In The Beginning...

[William]

Question For Debate:



Resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory
https://www.simulation-argument.com/

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #70]

You still haven't explained what significant distinction you see between simulation and creation.

Another Christian I am speaking with about the subject say's that GOD is actually emergent from the universe, so in that way is arguing that the universe is the fundamental reality but that one day the GOD could have enough knowledge to be able to create outside of time-space, and therefore create simulations.

The reality is, the math supports what we know already about the universe, and shows that beneath that, there is a fundamental reality which we know by the math, exists.
A theorem is a statement that can be demonstrated to be true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments. In general, a theorem is an embodiment of some general principle that makes it part of a larger theory. The process of showing a theorem to be correct is called a proof.
We cannot detect the fundamental nature of the universe with any instrumentation - not with our body-set senses nor with any invention we so far have created which would be able to show us what is currently invisible.
We can build theories based on the mathematical proof and that is why ST is gaining a place as an explanation for why the universe exists.

The interesting thing I find about the religious opposition to the idea we exist within a simulation is that - while such clearly infers a creation and therefore infers a creator/creators [which goes a ways to supporting theistic claims that we exist within a created thing ] - they balk at the idea because it somehow means the universe is not 'real' therefore, none of their beliefs are based in reality so cannot be true.
[I myself think that this Christian reasoning is faulty.

Rather than find out through researching, religionists tend to stay within the bubbles of their beliefs preferring that what they believe is 'real' rather than risking exposing themselves to ideas which might challenge said beliefs - because ST has no claim that the experience of the universe is NOT real.

[The information is there for any to research.]

From my perspective, I continue to do the research and it is through doing so that I began thinking it possible that the stories of the bible [and indeed other religions stories] could have actually happened, if indeed we exist within a simulation.
It would be acceptable to understand that things which apparently defy the laws of logic, do so because we exist within a simulation/created environment and so to inject the occasional seemingly miraculous event into the program wouldn't be difficult.

Even with less grandiose events re an individuals own subjective experience within it, the individual can understand a prayer answered, or a seemingly helpful synchronistic event as being explainable as 'more than just coincidence' or 'blind luck' with the understanding that since we exist within a creation/simulation, such things can occur as that which should be expected, rather than that which mindlessly just happened by fortuitous accident.

But anyway, I see no reason why religious stories, such as those presented in the Bible, cannot be understood in that context.


Moses and the burning bush [Exodus Chapter 3]

The bush wasn't burning even though it looked like it was, and the bush wasn't talking even though it sounded like it was.

How would you explain that event, re the idea that the way we experience the universe is fundamentally real?

Q: Do Christians think that their relationship with GOD would be less real/not real if the medium of the universe was simulated?

[The Tanager]

You still haven't explained what significant distinction you see between simulation and creation.

I have tried in different ways. One kind of creation account will say our experiences in this world are the deepest level of our reality. A simulation account will disagree with that view of creation, saying these experiences, while real, are not the deepest level of reality, that there is a more fundamental level of our reality that lies underneath that.

This disagreement between two creation accounts shows to me that simulation and creation aren't synonyms.

The reality is, the math points to what we know already about the universe, shows that beneath that, there is a fundamental reality which we know by the math, exists, but we cannot detect it with any instrumentation - not with our body-set senses nor with any invention we so far have created which would be able to show us what is currently invisible.

What, specifically, are you talking about here? And why is this a more fundamental reality instead of just a deeper aspect of our level reality?

The interesting thing I find about the religious opposition to the idea we exist within a simulation is that - while such clearly infers a creation and therefore infers a creator/creators - which goes a ways to supporting theistic claims that we exist within a created thing - they balk at the idea because it somehow means the universe is not 'real' therefore, none of their beliefs are based in reality so cannot be true.

Rather than find out through researching, they tend to stay within the bubbles of their beliefs preferring that what they believe is 'real' rather than risking exposing themselves to ideas which might challenge said beliefs.

This isn’t the only (or major) kind of religious opposition to the idea. Some of it is intellectual rather than emotional. Depending on the theory, some current beliefs one has would not be true. But, if so, then follow the truth.

