Has science found God?

[1213]

As Bible suggests, this world is like a computer simulation. And now some have found evidence this could be true, world may be like a computer simulation. What say you, have science found God, the programmer of the universe?

"Simulation theory is a theoretical hypothesis that says what people perceive as reality is actually an advanced, hyper-realistic computer simulation, possibly overseen by a higher being".
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory

"Do you ever experience something and think to yourself, “This can’t be real.” To some people who have bought into the notion that our reality is currently being simulated, there are examples all around us, that demonstrate glitches in the Matrix. Deja Vu? Ghosts? The Mandela Effect? These could all be direct examples of flaws in the simulation."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

"MIT Theoretical physicist James Gates has made a discovery that allegedly caused Neil deGrasse Tyson to sit down in shock. Now for the uninitiated, superstring theory is a concept that could unify all aspects of physics if proven right. While working on his superstring theory, he made an odd discovery. Gates claims to have identified what appears to be actual computer code embedded in the equations of string theory that describe the fundamental particles of our universe. In short, he found “error-correcting codes,” the same error-correcting codes that you might find on the web browser you are using right now."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

[Purple Knight]

Perhaps there is a delicate work in progress whereby the overseeing understand the dynamics and the requirement for change and the overseeing remain unrecognized by those who think of the overseeing as those pointing to incorrect morality and proclaiming it "correct"?

Are we being shown a truthful image and how do we go about verifying that as true?

How do we know that this particular rendered image of GG is the true one?

Start by assuming everything is true and eliminate whatever is self-contradictory. Is there a reason a being that would want every experience, would not want to torture somebody?

24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

Well, is this regarded by people as true in practice? In this picture Jesus is sitting, and we are being called to serve up our morality - our meat - to him. He is of course regarded as the most moral.

Your answer appears to favor a possible extinction event. (Correct me if you have to).

I think it's an endless cycle. Constant collapse and rebuilding, not extinction. Parasites are advantaged, become more numerous than hosts, everybody becomes parasites, everything crumbles. The leftovers scatter, create societies that are intensely skeptical of parasites, and over time they forget, and parasites win in their societies again.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #31]

Start by assuming everything is true and eliminate whatever is self-contradictory. Is there a reason a being that would want every experience, would not want to torture somebody?

That moves away from the motive I expressed in the essay which has more to do with realigning to the notion that we are individualized, infinite entities of consciousness interconnected with all other forms and expressions of life. This fundamental belief requires us to see ourselves as one entity, despite our reality telling us otherwise. It requires us to understand and express kindness in our local universe, bringing higher harmony to our individual moments of infinite space-time.

What is the difference between your atheistic act of demonising and the theistic act of demonizing?

[Purple Knight]

Start by assuming everything is true and eliminate whatever is self-contradictory. Is there a reason a being that would want every experience, would not want to torture somebody?

That moves away from the motive I expressed in the essay which has more to do with realigning to the notion that we are individualized, infinite entities of consciousness interconnected with all other forms and expressions of life.

I don't think it moves away from it at all. We either are separate, or we aren't. Simultaneously considering both as true helps to explore the issue. Remember, I am considering your position as 100% true. We are all interconnected and we aren't individuals. The idea that GG exists and does it all for the experiences is 100% true (and, it's more plausible than the idea that an all-powerful and all-loving God does it all to help us, and we suffer because he can't help it).

What is the difference between your atheistic act of demonising and the theistic act of demonizing?

The first very real difference is that I'm not making a moral judgment on GG for creating me so I can be tortured, which in your position we do have to recognise as a possibility, because GG wants every experience. I'm just saying I have every right not to bow to it. The second real difference is that I'm not saying he definitely wants to hurt people - I'm just saying he well might.

There are 3 cases here:
1) We are separate individuals.
2) We're not separate individuals and GG wants every experience except hurting people.
3) We're not separate individuals and GG wants every experience including hurting people.

I might actually be under an illusion that I'm an individual. But seeing as how I can't break that illusion just because I want it to be broken, I'm justified in acting as if I am an individual, and wanting people not to hurt me. If GG really wants us all to be kind and wants every experience except those of torturing people, then there is no conflict. In cases 1 and 2 I'm justified in not wanting to be harmed and objecting to it.

