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 #60]

How would you define ‘simulation’ then? Without it, I just think it’s vague enough to cause confusion later on where we agree and disagree.

FYI

The two videos relate how I understand "SIMULATION" -
[Could Our Universe Be a Fake? ] [RTS=19:45 -24:11]
The bold time-stamp is for your convenience [4min 66secof your time required]


[Are we living in a simulation?]Re head/body-set and the math... [1:44:00-1:45:28] [1min 28secof your time required]


Take a look at those if you will.

What is your definition of "SIMULATION"?

I think we need not fret at this stage as to any confusion which potentially could occur - we can cross that bridge if we ever come to it - at that time...

[The Tanager]

How you are defining ‘simulation’ is more important for us to avoid future confusion. I think there are different meanings of simulation. And I’m not sure what ideas you include/don’t include in your usage. A quick listing of some found online: an imitation of something else, the process of pretending, a computer program designed to represent the behavior/characteristics of another system, and more.

I can access the first video, but not the second. I'm not sure what definition they are giving to simulation. It's assumed in the video that everyone knows what it means to be a simulation. The video simply says that if we are living in a simulation, it would be the result of great intelligence, possibly synthetic, and leaves off with the question of whether consciousness is the type of thing that could even be simulated.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #62]

You still haven't provided a definition of what you think a simulation is, so we cannot proceed any further along this line of enquiry that you are pursuing, until you do.

Once you do, I will either be able to agree with you and we can proceed toward answering the OPQ, or we will come to a dead end/wall...and go no further.

The gist of my answer to the OPQ is #

[Revelations won]

Dear William,

The simulation THEORY is just that a theory.

Maybe it would be well to discuss the eternal nature of God?

Is God himself a being endowed with eternal progress?

Where did he begin?

What is the ultimate result and destiny of his divine plan?

Should we be so narrow minded and blind to think that we are the only planet among all his uncountable creations that is inhabited?

Is his work and creations an ongoing process among unnumbered solar systems?

The Bible records that Christ created worlds and how many we are not told.

We are only given detailed knowledge regarding this earth.

Can anyone give precise documentation on how exactly the sun, earth and other planets in our solar system obtained their respective placements, rotations and orbits are governed?

We are told in the scriptures that God the Father is the father of the spirits of all mankind. That being the case, does this also not imply that we also have a heavenly mother?

Is this concept also supported by the fact that his only begotten son in the flesh was through the normal procreative process?

Would such a perfect Divine being want his children to become like him?

God the Father obviously wanted his son Jesus Christ to receive all that the father hath, should he not also want all of his children to become like Jesus Christ?

God the Fathers work and glory is to "BRING TO PASS THE IMMORTALITY AND ETERNAL LIFE OF MAN".

William please give us your understanding and answers to the above questions.

Best regards,
RW

[The Tanager]

You are the one asking if simulation theory is a valid way to interpret the stories of the Bible, so why should I be defining simulation? If simulation and creation are synonyms, then why call it ST and not Creation Theory? We know ST posits something different than what most people mean when they talk about the universe being created. That's why 'simulation' is specifically used.

But if you aren't going to specificy what you mean by the term, in general (as I already said previously) I don’t think ST interpretations of the Bible could be falsified. In other words, it’s logically possible that we are living in a simulation. If that is all you mean by valid, then I agree. The very nature of ST makes it unfalsifiable, as far as I can see.

If you are asking if ST interpretations are better interpretations than other non-ST alternatives, then that’s a different question and requires more than logical possibility.

[William]

[Replying to Revelations won in post #64]
Dear RW.

There is no point in talking about a Creator or a Creator's nature/agenda, when the question as to whether we exist within a creation or not, [and if so, the nature of that creation itself] hasn't been established.

Re that, your post content is not on topic.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #65]

You are the one asking if simulation theory is a valid way to interpret the stories of the Bible, so why should I be defining simulation?

Because you obviously have a definition and it obviously is different from your definition of creation.
In that, if I ask, and you answer, we can proceed rather than remain stuck before a wall in a maze...

If simulation and creation are synonyms, then why call it ST and not Creation Theory?

As I suggested in an earlier post;
I think you may want to disregard your line of questioning as you have the wrong end of the stick there.

We both agree that we exist in a creation. In that, we are speaking about the Universe.

The difference is that where you say "Creation" I say "Simulation".

It is apparent to me that you are aware of what a simulation is re the universe existing as we within it experience it existing.

