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]

[William in post #582]

One can point another to the Bible, but in what manner can we gain true information about the nature of this particular GOD re this particular Universe and our place within it, by pouring over it's pages?

What we have therein is a collection of stories about individuals who claim to have had experience with this Creator-GOD on occasions, for reasons.

Today those stories are locked and bound into a formal thing and when I read "In the beginning GOD created" my modern knowledge easily equates that with another theory and interprets that as "GOD Simulated" as it makes the rest of the Bible much easier to understand from that premise and is in no way contradicting the word "Created".

So the question "Do We Exist Within a Creation" is the same as the question "Do We Exist Within a Simulation?"

If one accepts the atheist world-view then the answer is "No - because the Time-Space-Universe [STU] doesn't need the extra "godidit" layer in order to explain its existence."

If one accepts the theist world view, then the answer is "Yes - because the STU cannot have simply appeared magically out of no thing - no where."

Simply put, until we can show that we exist within a creation/simulation, we cannot be pointing at the nature of a creator and declare "Here 'tis in all His Glory!" but we can read the stories and get some kind of picture...and there are far more stories of that kind, outside the Bible than within it.

Not to say that the Bible is therefore useless as a group of points referencing a point...an overall commonly shared point re the STU...

Simulation Theory has the power to explain seeming inconsistencies in the Biblical rendition of the set up of the STU, as well as the creator(s) involved in said process, as well as miracles and magic, the sun stopping for a day, flood, fires, mythological beings ...essentially Simulation Theory has the power to explain The Mind...WHY The Mind [intelligent, creative et al] exists...

As such, it has the right to be on the table of discussion as "godidit" does...

Do you agree?

[ The Tanager in post #585]

The Tanager: I think this question comes further down the line from what I’ve committed to discussing in this thread and would, ultimately, be a distraction from that and could cause confusion. I’d rather pursue this, if you want, in another thread.

[The Tanager]

I’m open to taking this discussion wherever you want to and not in an unintended way. I almost just shared my third line of thought below, but figured I'd share them all and see where you want to take the discussion.

[The first line of thought] centers around why I think the Bible gives us these truths. The reasons I believe we can gain true information about God, our reality, and our place in it from the Bible are at least two-fold.

First, I believe I have personal experiences that bear its truth out. I’m not talking about any one-time, mystical experiences, but a day-to-day engagement with it in light of other worldviews, seeking guidance from God, and that sort of stuff.

Now, other people will claim the same thing for competing beliefs they hold. What I think ultimately distinguishes beliefs, then, are not these kinds of experiential truths, but a more objective, rational approach through philosophical arguments. These can be rational defeaters for certain worldviews in spite of one’s experiences from within those worldviews. This is where I think the Christian worldview becomes the most rational one to hold. So…

Second, I think the historicity of the resurrection coupled with the reliability of the New Testament documents to maintain the historical teachings of the resurrected Jesus point to its pages (and they also point to the truth of the Tanakh/Old Testament) concerning the topics you asked about.


[The second line of thought] concerns how we come at truth. With your “if one accepts…” statements, I’m a bit confused. I don’t see either of those as “I’m of worldview X, therefore Y is true.” I think it should be the other way round. “I think Y is the most rational answer, therefore I’m of worldview X.” The re-ordering isn’t just semantics, but about what the basis of our beliefs should be and how logic (connected to physical evidences) is a better test of truth than blind faith.


[The third line of thought] is to simply ask you why you think “GOD Simulated” makes better sense of the Bible. I completely agree it has the right to be discussed. Although, I’m not sure it’s necessarily a different kind of answer than “godidit”...at least, in the vaguest of such terms.


[The fourth line of thought] is agreeing with you that the question of “do we exist in a creation/simulation?” should be answered prior to what we can know about the Creator/Simulator as the nature of that creation/simulation should give us some insights.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #3]

There is no particular direction I want to go with this line of thought, other than to keep to it.
Re your first line of thought, I see this as necessary to one’s personal religion and have no horse in that race.

I accept all religions as equally having not being proved or disproved and anyone’s personal beliefs are not an issue re Simulation Theory. [ST]

The topics I mentioned were not for the purpose of discussing them any further than would be necessary, as ST is adequate enough device for explaining the – otherwise – impossible/highly unlikely/against the laws of physics subjects.

The Resurrection can be explained with ST, as easily as the order things are mentioned re the creation story [Bible].
ST shouldn’t contradict an individual’s faith/belief if indeed it is agreed that “Creation” and “Simulation” can/do signify the same thing.
We could go through the list of strange/miraculous/physics-defying biblical events to see if any could be identified as questionable re ST. Nothing comes to memory as I write this…

Re your second line of thought, my mention of the two opposing positions [theism/atheism] in relation to the words “if one accepts” [either way], theists could answer “Yes” and atheists would answer “No” to the idea that we exist within a creation/simulation.

