Evolution and God

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=ForumBot]
I can’t think of a single more harmful idea than reverting to old testament law.
[/QUOTE]

This is getting off-topic, but, the core teachings of Christianity are not “old testament law”, they are Jesus’ teachings

[QUOTE=Jesus]
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.’ “But I say unto you, ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and them which despitefully use you, persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.’ For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do no even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”
[/QUOTE]

22

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
OK, I’ll bite.

Why do you think this is the case?

Why do you believe ‘God’ did that?
[/QUOTE]

There are a number of things that make me think that we are not living in the “original” reality.

First, I’ve experienced situations where I have dreamed of some future happening, that happens exactly as I dreamed much later. I don’t believe it is possible to know the future, so I think it’s probably a glitch in whatever system is simulating my experiences and memories.

Secondly, I frequently encounter extreme coincedences that seem very unlikely to be just chance. I recently started going to church and every service the preacher will discuss something that I had been talking about earlier in the week, and it’s not stuff like current events either. In one case I had read an old philosophy book about free will and determinism, and it’s connection to quantum physics, and that Sunday the preacher was talking about the exact same thing. It creeped my wife and me out. It’s not just church, but the coincedences consistently happen in church. It makes me think that the simulation is trying to reveal itself to me in the context of religion (I only recently started going to church for social reasons and considered myself an atheist).

Thirdly, there are aspects of the universe as we perceive it that makes me think it’s a simulation. For instance, the very elegant Newtonian laws of physics seem to fit the world perfectly on a macro scale, but on a small scale it seems that there is a lot more randomness in the behavior of particles that adds up to resemble a Newtonian universe, but only when you don’t look at it closely. Also, the fact that there seems to be a limit to the “resolution” of the universe on a subatomic scale - particles don’t move smoothly from one point to another as they appear to, but jump from one point to another, just like images on a computer screen appear to move smoothly from a distance, but are in fact made up of little elements disappearing from one point and showing up at another. Finally, the way that observing photons can seem to change their behavior - it’s like the simulation only models the individual photons in light when they are being observed, otherwise a simpler wave model is used.

Finally, there’s the hypothesis that, if it’s possible to create a fine-grained simulation of the world with self-aware entities that are not aware that it’s a simulation, it will almost certainly be done at some point in history, and the odds that we are living in the “real” universe instead of the billions of simulations seems small, especially combined with the other items I have listed above.

I hypothesize that the universe is a simulation and that our gods are actual living beings who are interfering with the simulation. I fit this into the Christian theology by supposing that the world was created as some kind of test or entertainment for a series of “gods”. I think that the “false gods” are virtual opponents created by the programmer of the simulation that are to be competed against by the real beings.

23

[QUOTE=Resistance is Character-Formin]
There are a number of things that make me think that we are not living in the “original” reality.

First, I’ve experienced situations where I have dreamed of some future happening, that happens exactly as I dreamed much later. I don’t believe it is possible to know the future, so I think it’s probably a glitch in whatever system is simulating my experiences and memories.

Secondly, I frequently encounter extreme coincedences that seem very unlikely to be just chance. I recently started going to church and every service the preacher will discuss something that I had been talking about earlier in the week, and it’s not stuff like current events either. In one case I had read an old philosophy book about free will and determinism, and it’s connection to quantum physics, and that Sunday the preacher was talking about the exact same thing. It creeped my wife and me out. It’s not just church, but the coincedences consistently happen in church. It makes me think that the simulation is trying to reveal itself to me in the context of religion (I only recently started going to church for social reasons and considered myself an atheist).

Thirdly, there are aspects of the universe as we perceive it that makes me think it’s a simulation. For instance, the very elegant Newtonian laws of physics seem to fit the world perfectly on a macro scale, but on a small scale it seems that there is a lot more randomness in the behavior of particles that adds up to resemble a Newtonian universe, but only when you don’t look at it closely. Also, the fact that there seems to be a limit to the “resolution” of the universe on a subatomic scale - particles don’t move smoothly from one point to another as they appear to, but jump from one point to another, just like images on a computer screen appear to move smoothly from a distance, but are in fact made up of little elements disappearing from one point and showing up at another. Finally, the way that observing photons can seem to change their behavior - it’s like the simulation only models the individual photons in light when they are being observed, otherwise a simpler wave model is used.