What you haven't explained is what you mean by "Creation" re the universe existing as we within it experience it existing, if indeed you do not believe it is a simulation.

Once we sort that out, we can move to the next step.

We know ST posits something different than what most people mean when they talk about the universe being created. That's why 'simulation' is specifically used.

I don't know that at all.
If you know the differences, then please say what the differences are. What do you mean when you talk about the universe being created?

I don’t think ST interpretations of the Bible could be falsified. In other words, it’s logically possible that we are living in a simulation. If that is all you mean by valid, then I agree. The very nature of ST makes it unfalsifiable, as far as I can see.

Can you falsify CT? If so, then we may have a difference we can examine between CT and ST.

If you are asking if ST interpretations are better interpretations than other non-ST alternatives, then that’s a different question and requires more than logical possibility.

The OPQ is not concerned with any other supposed interpretations.

The logic therein has to do with whether we exist within a created thing or not. Creation Theory has it that we do. Emergent Theory has it that we don't.

Simulation Theory simply takes the 'has it that we do' approach and asks the question from that direction.

If you have a problem with accepting ST = CT, then it is up to you to explain why.
If not, then you should be able to agree that ST [we exist within a simulated reality experience]
is a valid way to interpret the stories of the Bible.

[The Tanager]

If you have a problem with accepting ST = CT, then it is up to you to explain why.

I’m trying to see if I have a problem with it. You say it’s a synonym to creation, but then you talk about simulation theory, which has different beliefs than other creation accounts. ST doesn’t seem to use simulation as a synonym for creation, but to talk about a specific type of creation different from other creation accounts.

The difference I think of with ST, is that our experienced reality is not ultimate reality. That there is some deeper reality of us behind these experiences (whether that is GOD, a mind/soul independent of God that is temporarily using a body, only coding, etc.). If these are included in ST, then ‘simulation’ is not a synonym for ‘creation’ because there are theories of creation that don’t include these beliefs.

[William]

As already pointed out, the question is not about beliefs but whether ST is a valid way to interpret Bible Stories.

ST has evidence based support so whether a theists personal beliefs conflict with the evidence is besides the point.

Realistically, since theists believe we exist within something which was created, ST with its supporting evidence should have the effect of adding support to the belief that there must be a creator/creators involved, even if this might mean a theists personal beliefs about the nature of the creator/creators are questionable because of ST.

I am satisfied that a created thing is synonymous with a thing created. If the claim from theism is that we exist within a created thing, and ST provides evidence for this likely being the case, yet the evidence conflicts with certain theistic beliefs, then the beliefs need adjusting to align with that reality, not the other way around.

Our temporary experienced reality is not "ultimate reality"? How can a created thing to which one is temporarily involved with, be an ultimate thing?

What is more 'ultimate' - a creator-god or a creation?

[The Tanager]

As already pointed out, the question is not about beliefs but whether ST is a valid way to interpret Bible Stories.

ST is a belief (or collection of beliefs). So, the question is about whether this belief(s) are valid ways to interpret Bible stories.

ST has evidence based support so whether a theists personal beliefs conflict with the evidence is besides the point.

Have you shared evidence in support of ST? If so, could you bullet list what you feel is evidence in favor of ST? You talked about body-set impressions earlier, but I still don't see how that is evidence for ST. I thought you were basically saying, "assuming ST is true, it can make sense of the Biblical passages."

Regardless of all that, I didn’t make any point about a theist’s personal beliefs conflicting with the evidence for ST meaning anything beyond there is a conflict and, therefore, simulation isn't a synonym for creation, but a sub-category.

I am satisfied that a created thing is synonymous with a thing created.

I didn’t ask about that. I asked about a created thing being synonymous with a simulated thing (or thing created with thing simulated).

Our temporary experienced reality is not "ultimate reality"? How can a created thing to which one is temporarily involved with, be an ultimate thing?

What of our experienced reality is not “ultimate reality”? And why do you think this is true?

What is more 'ultimate' - a creator-god or a creation?

What do you mean by “ultimate” here?

For clarity on how I was using it, not because I’m trying to make this about my beliefs, I believe there are at least two concepts often attached to that same term.

1. God is ultimate in the sense of being the ground of all other existence.

2. But, in another sense, and the one I was just using it in, the human being is just as ultimate as God…in that both are independent entities. Or, to example a belief that isn’t mine, Christian Platonists who believe souls temporarily inhabit a body would see the soul as ultimate in this second sense.