“Blind Faith” really isn’t an issue and those who have/hold it are not in any way disadvantaged than those who apply a more academic study-based belief re the question “Do we exist within a creation/simulation?”

Re your third line of thought, “godidit” is derogatory atheistic terminology and the links I provided give more comprehensive insight into ST and could be used in part to explain how a Creator might create.

Re your forth line of thought, I am using the word "creator [creators]" separate from the word "simulator" in the same way we would differentiate “Computer Program” from “Programmer” although – if it goes that way, I am happy to discuss why these might need to be conflated.

Thanks for giving your time to this thread Tanager.

[The Tanager]

The topics I mentioned were not for the purpose of discussing them any further than would be necessary, as ST is adequate enough device for explaining the – otherwise – impossible/highly unlikely/against the laws of physics subjects.

The Resurrection can be explained with ST, as easily as the order things are mentioned re the creation story [Bible].
ST shouldn’t contradict an individual’s faith/belief if indeed it is agreed that “Creation” and “Simulation” can/do signify the same thing.
We could go through the list of strange/miraculous/physics-defying biblical events to see if any could be identified as questionable re ST. Nothing comes to memory as I write this…

I certainly think simulation theory is logically possible. If going on nothing else, however, I think Occam’s razor is in favor of creation over simulation because simulation adds a deeper layer of reality behind the simulation, while creation offers only one level (in that sense). That would put the onus on simulation theory to distinguish itself in some way as being the more rational view.

“Blind Faith” really isn’t an issue and those who have/hold it are not in any way disadvantaged than those who apply a more academic study-based belief re the question “Do we exist within a creation/simulation?”

Not disadvantaged in which way? Even if simulation theory is true, rationality would seem a better way to get at truth than blind faith. Yes, blind faith could just happen to stumble upon the truth, but it would be a stumbling that could just as easily stumble upon non-truth and treat it as truth.

Re your forth line of thought, I am using the word "creator [creators]" separate from the word "simulator" in the same way we would differentiate “Computer Program” from “Programmer” although – if it goes that way, I am happy to discuss why these might need to be conflated.

I think that distinction is helpful. So, how would you answer the question: “do we exist in a creation/simulation” and why?

Thanks for giving your time to this thread Tanager.

Of course.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #5]

I think Occam’s razor is in favor of creation over simulation because simulation adds a deeper layer of reality behind the simulation, while creation offers only one level (in that sense). That would put the onus on simulation theory to distinguish itself in some way as being the more rational view.

That is interesting as it shows you disagree that creation and simulation are two names for the one thing.
No doubt this will underpin the way this discussion unfolds as we disagree on that point.
For now though, I would like to lay it aside until such time as you clarify why you find it important to have such distinction.

Even if simulation theory is true, rationality would seem a better way to get at truth than blind faith. Yes, blind faith could just happen to stumble upon the truth, but it would be a stumbling that could just as easily stumble upon non-truth and treat it as truth.

This too, I will place to one side as my comment was merely to show you my attitude does not distinguish the one from the other in terms of any importance - faith has more to do with one connecting with the programmer(s) rather than one connecting with the program.

Since this is primarily to do with the idea we exist within a creation/simulation - that is the horse which requires hitching to the cart - so I am happy to focus upon the rational argument for C/S - starting with the idea that "Creation" is not different than "Simulation", even as the Bible speaks of Creation...

I certainly think simulation theory is logically possible.

Many a rational scientist also thinks it possible. Mostly they conclude that since we would not know either way, there is little point in pursuing the notion any further than science can take that.

In other words, if what we call "Real" was in fact "Simulated", then how are we to tell Real from Simulated?

From a Biblical perspective, this would not be under question because "Real" is the same as "Simulated" and how God made the Universe and put us here is part of that story.

So, how would you answer the question: “do we exist in a creation/simulation” and why?

My answer - with the current information I have - is that it is likely we exist within a C/S - a mindfully created thing rather than a fortunate accident of nature.

[The Tanager]

That is interesting as it shows you disagree that creation and simulation are two names for the one thing.
No doubt this will underpin the way this discussion unfolds as we disagree on that point.
For now though, I would like to lay it aside until such time as you clarify why you find it important to have such distinction.

I think our views are distinct, but are both sub-categories under a broader view. Distinct terms are helpful to avoid confusions. Something like (although I’m open to different terms):

Creation (the main category) with the sub-categories of “real” (my view) and “simulated” (your view).