Finally, there’s the hypothesis that, if it’s possible to create a fine-grained simulation of the world with self-aware entities that are not aware that it’s a simulation, it will almost certainly be done at some point in history, and the odds that we are living in the “real” universe instead of the billions of simulations seems small, especially combined with the other items I have listed above.

I hypothesize that the universe is a simulation and that our gods are actual living beings who are interfering with the simulation. I fit this into the Christian theology by supposing that the world was created as some kind of test or entertainment for a series of “gods”. I think that the “false gods” are virtual opponents created by the programmer of the simulation that are to be competed against by the real beings.
[/QUOTE]

Other than hunches, do you have any actual evidence for this theory? Or even any way of *gathering *evidence? I have to admit, its an interesting thing to think about; “What if we are really a part of a computer program?” “What if out universe in contained in a tiny marble sitting in a jar with other universe-marbles on a shelf in some unimaginable alien world?” “What if I am the only real human and everyone I know is a sophisticated robot/alien and this is all a plan to study how I react to increasingly weird situations?” (I thought of that one after a particularly bad day last week)

What I mean is, if you give it some real thought, and apply logic, you’ll see that your idea is actually kinda silly, and that if it IS real, it could never be proven, in any sense. If everything is an elaborate lie by beings we cannot possibly outsmart or fathom, then we can never defeat it. It seems better to go with the assumption that what we observe is actual reality, since using that basis we can manipulate our world to a certain extent, and create technologies that make life better. I mean, it’s simple, and it works!! So lets roll with that, and stick to the OP. :slight_smile:

24

[QUOTE=miss elizabeth]
Other than hunches, do you have any actual evidence for this theory? Or even any way of *gathering *evidence? I have to admit, its an interesting thing to think about; “What if we are really a part of a computer program?” “What if out universe in contained in a tiny marble sitting in a jar with other universe-marbles on a shelf in some unimaginable alien world?” “What if I am the only real human and everyone I know is a sophisticated robot/alien and this is all a plan to study how I react to increasingly weird situations?” (I thought of that one after a particularly bad day last week)

What I mean is, if you give it some real thought, and apply logic, you’ll see that your idea is actually kinda silly, and that if it IS real, it could never be proven, in any sense. If everything is an elaborate lie by beings we cannot possibly outsmart or fathom, then we can never defeat it. It seems better to go with the assumption that what we observe is actual reality, since using that basis we can manipulate our world to a certain extent, and create technologies that make life better. I mean, it’s simple, and it works!! So lets roll with that, and stick to the OP. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

A lot of people think that the idea that we are living in a real universe is silly considering that it seems almost certain that simulated realities will be created.

And my hypothesis could be proven, if it hasn’t already been by our observations of subatomic physics. What if someone figured out a way to manipulate the universe in ways that were completely illogical if the universe was real, but entirely possible if it was a simulation? For instance, if it was found that wishing for something extremely improbable in a certain way consistently made that improbable thing happen? According to our knowledge of how the universe works it is possible for every particle in a particular rock to move in the same direction at the same time, causing the rock to shoot into space with no outside forces applied, instead of a multitude of random directions that result in the rock staying in the same place. It would be so unlikely that the odds of it happening within the lifespan of the universe are astronomically low, but it’s possible. What if somebody found that an unrelated action caused that to happen on a consistent basis, like a cheat code in a video game? That would be solid proof that the universe was a simulation. I think similar things may have happened in history and been explained as miracles or magic.

25

[QUOTE=Resistance is Character-Formin]
There are a number of things that make me think that we are not living in the “original” reality.

First, I’ve experienced situations where I have dreamed of some future happening, that happens exactly as I dreamed much later. I don’t believe it is possible to know the future, so I think it’s probably a glitch in whatever system is simulating my experiences and memories.

