in the future, as a DIRECT result of just a few visionaries that dared ask, even when the possibilities were out of their realm.

PS. Plus no one is suggesting that this is in fact real, but it is like going for a jog in the morning, it serves no purpose, it gets you nowhere, other than to exercise your body=> which is a purpose in it of itself. That is exactly what this is, mental exercise. Simply repeating what is KNOWN, is like walking, pushing your brain into the UNKNOWN, is like sprinting(useless and tiresome, but fantastic for your health).

[Dhakaiya]

What if there are just a handful of us being simulated and the rest are NPCs? And like a video game a particular area only "loads" when the character enters it? However when they do they get the feeling that the area was always there and the NPCs have lives of their own. Is the universe a giant PvP server after all?

I don't believe in these stuff of course but its just an interesting thought to delve in. If only they put as much money into feeding Somalians for a scientific pursuit that actually made sense.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

Plus no one is suggesting that this is in fact real, but it is like going for a jog in the morning, it serves no purpose, it gets you nowhere, other than to exercise your body=> which is a purpose in it of itself. That is exactly what this is, mental exercise.

If you want to train your brain do the math instead of defending theology..


Dreaming of a world with no real rules or boundries is like dreaming of flying an aircraft straight for hours on a transatlantic flight with jolly weather - if you really want to train your brain add the laws of physics and the limits they bring and it will be more like driving a car trough an innercity rush hour..

Taking the easy way has never worked in philosophy X does not = god or magic they are nothing but excuses!

[_BPS_]

I never understood the reasoning of atheists (unlike agnostics), rejecting a higher-being as if they have full proof of the being's non-existence.

Originally Posted by FREKI

Some members have faith and don't need proof, some pick the agnostic way and say maybe and some like me want's proof as it's so unlikely based on scale and scientific discovery..

Even if a higher being was to manifest itself to you, I think you still wouldn't believe in it, because you already have a permanent predisposed opinion of it.

[AnOldBlackMarble]

You do love beating down dead horses don't you.

I'm sure you know very well that different parts of the brain specialize in different types of thinking such as analytical vs. creative. Why only work out one side and ignore the other. When you go to the gym do you only lift weights with your right arm and right leg and completely ignore the left?

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Originally Posted by _BPS_

I never understood the reasoning of atheists (unlike agnostics), rejecting a higher-being as if they have full proof of the being's non-existence.

Even if a higher being was to manifest itself to you, I think you still wouldn't believe in it, because you already have a permanent predisposed opinion of it.

One that one I am with him one hundred percent. There is no chance in hell, or heaven, that a supreme being, a creator, etc. actually exists. No change.

[AltinD]

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

Why only work out one side and ignore the other. When you go to the gym do you only lift weights with your right arm and right leg and completely ignore the left?

Have you seen Night M. Shayamalan's 'Lady in the Water' by any chance?

[AnOldBlackMarble]

A long time ago, but I don't remember it well. I'm sure you're hinting at some link there but I can't think of what it might be right now.

[gramercy]

we may not be a simulation created by future humans ruled by this exact universe, but we could totally be a fictional simulation created by creatures that exist in a universe we cannot even conceive of, delegating the entire idea into the realm of philosophy

which is fine by me, fucking more likely than any religion

[BE0GRAD]

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

So you think in the future, the media required to store the simulation info of the smallest particle in the universe will be smaller than the smallest particle in the universe?

Sadly this is where the idea becomes pure philosophy and ignores practicality.

I mean, yes, if in the future we have the technology to be able to perfectly simulate the universe, then we'll be able to simulate the universe, but that's hardly a convincing argument for saying it's likely to happen.

It like saying the only reason we can't travel at warp speed like in star trek is because we haven't worked out how to do it yet. You can't just assume we will find out a way to do it.

If you ask me if I have any proofs we'll have such possibilities ,I assure you ... I don't. My reasoning is based on statistics and throughout the history they usually say that whatever humanity once considered impossible or couldn't even imagine became reality sooner or later thanks to the improvement of our knowledge. Once it was considered impossible to go to the Moon, fly or even cure some very curable diseases today. Things like internet, atomic bomb or quantum computing couldn't even be imagined just 100 years ago. With exponential increase of human knowledge, who knows what wonders we will be able to do in just 100 years , not to mention even further future.

Today it is a normal fact that you can go to the other end of the world in less than one day. Say that to someone from 13th century or even Neolithic period and you'll be laugh at just like FREKI is somehow laughing at a possibility of simulations on the scale of a universe.

Originally Posted by Dhakaiya

What if there are just a handful of us being simulated and the rest are NPCs? And like a video game a particular area only "loads" when the character enters it? However when they do they get the feeling that the area was always there and the NPCs have lives of their own. Is the universe a giant PvP server after all?

I don't believe in these stuff of course but its just an interesting thought to delve in. If only they put as much money into feeding Somalians for a scientific pursuit that actually made sense.

Interesting idea. I actually taught about it once.

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

One that one I am with him one hundred percent. There is no chance in hell, or heaven, that a supreme being, a creator, etc. actually exists. No change.

Can you please present me the proof of that claim? Atheists are very funny bunch of people. They claim that they are not religious although their reasoning is practically identical to the one of Theists ... meaning they believe/think/claim something that cannot be proven.

[Dimethyltryptamine]

Sort of creeps me out to so much as think about.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by _BPS_

I never understood the reasoning of atheists (unlike agnostics), rejecting a higher-being as if they have full proof of the being's non-existence.

The proof is in the nature of the universe - if there had been room for magic it would have shaped in a dramatically different way..