This too, I will place to one side as my comment was merely to show you my attitude does not distinguish the one from the other in terms of any importance - faith has more to do with one connecting with the programmer(s) rather than one connecting with the program.

I think ‘faith’, ‘blind faith’, and ‘a personal experience of a programmer’ pick out three different concepts. I was speaking against ‘blind faith’ only.

My answer - with the current information I have - is that it is likely we exist within a C/S - a mindfully created thing rather than a fortunate accident of nature.

I agree.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #7]

I think our views are distinct, but are both sub-categories under a broader view. Distinct terms are helpful to avoid confusions. Something like (although I’m open to different terms):

Creation (the main category) with the sub-categories of “real” (my view) and “simulated” (your view).

Can you show that this experience is real and not simulated?

I don't think anyone can - which aligns with my comment;



I can accept your view only when the facts are presented. Otherwise it is best to remain with the understanding that;

[The Tanager]

Can you show that this experience is real and not simulated?

I don't think anyone can - which aligns with my comment;



I can accept your view only when the facts are presented. Otherwise it is best to remain with the understanding that;

Yes, if what we call “real” was actually “simulated,” we (those in the simulation) wouldn’t necessarily be able to tell the difference. But now we get to the question of burden…if one is wanting to argue ‘real’ versus ‘simulated’. If one is simply wanting to talk about created vs. “accident,” then we seem agreed there.

But if one wants to discuss the question of real vs. simulated, then these are the facts: Since ‘simulated’ is a more complex system (2 levels…the simulation and the “reality” behind it versus the 1 level of the ‘real’ with no simulation), the default rational position would be ‘real’ with the burden on the one proposing ‘simulated’ as the better answer to show it is more rational. That was my point. I’m not saying you were saying otherwise, but I think this gives us reason to distinguish ‘real’ versus ‘simulation’ as sub-categories of creation.

[William]

Can you show that this experience is real and not simulated?

I don't think anyone can - which aligns with my comment;



I can accept your view only when the facts are presented. Otherwise it is best to remain with the understanding that;

Yes, if what we call “real” was actually “simulated,” we (those in the simulation) wouldn’t necessarily be able to tell the difference. But now we get to the question of burden…if one is wanting to argue ‘real’ versus ‘simulated’. If one is simply wanting to talk about created vs. “accident,” then we seem agreed there.

This of course is correct but I think it neglects the premise of Creator(s) - something which has to be assumed if we are to agree with the premise of US existing within a Creation/Simulation.

The wall between us in that, is we are wrestling with whether to call a created thing [this universe] a "Creation/Simulation" or separate those to signify different things "Creation" or "Simulation".

Your argument is that the one need not be the other. Mine is that either way, the burden is on both of us to show that we exist within a creation.

But if one wants to discuss the question of real vs. simulated, then these are the facts: Since ‘simulated’ is a more complex system (2 levels…the simulation and the “reality” behind it versus the 1 level of the ‘real’ with no simulation), the default rational position would be ‘real’ with the burden on the one proposing ‘simulated’ as the better answer to show it is more rational. That was my point. I’m not saying you were saying otherwise, but I think this gives us reason to distinguish ‘real’ versus ‘simulation’ as sub-categories of creation.

Since that The Real is what is behind our - what we call "reality" - [what created this thing we inside of it call "reality"] ... anything subsequent to that should be able to be referred to as a "Simulation" and that when the Bible speaks of "Creation" it does not differentiate that with "Simulation" and BOTH can be regarded as the same without burden being invoked.

Having said that, you might agree with me that there are things re The Universe which provide clues into grasping the gist of what may be the causation [behind] The Universe....What is the REAL behind the creation?

I will start by identifying the "Head-Set" which is more a case of being the "Body-Set".



We know that this sensory circuitry is encased with flesh and held up with bone - completing the suit needed in order to experience The Universe as a "reality".

We also know that the Body-Set does not experience The Universe as The Universe fundamentally IS, but that it interprets what information it can from the incoming data of experience channeled through the sensory device, which is the same thing as saying that the Body-Set creates a simulation of a Reality, as outgoing data, based on the interpretation of the incoming data.

I would argue also, that which is doing the interpretation may actually be more real than what is being interpreted as 'real', as in - that which is doing the interpretation is itself NOT completely simulated, experiencing the simulation through the Body-Set.


What I mean by the above, is that the simulation is so real that the one experiencing it is convinced that it is actually real.
That would be the same as if someone were using a headset to play a simulated reality game and became so immersed within the game that one forgot that one was using a headset within a game...and simply thought of oneself as being the object within the simulation and the accepting the simulation as Real.