[OT]Hah, same here! 'Cept I was probably playing Populous, the granddaddy of God games. Damn you, Computer Game Designer, for all the unanswerable questions of divinity your stupid time wasters forever seared into our young and malleable minds! Did you EVER stop to think it would shatter our precious, sheltered realities and replace them with lifelong confusion and mental torment?!
…Games aren’t educational my ass. Molyneux, Wright, Meier and co, along with their Hollywood brethren, taught me much, much more than any dry philosophy or religious book ever did.[/OT]
This idea is not only crackpot, it is incredibly academically unsound and dishonest.
It is really nothing more than a repackaged God(s) debate that have existed throughout time including today. The common phrasing is that God created the universe and everything in it with a specific design for it to run on its own for variously specified purposes. That is no different than the proposed “simulation” and whatever created it would be God under many definitions whatever that might be.
We already know that we live in an apparently closed universe and physics tells us that we may never know what caused the Big Bang. From that perspective, the odds are 100% that we are living in some kind of simulator caused by something although the use of the word simulator is misleading. It may be caused by an unconscious physical process that pops out universes with various laws and lets them run until they expand into a heat death or collapse again.
I am not a fan of the man or idea. It is freshman level pot smoking talk and not something an established doctorate should be spewing out for the innocents to fall prey to.
I think that they probably would. I think that a quantized universe would look superficially continuous at the scale necssary to support an intelligent creature running around a quantized landscape. Just speculating though.
Well in digital communications we try to remove systematic bias from quantization by adding a random element when we round calculations. So I suspect that the Heinsberg uncertainty principle is really a similar rounding effect for the finite resolution simulation we live in.
I think ‘reality’ as we know it is even wierder. Everything you ‘know’ about the universe is stored on a spongy biological battery circuit we call a brain, that’s how we percieve, the universe we know is inside our head. This head is contained by, and ruled by the laws of the universe it percieves. Your head is in the universe, and the universe is inside your head.
Yeah, I miss Robert Anton Wilson, and I never met the man.
I don’t know, of course, but I can speculate that if in fact we were ‘born’, ‘grew up’ and ‘died’ in a simulation, it wouldn’t have to be anywhere near as richly detailed as it seems to be. Pretty much any level of detail we witnessed would seem sufficient, as we would not know any better. If we are simulated cereal-eating beings, would one brand of each of cornflakes and puffed rice not be sufficient to represent the concepts of each? Would there be any significance at all to rendering celestial objects in the billions that we could catalog but apparently have not the slightest chance of ever reaching? If our whole universe appeared to us to have been constructed from the ASCII character set, would we have any way of knowing that this was not an especially accurate model of reality?
So, that’s the best I’ve got: it’s far more complicated than it needs to be for a simulation.