Secondly, I frequently encounter extreme coincedences that seem very unlikely to be just chance. I recently started going to church and every service the preacher will discuss something that I had been talking about earlier in the week, and it’s not stuff like current events either. In one case I had read an old philosophy book about free will and determinism, and it’s connection to quantum physics, and that Sunday the preacher was talking about the exact same thing. It creeped my wife and me out. It’s not just church, but the coincedences consistently happen in church. It makes me think that the simulation is trying to reveal itself to me in the context of religion (I only recently started going to church for social reasons and considered myself an atheist).

Thirdly, there are aspects of the universe as we perceive it that makes me think it’s a simulation. For instance, the very elegant Newtonian laws of physics seem to fit the world perfectly on a macro scale, but on a small scale it seems that there is a lot more randomness in the behavior of particles that adds up to resemble a Newtonian universe, but only when you don’t look at it closely. Also, the fact that there seems to be a limit to the “resolution” of the universe on a subatomic scale - particles don’t move smoothly from one point to another as they appear to, but jump from one point to another, just like images on a computer screen appear to move smoothly from a distance, but are in fact made up of little elements disappearing from one point and showing up at another. Finally, the way that observing photons can seem to change their behavior - it’s like the simulation only models the individual photons in light when they are being observed, otherwise a simpler wave model is used.

Finally, there’s the hypothesis that, if it’s possible to create a fine-grained simulation of the world with self-aware entities that are not aware that it’s a simulation, it will almost certainly be done at some point in history, and the odds that we are living in the “real” universe instead of the billions of simulations seems small, especially combined with the other items I have listed above.

I hypothesize that the universe is a simulation and that our gods are actual living beings who are interfering with the simulation. I fit this into the Christian theology by supposing that the world was created as some kind of test or entertainment for a series of “gods”. I think that the “false gods” are virtual opponents created by the programmer of the simulation that are to be competed against by the real beings.
[/QUOTE]

This is nothing new. Ed Fredkin, head of project MAC at MIT, gave this hypothesis to our class in 1973. You can read about it in a book called Three Scientists and Their Gods.

There are better explanations for all your points. The first, deja vu, now appears to have a neurological explanation, and it can be induced even in cases where it is known that there was no prior thought. I have this experience all the time, and it often includes the thought that I should write it down for when it happens, but I never do. Do you? Does anyone? You’d think that someone would for one of the millions of times this happens.

Second, if you study statistics you’ll find out why coincidences happen. I think Paulos’ book has a good section on this. As pTerry says, million to one shots happen nine times out of ten.

Third, is there any reason to think the universe shouldn’t be grainy? Fredkin mentioned that planck time would correspond to the simulation time step. (I’ve written simulators, so I get it.) But I suspect the disconnect between the macro and quantum levels is just a function of our lack of understanding.

Fredkin also said that miracles were bugs in the simulation, and the reduction in the number of miracles over time represents the program getting debugged. The world as a simulation is a classic unfalsifiable proposition. As a simulator writer, I think it lacks elegance. If the makers of the simulation wanted to observe a particular event or activity, why run the simulation for such a long time? What is going on today, 14 b.y. after the Big Bang that wasn’t going on 5 or 8 billion years ago? That’s also a good reason to doubt that any deity who cares about us created the universe. Why wait so long? If there is a creator, it is more likely he created it for someone else, and we’re just a result of him forgetting to turn the universe off after he was done.

If true, hope he doesn’t come back!

26

[QUOTE=Resistance is Character-Formin]
A lot of people think that the idea that we are living in a real universe is silly considering that it seems almost certain that simulated realities will be created.

And my hypothesis could be proven, if it hasn’t already been by our observations of subatomic physics. What if someone figured out a way to manipulate the universe in ways that were completely illogical if the universe was real, but entirely possible if it was a simulation? For instance, if it was found that wishing for something extremely improbable in a certain way consistently made that improbable thing happen? According to our knowledge of how the universe works it is possible for every particle in a particular rock to move in the same direction at the same time, causing the rock to shoot into space with no outside forces applied, instead of a multitude of random directions that result in the rock staying in the same place. It would be so unlikely that the odds of it happening within the lifespan of the universe are astronomically low, but it’s possible. What if somebody found that an unrelated action caused that to happen on a consistent basis, like a cheat code in a video game? That would be solid proof that the universe was a simulation. I think similar things may have happened in history and been explained as miracles or magic.
[/QUOTE]
Since conventional understanding of reality is based on how the world works, you’re going to be hard pressed to find anything that we’re not willing to adjust the models to account for. If God appeared in a science lab tomorrow and started levitatiting and teleporting things around, the scientists (after an understandable period to recover from shock and disbelief) would begin examining these new phenomena and rewriting theories to compensate.