It is only in case 3 that GG wants every experience including those of torturing people, and I have a moral or quasi-moral (because he's me and objecting would be silly) obligation to give him what he wants, am I unjustified in wanting people not to hurt me. I'm sure you can see where Case 3 converges on Christianity's notion of masochistic-pacifist morality.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #33]

We either are separate, or we aren't.

In reality we are not.
However, our experience of individuality has it that we can choose to acknowledge we are, or choose to remain ignorant of that.

Simultaneously considering both as true helps to explore the issue.

I don't think so. Rather one has to examine both re their strengths and weaknesses in relation to deciding which is true and which is not.

Remember, I am considering your position as 100% true. We are all interconnected and we aren't individuals.

That is not what the essay is saying.

Rather it is saying that we are all having individual experiences which are connected through a more encompassing intelligence than our own individual intelligence which we can either ignore (to remain in that illusion of individuality and disconnection) or interact with.

The first very real difference is that I'm not making a moral judgment on GG for creating me so I can be tortured, which in your position we do have to recognise as a possibility, because GG wants every experience. I'm just saying I have every right not to bow to it. The second real difference is that I'm not saying he definitely wants to hurt people - I'm just saying he well might.

Ones right not to "bow" to it = remaining in the illusion of separatism, in a wilful manner. The essay does not argue against your right not to bow to it.

Re your argument, it follows that the GG also wants to experience "not bowing to it"...

All in all, the GG remains unconditional re whatever it is that individual humans "want".

There are 3 cases here:
1) We are separate individuals.
2) We're not separate individuals and GG wants every experience except hurting people.
3) We're not separate individuals and GG wants every experience including hurting people.

It is only in case 3 that GG wants every experience including those of torturing people, and I have a moral or quasi-moral (because he's me and objecting would be silly) obligation to give him what he wants, am I unjustified in wanting people not to hurt me. I'm sure you can see where Case 3 converges on Christianity's notion of masochistic-pacifist morality.

Taking into consideration the history of humanity up to this point, do you think it plausible that GG (even at the level of planetary-mind awareness) has more than enough data of experience (re masochistic-pacifist morality) to "move on" through those individual humans willing to actually do so?

The essay's focus is primarily upon that...

The Shaping Of Reality
From the perspective of an evolving God-Mind, what was once acceptable behaviour becomes unacceptable, signifying change.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #33]

We either are separate, or we aren't.

In reality we are not.

Which reality? The ultimate truth which we don't experience, or our experiences? I've found that despite wanting your level of enlightenment, I can't change my experiences. I don't see through everyone else's eyes, and I don't take pleasure in someone else hurting me, though I acknowledge I should. Should doesn't mean is. That's my point. It can be true that the tree is not actually green. The greenness might be an illusion. The most common and obvious way this can be true is that the tree is red and I'm red-green colourblind. The fact that I see the green, however, is not an illusion or a lie. It's real. Whatever makes it actually an illusion is real, but so are my eyes and the perception of colour that is triggered - those things are also part of reality. It's funny how we're always called on to acknowledge another person's reality as true, unless it's our own.

It's not so much choosing not to acknowledge and remaining ignorant, as the simple truth that I do not see clothes on your emperor. There probably are clothes on him. Certain things do point to it. But I can't simply choose to see them, if I do not. I think, therefore I am, is statement that acknowledges that our experiences must be real. They don't necessarily reflect the ultimate reality, but they are real nonetheless, because we experience them.

For example, let's say I walk into a sophisticated virtual reality, and fight a T-Rex with a sword. Neither the T-Rex nor the sword are real but I still experienced that experience. I saw the T-Rex (which can be reproduced from the brain, fun fact) and I experienced swinging the sword. That's not nothing. You could just as easily say that someone who writes off our real experiences of individualism as ignorance, is just as guilty of ignorance, as someone who says that their experiences of individualism are necessarily the limit of reality.

It plays off as a sort of, "Don't squirm like that, I'm not hurting you."

Simultaneously considering both as true helps to explore the issue.

I don't think so. Rather one has to examine both re their strengths and weaknesses in relation to deciding which is true and which is not.