From my perspective, I continue to do the research and it is through doing so that I thought it possible the stories of the bible [and indeed other religions stories] could have actually happened, if indeed we exist within a simulation, because it would be acceptable to understand things which apparently defy the laws of logic, do so because we exist within a simulation/created environment and so to inject the occasional seemingly miraculous event into the program wouldn't be difficult.

I know of no Biblical story that defies the laws of logic. A miracle doesn’t necessarily defy the laws of logic. So, I, personally, would need to (1) see a case that a Biblical story/miracle defies logic and (2) that ST explains that defying of logic better than alternatives such as atheism.

Even with less grandiose events re an individuals own subjective experience within it, the individual can understand a prayer answered, or a seemingly helpful synchronistic event as being explainable as 'more than just coincidence' or 'blind luck' with the understanding that since we exist within a creation/simulation, such things can be explained as that which should be expected, rather than that which mindlessly just happened.

Yes, coincidence is one explanation, simulation is another explanation, an active God is another explanation, maybe there are others.

But anyway, I see no reason why religious stories, such as those presented in the Bible, cannot be understood in that context.
Moses and the burning bush [Exodus Chapter 3]

The bush wasn't burning even though it looked like it was, and the bush wasn't talking even though it sounded like it was.

Yes, ST isn’t falsified by this story.

How would you explain that event, re the idea that the way we experience the universe is fundamentally real?

A physical sensation to catch Moses’ physical attention so that God can speak to him about the reality Moses was living in.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #72]

One kind of creation account will say our experiences in this world are the deepest level of our reality.

The Bible does not give that impression re its account.
Which creation account are you referring to?

A simulation account will disagree with that view of creation, saying these experiences, while real, are not the deepest level of reality, that there is a more fundamental level of our reality that lies underneath that.

The Bible account tells it that way too. The creation is on account of a creator, and thus the creator is the Biblical representation of a "more fundamental level of our reality" as you put it.

This disagreement between two creation accounts shows to me that simulation and creation aren't synonyms.

What 'disagreement?"

What, specifically, are you talking about here? And why is this a more fundamental reality instead of just a deeper aspect of our level reality?

The reality is, the math supports what we know already about the universe, and shows that beneath that, there is a fundamental reality which we know by the math, exists.
A theorem is a statement that can be demonstrated to be true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments. In general, a theorem is an embodiment of some general principle that makes it part of a larger theory. The process of showing a theorem to be correct is called a proof.
We cannot detect the fundamental nature of the universe with any instrumentation - not with our body-set senses nor with any invention we so far have created which would be able to show us what is currently invisible.
We can build theories based on the mathematical proof and that is why ST is gaining a place as an explanation for why the universe exists.

I know of no Biblical story that defies the laws of logic. A miracle doesn’t necessarily defy the laws of logic. So, I, personally, would need to (1) see a case that a Biblical story/miracle defies logic and (2) that ST explains that defying of logic better than alternatives such as atheism.

The expression I used had to do with known laws of physics - which were even apparent to the ancients in that any deviation was referred to as miraculous/magical because such should not logically happen.

simulation is another explanation, an active God is another explanation

These two can work together. They do not have to be explained 'other' that each other. A creator acting within its creations can do so. The creation doesn't have to be the dominant reality of the creator, in order for the creator to do so.

But anyway, I see no reason why religious stories, such as those presented in the Bible, cannot be understood in that context.
Moses and the burning bush [Exodus Chapter 3]

The bush wasn't burning even though it looked like it was, and the bush wasn't talking even though it sounded like it was.

Yes, ST isn’t falsified by this story.

Nor is any other story claiming the universe was created.

It doesn't matter in the context of our agreement because we agreed that we are existing within a creation.

ST cannot be falsified but this in itself does not mean it cannot be the case, and the math makes a proof for it being the case.

How would you explain that event, re the idea that the way we experience the universe is fundamentally real?

A physical sensation to catch Moses’ physical attention so that God can speak to him about the reality Moses was living in.