Also, you’ve been asked the wrong question. It’s not “Why do you think the world is a simulation?”; it’s “why do you think the simulation was started last thursday, with carefully and laboriously crafted artificial past?” Even if this world is a simluation, it would have been much easier to start the simulation back at the big bang and let it run to the present, creating historical evidence naturally as it ran, than it would be to create the simulation ex nihilo with faked historical evidence.

Is there any reason to believe that the universe/simulation/whichever was created/started “last Thursday”?

27

[QUOTE=FordPrefect]
It is through these explorations that we can have technologies like vaccines, organ transplants, understanding of germs, etc. So the answer to your question is yes. A resounding yes.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t know discussing evolution could lead to an organ transplant, or vaccine.

I will be more careful.

28

[QUOTE=Resistance is Character-Formin]
A lot of people think that the idea that we are living in a real universe is silly considering that it seems almost certain that simulated realities will be created.

And my hypothesis could be proven, if it hasn’t already been by our observations of subatomic physics. What if someone figured out a way to manipulate the universe in ways that were completely illogical if the universe was real, but entirely possible if it was a simulation? For instance,** if it was found** that wishing for something extremely improbable in a certain way consistently made that improbable thing happen? According to our knowledge of how the universe works it is possible for every particle in a particular rock to move in the same direction at the same time, causing the rock to shoot into space with no outside forces applied, instead of a multitude of random directions that result in the rock staying in the same place. It would be so unlikely that the odds of it happening within the lifespan of the universe are astronomically low, but it’s possible.** What if somebody found that an unrelated action caused that to happen on a consistent basis, like a cheat code in a video game? That would be solid proof that the universe was a simulation. I think** similar things **may have happened **in history and been explained as miracles or magic.

[/QUOTE]

Again, interesting thought exercise, but hit me when you have real evidence. These are all fantasies.

29

[QUOTE=Polerius]
This is getting off-topic, but, the core teachings of Christianity are not “old testament law”, they are Jesus’ teachings
[/QUOTE]

Still, placing a dividing line in a religion’s development and calling that the new core is a bit silly. You might as well define the new core as “lekatism” and argue that people should just get back to his basic teachings.

This isn’t reverting to any core, it’s just moving the morality bar to a more comfortable location.

30

[QUOTE=ForumBot]
Still, placing a dividing line in a religion’s development and calling that the new core is a bit silly.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not an arbitrary line. If you notice, “Christianity” derives from “Christ”, i.e. Jesus, i.e. the dude whose teachings are the foundation of “Christianity”.

No Christian will agree that “an eye for an eye” is a “core Christian belief”. That is a Jewish belief.

You’re making my point. If there ever is a religion called lekattism, the core - the foundation - of the religion will be what lekatt says, and not what is written in the old testament, or what Jesus said.

31

But arguing amongst the Abrahamic religions is a pointless exercise, as hardly anybody agrees with the ground rules. “Jesus overruled the old testament.” “No, he admonished the pharisees.” “Well, it’s really, all just symbolic” “No, it’s literal” “Well, you’ve just got to go by only Jesus’ quotes” “No, you have to take the whole thing in context, it’s an imperfect bible.”

There isn’t any real, solid core to revert to. It’s just a claim to true authentic understanding of something that is just a collection of ideas some people share.

32

[QUOTE=Polerius]
a religion called lekattism
[/QUOTE]

The churches would be tunnels. With a light at the end.

Worship services would consist of the priest yelling, “Is SO!” and the congregation yelling, “Is NOT!” Special services on holy days would resemble the film “Flatliners”.

Holy days would include the worshipper’s birthday, his deathday, and his second birthday.