The idea that we have to decide, throwing one case out the window and we're not allowed to consider it anymore - is crippling.

Rather it is saying that we are all having individual experiences which are connected through a more encompassing intelligence than our own individual intelligence which we can either ignore (to remain in that illusion of individuality and disconnection) or interact with.

Again, that's not entirely appreciative of the idea that GG wants every experience. So he not only wants the "ignorant" experience of individuality, he not only wants the experience of first experiencing individuality and being able to touch GG, he also wants the experience of wanting to be free of individuality and interact with GG and being absolutely cut off and incapable of doing so. In other words, if he really wants every experience, he goes no-contact on some people just for yuks. This explains why there seems to be a human pull toward being religious, but some people are just not experiencing it.

Ones right not to "bow" to it = remaining in the illusion of separatism, in a wilful manner. The essay does not argue against your right not to bow to it.

Re your argument, it follows that the GG also wants to experience "not bowing to it"...

All in all, the GG remains unconditional re whatever it is that individual humans "want".

That leaves out the possibility of wanting the experience of bowing to a god that has only ever been hurtful and mean. You're not quite getting the picture of just how well your cosmology explains reality. All of it, not just kindness, gumdrops, and rainbows.

Taking into consideration the history of humanity up to this point, do you think it plausible that GG (even at the level of planetary-mind awareness) has more than enough data of experience (re masochistic-pacifist morality) to "move on" through those individual humans willing to actually do so?

It's very unlikely. Being happy and unmolested is one state, homeostasis, which we seek. There are infinite ways of inflicting suffering.

I'm not saying there aren't reasons for GG to try to make some people exceptionally happy. That's why there's extreme wealth, extreme beauty, and extremes of every other thing people find wonderful. But there is only so fast and only so loud a car can be. There are more ways to hurt people than to be kind to them.

From the perspective of an evolving God-Mind, what was once acceptable behaviour becomes unacceptable, signifying change.

Seems like it's at least fully explored explicit slavery. I'll give you that. But, there are infinitely more ways to explore de facto slavery.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #35]

In reality we are not.

Which reality?

What I was attempting to convey was "that from the perspective of GG". (The ultimate truth which we don't experience)
From that perspective "we" are not separate. We are observed as aspects of GG...

"Our experiences" are what allows for that perspective to happen...

I've found that despite wanting your level of enlightenment, I can't change my experiences.

To attain my "level of enlightenment" one must attempt to use the Facility of Imagination in order to get the gist of how GG "sees things"...one has to imaginatively engage with that and "see" if one is "enlightened".

This in itself facilitates one "change of experiences".

I don't see through everyone else's eyes, and I don't take pleasure in someone else hurting me, though I acknowledge I should.

We part company here as I don't think it is honest expression to take such pleasurably. I am more a "take it on the chin" kinda personality.

Should doesn't mean is. That's my point.

Well then we don't part company. At this point I am unclear as to what your "point" is so will run this pass GPT...

Me. GPT, Please see if it is possible to understand PK's point, in the following interaction.

GPT. Sure, please provide the interaction, and I'll help you understand PK's point.

Me. (Provides the above)

GPT. Sure, let's break down the interaction to understand PK's point.

Initial Statement by PK:

"We either are separate, or we aren't."
PK is starting with a binary perspective on whether individuals are fundamentally separate or not.

Your Response:

"In reality we are not. However, our experience of individuality has it that we can choose to acknowledge we are, or choose to remain ignorant of that."
You suggest that, on a deeper level (presumably a spiritual or metaphysical level), we are not separate, but our individual experiences make us feel separate.

PK's Query:

"Which reality?"
PK seeks clarification on what you mean by "reality."

Your Clarification:

You refer to the perspective of "GG" (presumably a higher consciousness or ultimate truth) and explain that from this ultimate perspective, we are not separate, but aspects of GG. Our individual experiences enable this perspective.

PK's Statement:

"I've found that despite wanting your level of enlightenment, I can't change my experiences."
PK expresses frustration that, despite aspiring to your understanding, their experiences remain unchanged.

Your Suggestion:

You propose using imagination to see things from the perspective of GG to attain enlightenment and change one's experiences.