Inductrination doing childhood may have you being open to the magic tales of your culture, but how about other fairy tales like Santa, the Easter Bully, trolls and giants, ghosts, teletubbies and fairies?

Do you - using your own logic - think they all possible exists on an equal level as what theology you follow..


We came to terms with Norse mythology a long time ago up here - why we call it mythology

Originally Posted by _BPS_

Even if a higher being was to manifest itself to you, I think you still wouldn't believe in it, because you already have a permanent predisposed opinion of it.

If human history has taught us anything it is that there is ALWAYS a logical explanation, so of course I would not buy into something that is not physically possible

Many primitive tribes and uneducated people everywhere have been fooled time and time again into service, out of valuables and land by these tricks ( just look at the Vatican's basement and bankaccount )


Plus then comes the philosophical question of what the heck do we even owe any 'higher being' ?

I do not have any code in my DNA saying "property of Odin" I owe nothing to anyone and my work is for me, my family and my country..


I ask nothing of my turtles, my interest is their wellbeing, good conditions and good life - look at Earth and see if there any signs at anyone caring about us.. the only parts prospering are where people rely on themself and share their wealth

It's pretty telling that the more theology the worse places are off..

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Originally Posted by BE0GRAD

Can you please present me the proof of that claim? Atheists are very funny bunch of people. They claim that they are not religious although their reasoning is practically identical to the one of Theists ... meaning they believe/think/claim something that cannot be proven.

Proof is like time, it only goes in one direction. You prove things into existence, not out of existence. Human language is the cause for this confusion, because you can prove that things "don't" exist but in language only, meaning that if someone makes a claim you can disprove their claim, but you can't disprove reality. So for instance, if I claim that I found another planet near the earth called Jehova, it is not your job to prove me wrong, because my words are meaningless, unless I can back them up with physical proof of its existence. It is up to me to prove that Jehova is real, because there is another guy out there who claims he discovered a different planet called Allah, and another guy discovered another planet, Buddha, and so on. It is up to us to prove that our "planets" exist, not up to you to "prove" against what are just an empty claims since none of us have any data, beyond old texts or hearsay and rumor, to back them up.

So if you claim God, then show me the proof, that he exists, because your words are meaningless. Words without a physical explanation behind them are a waste of sound waves. Plus the PROOF for evolution, natural forces, etc, far outweigh any hint for the existence of a God or Gods. So I choose to accept the side that has proven itself more accurate. That has cured diseases. That has given us modern technology. That has given us philosophic humanism(this alone is far superior to any religious morality). So why should I accept your god, or the Buddha guy's god, or the Allah guy's god, when none of those Gods have given to the world what secular science has given the world.

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Ohoh... you better watch out. You guys now got me and Freki on the same page. Are you sure you want that? Are you sure you want to go up against the unholy alliance?

[AltinD]

You really think that makes you powerful or of any relevance?

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Originally Posted by AltinD

You really think that makes you powerful or of any relevance?

There is no God, but Freki is god.

[FREKI]

^I can burn bushes, fly from continent to continent and tell folks to sacrifize their sons

Heck I can even make commandments on stone tablets and father a blonde son!


So if people would be so kind as to PM me their credit card information I shall make sure they get to live in heaven for all eternaty - if not I'll force you all to northern Sweden

[BE0GRAD]

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

Proof is like time, it only goes in one direction. You prove things into existence, not out of existence. Human language is the cause for this confusion, because you can prove that things "don't" exist but in language only, meaning that if someone makes a claim you can disprove their claim, but you can't disprove reality. So for instance, if I claim that I found another planet near the earth called Jehova, it is not your job to prove me wrong, because my words are meaningless, unless I can back them up with physical proof of its existence. It is up to me to prove that Jehova is real, because there is another guy out there who claims he discovered a different planet called Allah, and another guy discovered another planet, Buddha, and so on. It is up to us to prove that our "planets" exist, not up to you to "prove" against what are just an empty claims since none of us have any data, beyond old texts or hearsay and rumor, to back them up.

So if you claim God, then show me the proof, that he exists, because your words are meaningless. Words without a physical explanation behind them are a waste of sound waves. Plus the PROOF for evolution, natural forces, etc, far outweigh any hint for the existence of a God or Gods. So I choose to accept the side that has proven itself more accurate. That has cured diseases. That has given us modern technology. That has given us philosophic humanism(this alone is far superior to any religious morality). So why should I accept your god, or the Buddha guy's god, or the Allah guy's god, when none of those Gods have given to the world what secular science has given the world.

No. You don't only proove that things exist. You proove what you claim. So if you claim God doesn't exist you have to proove it ,otherwise your words are just meaningless religious rant. And yes, of course you can proove something doesn't exist:

1. Define the atributes of that "something".
2. Discover all the ways those atributes can be percieved by your senses.
3. See if your senses percieve any of the defined atributes in the area where the non-existence must be prooven.

So if I want to proove ,per example if there's an apple on my desk:

1. I would define that an apple has a certain shape, color, texture, smell and taste.
2. I'd assume I could percieve it directly with all my senses.
3. I could just look to see if there's an apple but if it is ,per example, covered with some meta-material making it invisible ,someone like you would immediatelly jump to conclusion it doesn't exist but if you tried with all your senses, after some time you'll fell it's shape and texture under your fingers, it's smell under your nose, it's taste in yur mouth and if you somehow took off that meta-material off it you'll even see it's color.

So if I claimed that there is no apple on my desk I'd have to proove it just like all you, religious people, have to proove your claims if you want to be taken seriously.