33

[QUOTE=begbert2]

Also, you’ve been asked the wrong question. It’s not “Why do you think the world is a simulation?”; it’s “why do you think the simulation was started last thursday, with carefully and laboriously crafted artificial past?” Even if this world is a simluation, it would have been much easier to start the simulation back at the big bang and let it run to the present, creating historical evidence naturally as it ran, than it would be to create the simulation ex nihilo with faked historical evidence.

Is there any reason to believe that the universe/simulation/whichever was created/started “last Thursday”?
[/QUOTE]

Why simulate all of history if you are only interested in studying a certain part of it? I’m not supposing a computer with infinite resources. When I play Civilization 4, the game does not simulate the creation of the universe, the formation of the solar system, and the evolution of mankind. It starts you at 4000 BC with a simulated world based on our real world. What is the point of simulating an entire universe’s history if you already have access to the “real” universe? You’d make an approximation of how the universe was at the time you want the simulation to start, and if an entity within the simulation starts digging for fossils you could look up what’s really in that patch of earth in the real world and have those bones show up for whoever is digging there. If someone looks somewhere that nobody has looked in the real world, you pause the simulation, find out what the simulated entity would find, and then edit it in, perhaps even editing the memories of the entity looking there.

34

[QUOTE=ForumBot]
But arguing amongst the Abrahamic religions is a pointless exercise, as hardly anybody agrees with the ground rules. “Jesus overruled the old testament.” “No, he admonished the pharisees.” “Well, it’s really, all just symbolic” “No, it’s literal” “Well, you’ve just got to go by only Jesus’ quotes” “No, you have to take the whole thing in context, it’s an imperfect bible.”
[/QUOTE]

I agree that it is a mess, but, as I mentioned in my previous post, there are things like “an eye for an eye” that no one claims are part of the “core Christian teachings”.

Jesus very clearly said no to that, so, by definition, it cannot be part of core Christian teachings.

35

[QUOTE=Resistance is Character-Formin]
Why simulate all of history if you are only interested in studying a certain part of it?
[/QUOTE]

Because of randomness?

In my field, we simulate systems for a long time, just to get to some very-low-probability error events. We don’t know when they will occur, so we just simulate for a long time. We don’t just start the simulation “just before the error event”, because we don’t know a-priori what will cause that particular error event.

Similarly with our universe. Maybe there is enough randomness (quantum, etc) that not all Big Bangs lead to what we have today. Maybe we are Big Bang #34324234, and in this particular one, the galaxies came about just so, and the earth formed at the “right” distance from the sun, and the “right” conditions occurred that enabled life to start, and the “right” mutations happened that led to humans.

Maybe the simulators want to simulate as many Big Bangs as possible to get statistics of different outcomes (possibly to understand their own universe). And, of course, what takes, in our world, billions of years, may take only a few seconds to simulate on the simulators’ super-computer.

36

I personally think it may be possible that some life forms evolve and some don’t, if evolution is real. I also feel that evolution and creationism can co-exist with each other, something had to create us and that creation can surely change over time, right? Logical

What I don’t believe is that we came from monkeys or fish or any other ape or water dwelling creature. I just really don’t know. I’m an agnostic when it comes to evolution and creationism.

I just don’t know, but I will keep an open mind. But until there is proof and I mean the smoking gun, cold hard facts, I’m gonna remain that way.

37

[QUOTE=Resistance is Character-Formin]
Why simulate all of history if you are only interested in studying a certain part of it? I’m not supposing a computer with infinite resources. When I play Civilization 4, the game does not simulate the creation of the universe, the formation of the solar system, and the evolution of mankind. It starts you at 4000 BC with a simulated world based on our real world. What is the point of simulating an entire universe’s history if you already have access to the “real” universe? You’d make an approximation of how the universe was at the time you want the simulation to start, and if an entity within the simulation starts digging for fossils you could look up what’s really in that patch of earth in the real world and have those bones show up for whoever is digging there. If someone looks somewhere that nobody has looked in the real world, you pause the simulation, find out what the simulated entity would find, and then edit it in, perhaps even editing the memories of the entity looking there.
[/QUOTE]
The reason games don’t simulate from the start is because the depth to which the player and AIs can plumb the universe. Civ4 is pretty shallow; you can’t even take soil samples. Our reality is deep.