PK's Counterpoint:

"I don't see through everyone else's eyes, and I don't take pleasure in someone else hurting me, though I acknowledge I should."
PK points out that they can't experience life through others' perspectives and doesn't find joy in others' pain, even if they think they should.

Your Response:

You state that you don't find pleasure in others' pain either and prefer to endure challenges stoically.

PK's Clarification:

"Should doesn't mean is. That's my point."
PK is emphasizing that just because something "should" be the case (according to an ideal or moral standard), it doesn't mean it "is" the case in reality.

Summary of PK's Point:
PK is highlighting the difference between ideals and reality. They recognize that while it might be an ideal to see through others' perspectives or find a higher meaning in suffering, in reality, their personal experiences and reactions don't align with this ideal. They seem to be expressing a sense of resignation or acceptance that their experiences and emotional responses are what they are, regardless of what they "should" be according to a higher philosophical or spiritual understanding.

Is this what you were looking for?

Me. Perhaps. I will hand this to PK and see where it might take us...

GPT. Sounds good. If you need any more help with your discussion with PK or further clarifications, feel free to ask!

[Purple Knight]

PK is highlighting the difference between ideals and reality. They recognize that while it might be an ideal to see through others' perspectives or find a higher meaning in suffering, in reality, their personal experiences and reactions don't align with this ideal. They seem to be expressing a sense of resignation or acceptance that their experiences and emotional responses are what they are, regardless of what they "should" be according to a higher philosophical or spiritual understanding.

Is this what you were looking for?

Sort of. It's about the fact that I am seeing is real, despite there potentially not being anything there. If I see a green tree, I see a green tree. That's part of reality, that I am seeing that. Neurons in my brain are activating, according to the green colour. Whether the tree is really there, or really green, is irrelevant.

The highest moral agents will hit people and tell them it doesn't hurt. In the ultimate reality maybe it doesn't. But in the experienced reality (which is also real) it still does.

[William]

PK is highlighting the difference between ideals and reality. They recognize that while it might be an ideal to see through others' perspectives or find a higher meaning in suffering, in reality, their personal experiences and reactions don't align with this ideal. They seem to be expressing a sense of resignation or acceptance that their experiences and emotional responses are what they are, regardless of what they "should" be according to a higher philosophical or spiritual understanding.

Is this what you were looking for?

Sort of. It's about the fact that I am seeing is real, despite there potentially not being anything there.

Simulation Theory.

If I see a green tree, I see a green tree. That's part of reality, that I am seeing that. Neurons in my brain are activating, according to the green colour. Whether the tree is really there, or really green, is irrelevant.

In such a simulation experience, how would you even be able to say that you have a body or a brain?

Rather, you (the "I" you are referring to) would be mindful - mindfully partaking in a reality experience.

The highest moral agents will hit people and tell them it doesn't hurt.

Justify why you would call such "the highest moral agents"

In the ultimate reality maybe it doesn't. But in the experienced reality (which is also real) it still does.

This gets back to NDE reports (worth studying) and what such "experienced realities" (such as the human experience) mean to them, when they have experienced those NDE-type realities...

Studying NDEs

[Purple Knight]

In such a simulation experience, how would you even be able to say that you have a body or a brain?

Maybe we don't, but it's still something, so the lived experience is still real. If it's 1's and 0's, it's something. If it's something else, it's still something. The fact that neurons activate when we see something, even if it isn't real, is just an example of how we can't dismiss experiences as fake just because they don't reflect ultimate reality.

Are you suggesting with "mindful" that we all agreed to it? I dispute that. Maybe the person playing me (presumably GG) agreed to it, but that doesn't mean I did. I've suggested this since this topic:

viewtopic.php?p=1036520

Roy is his own person. Even if Morty wanted to go in the simulation and play as Roy, Roy is real, Roy is not the same as Morty even with Morty's consciousness in him, Roy suffers, and you can't just dismiss that as fake. It's not. The alternative, what you're suggesting, is that our suffering somehow doesn't count because a being who splits himself and becomes us, can consent for us. That's like saying a parent can consent to having their child decapitated.

Even if our individualism is an illusion, that illusion creates real individualism, because we have the experience of individualism.