So what is different about that and Moses existing within a simulation? Are you saying it wouldn't be possible to achieve this if the universe was a simulation?

[The Tanager]

The Bible does not give that impression re its account.
Which creation account are you referring to?

I am referring to the traditional orthodox Christian view. Note that I’m making a distinction here between deeper truth/aspect of the same level of reality and a more foundational level of reality behind the level we experience.

Platonists, for instance, posit the world of Forms that the level of reality we experience participates in. The world of Forms is a deeper level of reality. Traditional orthodox Christianity teaches a spiritual realm to this level of reality we experience, not as a deeper level of reality.

Whether the Bible teaches this or not (I think it clearly does) is not the point. My point is that this kind of difference shows there are different kinds of creation. I think it right to call ST’s idea of creation ‘simulation’ and, therefore, not to use simulation as a synonym for creation in order to avoid equivocating on terms later.

The Bible account tells it that way too. The creation is on account of a creator, and thus the creator is the Biblical representation of a "more fundamental level of our reality" as you put it.

I don’t consider that a different “level of reality”. It’s a different aspect within the one level of reality.

The reality is, the math supports what we know already about the universe, and shows that beneath that, there is a fundamental reality which we know by the math, exists.

What fundamental reality are you talking about? Quantum mechanics? What is a specific example of what you are talking about?

The expression I used had to do with known laws of physics - which were even apparent to the ancients in that any deviation was referred to as miraculous/magical because such should not logically happen.

Thanks for your clarification. Still, I would need to see why ST makes better sense of this occurrence rather than an alternative like atheism or theistic views.

These two can work together. They do not have to be explained 'other' that each other. A creator acting within its creations can do so. The creation doesn't have to be the dominant reality of the creator, in order for the creator to do so.

I agree. You said, “...I began thinking it possible that the stories of the bible [and indeed other religions stories] could have actually happened, if indeed we exist within a simulation.” I’m saying the stories could have actually happened, even if indeed we don’t exist within a simulation and that your view doesn’t have a stronger case for it than this alternative, as far as I can tell.

ST cannot be falsified but this in itself does not mean it cannot be the case, and the math makes a proof for it being the case.

I didn’t say it’s unfalsifiability meant it can’t be the case. As to math’s proof for it, I’d love for you to present that proof so that I can take a look.

So what is different about that and Moses existing within a simulation? Are you saying it wouldn't be possible to achieve this if the universe was a simulation?

I am not saying that. I believe that a simulation could logically explain the burning bush story. I’m saying simulation doesn’t better explain the story versus alternatives.

The difference, as I see simulation, is that in the interpretation I offered, there isn’t a more fundamental level of reality that is going through a simulation to learn things (or whatever) and eventually reach/return to the more fundamental level of reality.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #74]
Re;

What fundamental reality are you talking about? Quantum mechanics? What is a specific example of what you are talking about?

and

As to math’s proof for it, I’d love for you to present that proof so that I can take a look.

I have given you links. I am not obliged to teach you what you can learn for yourself, through application of your own intelligence...

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #74]

I am referring to the traditional orthodox Christian view. Note that I’m making a distinction here between deeper truth/aspect of the same level of reality and a more foundational level of reality behind the level we experience.

Platonists, for instance, posit the world of Forms that the level of reality we experience participates in. The world of Forms is a deeper level of reality. Traditional orthodox Christianity teaches a spiritual realm to this level of reality we experience, not as a deeper level of reality.

Whether the Bible teaches this or not (I think it clearly does) is not the point. My point is that this kind of difference shows there are different kinds of creation. I think it right to call ST’s idea of creation ‘simulation’ and, therefore, not to use simulation as a synonym for creation in order to avoid equivocating on terms later.

Notwithstanding that this may be the case, it does not mean that we do not exist altogether in a simulation. Spirits and such inclusive.

I don’t consider that a different “level of reality”. It’s a different aspect within the one level of reality.

Are you arguing that there is no reality outside of the universe?

I thought you agreed that the universe was a creation?

The expression I used had to do with known laws of physics - which were even apparent to the ancients in that any deviation was referred to as miraculous/magical because such should not logically happen.