It would be insane to try to constantly go out and look up what is happening in the real world any time anyone looks at anything new. How do you stop other people in your world from interfering? How to you account for the increasing time gaps between your world and the game, since the game sits paused while you’re out digging? How do you stop things in your world from moving, changing, or decaying while you’re looking around elsewhere?

You’d have to be an omnitient God in your own universe before you could run a simulation like this, and even then you’d be at it all day forever updating the simulation. That’s just nuts.

Alternate theory: Civ4 doesn’t run in ‘real-time’ unless you want it to; you can have it batch process through time much faster if you want. So, if that’s our analogy, then why assume that the same isn’t true of SimReality? The being pushes “start simulation: big bang”, then pushes “skip 100,000,000,000,000,000 steps”, then goes to bed for the night (or goes and gets himself a soda, depending on whether he sprung for that extra InfiniByte of RAM). When he comes back he finds a complete universe waiting for him, history intact.

38

[QUOTE=diggleblop]
What I don’t believe is that we came from monkeys or fish or any other ape or water dwelling creature.
[/QUOTE]

Why do you believe that we did not come from apes? Is it because you would feel less “special” if that were the case?

39

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I didn’t know discussing evolution could lead to an organ transplant, or vaccine.

I will be more careful.
[/QUOTE]

You were unaware that science education leads to production of useful technology?

Or are you forgetting why this ID v. evolution debate came up in the first place?

40

[QUOTE=begbert2]
The reason games don’t simulate from the start is because the depth to which the player and AIs can plumb the universe. Civ4 is pretty shallow; you can’t even take soil samples. Our reality is deep.

It would be insane to try to constantly go out and look up what is happening in the real world any time anyone looks at anything new. How do you stop other people in your world from interfering? How to you account for the increasing time gaps between your world and the game, since the game sits paused while you’re out digging? How do you stop things in your world from moving, changing, or decaying while you’re looking around elsewhere?

You’d have to be an omnitient God in your own universe before you could run a simulation like this, and even then you’d be at it all day forever updating the simulation. That’s just nuts.

Alternate theory: Civ4 doesn’t run in ‘real-time’ unless you want it to; you can have it batch process through time much faster if you want. So, if that’s our analogy, then why assume that the same isn’t true of SimReality? The being pushes “start simulation: big bang”, then pushes “skip 100,000,000,000,000,000 steps”, then goes to bed for the night (or goes and gets himself a soda, depending on whether he sprung for that extra InfiniByte of RAM). When he comes back he finds a complete universe waiting for him, history intact.
[/QUOTE]

That might take a really long time to process. Based on the changes in the personality of God over the course of our history, I think that the simulation has already been running several decades in “real” time, and that it’s slowing down as the population grows.

I think the timeline goes something like this…

God starts up the program as a child or young teen, starting the simulation at around the time of the dawn of history. Hundreds of years are ran in a day of God-time, and so every few decades he does something miraculous to the world, usually pretty cruel things because he’s immature and not taking the program very seriously (keeps hitting the disaster button). At some point it gets a little too slow for his taste, say one decade per day, and he does a reset by wiping out most of the people to speed the game up again. We have a post-Noah period where the interventions slow down in our perception, but that’s just because we’re living fast again by God’s standard. By the time of the Judges things have slowed down again and interventions seem more frequent and less cruel, but then they stop for a while - he may have got bored with how slow things were, but instead of wiping the slate again he just leaves it and goes to the mall or something, and meets his girlfriend. The simulation is left alone, and then auto-pauses after a while because it’s obvious nobody is playing it. Much later God’s son starts messing around with his father’s simulation, and is shocked at how cruel this world he has is after inserting himself into it for a while. He sets it up to auto-save the experiences of the people in the simulation while he’s gone and promises to come back later and make it a nicer world, and also decides not to interfere with it anymore, except maybe every now and then to do something nice for someone like heal their cancer or help them win a football game. He’s probably working on getting a nice paradise simulation going, and when he does he’s going to transfer us all into it, or at least the ones who lived since he started the auto-saving.