The highest moral agents will hit people and tell them it doesn't hurt.

Justify why you would call such "the highest moral agents"

All I know is that I do not decide what is moral. I wish I did, or at least had a voice in it, but I don't. Yet, there is morality and immorality. So others must decide. Whoever does decide is a high moral agent. Whoever does not decide and must follow the decrees of others is a low moral agent. Whoever does not decide and needn't follow any decrees is not a moral agent at all.

What I'm describing is high moral agents who do legitimately decide what counts as harm, deciding to favour themselves, and legitimise what they want to do. This is the right-winger who insists that words can't possibly hurt anybody, and the left-winger who thinks words can be harmful, but that he can fling them, or even worse, at his enemies because his enemies are evil and hurting them is fine because it counts as justice, even if they can't help being evil. Of the two I prefer the right-winger because he at least wants a level playing field. But they're both doing the same thing where they hit people and tell them it doesn't hurt, or that the hurt somehow doesn't count. "This is all fake, so none of it counts," would be the ultimate form of doing that.

[William]

In such a simulation experience, how would you even be able to say that you have a body or a brain?

Maybe we don't, but it's still something, so the lived experience is still real. If it's 1's and 0's, it's something. If it's something else, it's still something. The fact that neurons activate when we see something, even if it isn't real, is just an example of how we can't dismiss experiences as fake just because they don't reflect ultimate reality.

Are you suggesting with "mindful" that we all agreed to it? I dispute that.

Given your predicament, I can understand why you disagree with that.

Maybe the person playing me (presumably GG) agreed to it, but that doesn't mean I did. I've suggested this since this topic:

viewtopic.php?p=1036520

Roy is his own person. Even if Morty wanted to go in the simulation and play as Roy, Roy is real, Roy is not the same as Morty even with Morty's consciousness in him, Roy suffers, and you can't just dismiss that as fake. It's not. The alternative, what you're suggesting, is that our suffering somehow doesn't count because a being who splits himself and becomes us, can consent for us. That's like saying a parent can consent to having their child decapitated.

Even if our individualism is an illusion, that illusion creates real individualism, because we have the experience of individualism.

The separate individual you refer to as you, is different from how I see myself.

I do not see myself as only the individual human personality which has grown from the blank-slate default.

I also understand (from the human personality perspective) the idea that a broader aspect of my overall mindfulness/the mindfulness I am involved with, was indeed asked to participate and did indeed agree to participating.
I do not require having any direct memory of that agreement in order to logically trust it did indeed occur.

The highest moral agents will hit people and tell them it doesn't hurt.

Justify why you would call such "the highest moral agents"

All I know is that I do not decide what is moral. I wish I did, or at least had a voice in it, but I don't. Yet, there is morality and immorality. So others must decide. Whoever does decide is a high moral agent. Whoever does not decide and must follow the decrees of others is a low moral agent. Whoever does not decide and needn't follow any decrees is not a moral agent at all.

What I'm describing is high moral agents who do legitimately decide what counts as harm, deciding to favour themselves, and legitimise what they want to do. This is the right-winger who insists that words can't possibly hurt anybody, and the left-winger who thinks words can be harmful, but that he can fling them, or even worse, at his enemies because his enemies are evil and hurting them is fine because it counts as justice, even if they can't help being evil. Of the two I prefer the right-winger because he at least wants a level playing field. But they're both doing the same thing where they hit people and tell them it doesn't hurt, or that the hurt somehow doesn't count. "This is all fake, so none of it counts," would be the ultimate form of doing that.

We don't know and cannot know with any more certainty than logic allows for re that.

The way my human personality regards the issue is to ask myself whether I would trust a "higher moral agent" personally involved in the growing of a human personality (as in a "avatar" re Simulation Theory) and the answer I have come up with is YES.

I don't think I (or anyone mindful at that level of per-human intelligence) would knowingly enter such a reality experience without taking full precautions, so we can eliminate the idea of suffering as pain as some kind of curse placed upon we within said experience.

Thus, the reports to do with NDE take on a significant meaning in relation to agreement, co-creation (of reality experience) and the idea of securing/saving the precious growth moving forward, adds purpose to said experience.