Thanks for your clarification. Still, I would need to see why ST makes better sense of this occurrence rather than an alternative like atheism or theistic views.

What are the "theistic views"?
Why do you think that ST is NOT a theistic view? Surely ST implies a creator, therefore, is an aspect of Theism/theistic views....

Non-theist views are generally under the impression/belief that we exist within a naturally occurring coincidental mindless accident of a thing which was NOT created by any creator.
Why should nontheistic views matter to you and I who have agreed already that we exist within a creation?

I’m saying the stories could have actually happened, even if indeed we don’t exist within a simulation and that your view doesn’t have a stronger case for it than this alternative, as far as I can tell.

Re the bold;
If what you say is true, then demonstrate how to make a bush look like it is burning while a voice speaks from within it.
If you cannot demonstrate, then at least clearly explain the process involved.

I am not saying that. I believe that a simulation could logically explain the burning bush story. I’m saying simulation doesn’t better explain the story versus alternatives.

Again.

Explain the 'alternatives'...

The difference, as I see simulation, is that in the interpretation I offered, there isn’t a more fundamental level of reality that is going through a simulation to learn things (or whatever) and eventually reach/return to the more fundamental level of reality.

So point to where the creator of this universe resides in this universe, since there can be no other reality outside of this universe.
Explain how the universe can be created, if there isn't a more fundamental level of reality.

[The Tanager]

I have given you links. I am not obliged to teach you what you can learn for yourself, through application of your own intelligence...

Are you wanting a discussion or to just share some claims so that others can check them out on their own?

Notwithstanding that this may be the case, it does not mean that we do not exist altogether in a simulation. Spirits and such inclusive.

I didn’t say otherwise. The point is that, therefore, using simulation and creation as synonyms (as you are doing) is confusing.

Are you arguing that there is no reality outside of the universe?

I thought you agreed that the universe was a creation?

No, I’m not arguing that there is no reality outside of the physical universe. Yes, I believe the universe is a creation. I don’t believe a “prior” reality necessarily means more fundamental, as I understand that term in ST. I’m open to hearing the definition you’d put to ‘more fundamental’ if you’ll offer it that could change my answer here.

I believe that the physical universe was made a part of the one level of reality, not an additional layer over “on top” of the most fundamental reality.

What are the "theistic views"?
Why do you think that ST is NOT a theistic view? Surely ST implies a creator, therefore, is an aspect of Theism/theistic views....

Non-theist views are generally under the impression/belief that we exist within a naturally occurring coincidental mindless accident of a thing which was NOT created by any creator.
Why should nontheistic views matter to you and I who have agreed already that we exist within a creation?

It seems to me that there could be an atheistic ST theory as well as theistic ones. Thus, I meant non-ST atheistic and theistic views, not that ST couldn’t be theistic.

Re the bold;
If what you say is true, then demonstrate how to make a bush look like it is burning while a voice speaks from within it.
If you cannot demonstrate, then at least clearly explain the process involved.

This might depend on what you mean by ‘simulation’, but you won’t offer that definition to clarify. As I understand ‘simulation’ I see it as something different than a physical sign of the presence and thoughts of another being.

So point to where the creator of this universe resides in this universe, since there can be no other reality outside of this universe.
Explain how the universe can be created, if there isn't a more fundamental level of reality.

I believe there is a physical aspect/realm and a non-physical aspect/realm to reality, not that these are different realities that exist outside of each other. I believe God exists both “outside” the universe (but not in a different physical space) and “within” the universe (by engaging it at every point…omnipresence) without being the universe.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #77]

Are you wanting a discussion or to just share some claims so that others can check them out on their own?

I am wanting a discussion about a subject which is visible enough for anyone to learn using the device of the internet. I have made no 'claims'.

I didn’t say otherwise. The point is that, therefore, using simulation and creation as synonyms (as you are doing) is confusing.

You have yet to show why being in a creation is different to being in a simulation. You appear to be the only one I have spoken to about this idea, who is confused about the use of the word creation being substituted for simulation.
You have yet to explain why that is.

No, I’m not arguing that there is no reality outside of the physical universe. Yes, I believe the universe is a creation. I don’t believe a “prior” reality necessarily means more fundamental, as I understand that term in ST. I’m open to hearing the definition you’d put to ‘more fundamental’ if you’ll offer it that could change my answer here.

Any reality outside of this one and said to be the reason why our reality exists, would be the fundamental reality of our reality.

I believe that the physical universe was made a part of the one level of reality, not an additional layer over “on top” of the most fundamental reality.

Why do you believe that?

What do you mean by 'on top'?

It seems to me that there could be an atheistic ST theory as well as theistic ones.

Why would it seem to you this could be the case? Have you met any nontheists who are seriously entertaining the notion of ST?
ST implies that we exist within a created thing. Nontheists are unlikely to take any serious interest in ST because of that.

But I am open to you showing that there is such a thing as nontheist ST. If you cannot do so, we can agree that nontheism has no place in this discussion.

stories could have actually happened, even if indeed we don’t exist within a simulation

If what you say is true, then demonstrate how to make a bush look like it is burning while a voice speaks from within it.
If you cannot demonstrate, then at least clearly explain the process involved.

This might depend on what you mean by ‘simulation’, but you won’t offer that definition to clarify. As I understand ‘simulation’ I see it as something different than a physical sign of the presence and thoughts of another being.

In what way is a burning talking bush a "physical sign of the presence and thoughts of another being" and a simulation is not/could not be?

Remember, I am the one who sees no difference. You are the one saying that there is a difference. So it is up to you to show what the difference is.

So point to where the creator of this universe resides in this universe, since there can be no other reality outside of this universe.
Explain how the universe can be created, if there isn't a more fundamental level of reality.

I believe there is a physical aspect/realm and a non-physical aspect/realm to reality, not that these are different realities that exist outside of each other. I believe God exists both “outside” the universe (but not in a different physical space) and “within” the universe (by engaging it at every point…omnipresence) without being the universe.

Explain why you believe this and why the belief has to oppose ST/ST renders the belief untrue.

Would your belief accept or reject the belief that invisible [spirit] life emerged from Saturn and that the Saturnites are responsible for the formation of biological life forms on Earth?

[The question above is more for the purpose of attempting to understand why your belief cannot be explained through ST.)

[The Tanager]

Any reality outside of this one and said to be the reason why our reality exists, would be the fundamental reality of our reality.

Okay, so something is a “more fundamental reality” if it is distinct from, and the reason why the physical universe exists? Is that an accurate enough description of what you mean?

If so, then I agree that there is a “more fundamental reality” than the physical universe. This physical universe is a creation/simulation. It seems like you are trying to say more than this, though.

Our beliefs are obviously different, whatever terms one wants to use, and I’m trying to understand the difference by getting clearer on what you mean by terms, trying not to bring my preconceived use of those terms into the discussion. I can’t answer your other questions until this is done. I’d appreciate your help, but you don’t have to offer it.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #79]

Okay, so something is a “more fundamental reality” if it is distinct from, and the reason why the physical universe exists? Is that an accurate enough description of what you mean?

If so, then I agree that there is a “more fundamental reality” than the physical universe. This physical universe is a creation/simulation.

Fine. we agree thus far.

It seems like you are trying to say more than this, though.

My focus is simply on the best answer to the OPQ.

Our beliefs are obviously different

Not on this subject, if your saying;

"I agree that there is a “more fundamental reality” than the physical universe. This physical universe is a creation/simulation."

...we have reached agreement [the bold] as we already agreed together that we exist within something which was created.

Any beliefs attached to that fundamental statement "we exist within something which was created.", are ones own to carry.

I personally do not hold belief or lack belief we exist within something which was created. I simply agree to it for the purpose of having a common ground in which discuss the subject amicably.

Since it appears we are on the same page [that this physical universe is a creation/simulation] we should now be able to examine any of the Bible stories in the light of this agreement and answer "Yes" to the OPQ.
______________

OPQ: Is Simulation Theory a valid way to interpret the stories of the Bible?