Lance:
4 out of the top ten games of 2014 are modern sims, where your doppelgänger could theoretically exist just on the off chance that he might interact with someone playing the game, or simply as background. There’s sports games, but no fantasies so I’m afraid your thesis fails.
Haven’t the heavy thinkers decided there are probably an infinite number of parallel universes? That would be a thorough simulation, one in which all contingencies are accounted for.
Seems to me that typing snarky, or smug, condescending one liners without actually bothering to examine the thread or supporting material has become much more popular, since I left. I can’t say I’m a fan of the change.
I’d say check for yourself, because I think the person you are quoting didn’t really read the material even the least bit.
The issue you both are referring to is “stacking.” The ramifications are that is simply likely that the post humans’ historical simulations only run up to the point where technology would allow for an indistinguishable reality sim.
That’s why I said you could cash out your 401k and buy a Porsche, because the sim probably won’t run past 2050 or so.
I’m not a gamer so I’m not thoroughly familiar with all those games, but I think only GTA on that list could be reasonably said to take place in reality. The others all have have fantastic elements to make reality more interesting. i.e. zombies, city controlling computers, orbital kinetic weapons, etc.
Oh yeah, none of those games focuses on a movie star who bangs supermodels so I’m afraid your thesis fails.
Whatever. I ain’t gonna pray to It.
Well, you can look for a planet in your spare time.
Thing is that when one learns about the deep field images from Hubble we get such a torrent of new information that indeed it is likely that more “citizen science” will be applied to it, IMHO there is a lot of data that it is not reviewed because it is so massive; but what is important to me is that discoveries can be compared with the discoveries of others, then scientists take a closer look.
Not written into the simulation yet?
Stop telling the architects what to do! 
But more seriously it seems to me that so far Occam’s razor has it, a simulation is more likely to encounter issues not found before in real life before the simulation was created, leading IMHO to more complications or dead ends. A simulation is only useful by constantly matching it to reality or comparing it to an already ongoing reality.
What should really fry your noodle is that there are likely ways to find out if we are living in a simulation or not.
Bit touchy, aren’t we? Also, confirmation bias, much? It hasn’t gotten more popular or more common, though you may be noticing it more since it’s being directed towards you this time.
Well, yes, this is where people are getting tripped up.
You’re argument brings “god” into the discussion. The original material has but one paragraph that even treats with it (this was even mentioned above in this thread), and even it directly states that such god(s) are not necessarily classically omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent, which directly contradicts a Judeo-Christian type God.
Worse, you’re trying to invoke an argument by authority. The original material was written by a faculty member at Oxford. Great. It’s not a bad piece of work. But it’s not even remotely an argument for an omnipotent (in the classic sense) creator. And if it’s not, it’s no refutation to the beliefs of a large portion of atheists, though it may refute some of them.
And even if it did make such an argument, so what? Many, many, many top notch philosophers have attempted to make such arguments before, only to fall short. Compared to those, this particular argument is not especially compelling or novel, except in the technology involved.
If people are snarky, it’s because rather than a particularly novel argument, the insights are old with a veneer of the new laid on top. And somebody screaming that they’re insightful and new doesn’t change that or make them any more appealing.
As I stated earlier, your argument (vs the paper you linked) is more or less a restatement of the old teleological argument cast in modern terms.
ETA: That said, the philosophy of living in a simulation is actually pretty interesting and has been explored a bit by philosophers and science fiction writers for a while now. It actually is interesting that it may be theoretically possible to determine if we live in one.
The “bad news for atheists” bit is snarky and unnecessary, but not actually a problem, I think. Overall I find the simulationist idea pretty interesting and completely irrelevant. After all, if we’re in a simulation, every bit of evidence we have is evidence that the writer intended for us to have, and therefore there is literally nothing we can trust to be true. It may be that the simulation began a half-second ago, and you just think you remember reading the OP, when really that memory was part of the simulation’s program. It may be that you’re the only subroutine with any self-awareness. It may be that the self-awareness you experience at this instant will be deleted as soon as you respond to this post, since I’m the only permanently self-aware subroutine, and self-awareness is parceled out to other subroutines only when they’re interacting with me.
Objections based on the sort of games people play are invalid objections, because they assume that the entities who designed the simulation are like us in any way. The “real” universe might exist according to laws of physics wholly unrecognizable to us, populated by entities made up of neither energy nor matter in any form we’d recognize. Again, if we’re in a simulation, we cannot know anything about the outside world.
There’s only one use to the simulation theory, in my opinion, other than having fun thinking about it: it’s a great response to Pascal’s Wager.
I propose that we live in a simulation founded by scientists who have a use for rational, skeptical beings who analyze evidence carefully and come to reasonable conclusions. They can’t create these beings directly, but they can create a simulation that sometimes produces such beings. These scientists are watching our simulation. Anyone who takes things on faith is a failed being and gets deleted, but those of us who are skeptical and only believe things we have evidence for are successful experiments and are copied to a new simulation in which we’re provided every comfort we want while we amuse ourselves with various interesting intellectual problems.
Sure, the chances that I’m correct are very small–but the rewards if I’m correct are huge, so should we not act as though we’re a scientist’s simulation?
OK, let’s say we’re in a simulation. What should I do differently than when I didn’t think we were in one?
Also, if you’re operating from a definition of God as “creator of the universe.” Well, the universe is everything - if we find out our universe is a simulation, then what we’ve actually done is discovered that the universe is much bigger than we thought. The universe would be everything in the simulation, plus everything outside the simulation - and the person who created our simulation is just a small part of that larger universe.
Already answered up thread.
Yes, yes, we all saw The Matrix. It failed to establish that Keanu Reeves is God.
In my OP I basically defined God as Leonardo Dicaprio. I.E. The gamer in the simulation. He can turn it on or off, creating or destroying the universe, and I think we can assume that if the simulation is powerful enough to simulate us as NPCs, than probably the post human playing as Leo has a pretty killer user interface. If he doesn’t it is conceivable that he could make, download or buy one. For general purposes of argument he is functionally omnipotent and omniscient.
We could split hairs and say that he’s not the traditional God, or that since his powers only extend to this universe but not other simulations, or the larger universe of which the sim we inhabit is a part that he is therefore not truly the ultimate God.
::waves hand::
Granted.
If we are in a sim though, than the player of the sim serves a pretty functional role as deity.
He can have sex with as many super models as he wants. He can use his interface to go anywhere, do anything, or find out anything. With the flick of his hand (or by logging off) he can pause or turn off the simulation thus destroying us. He can recreate us by turning it back on. He can travel through time, see anything from any angle and interact and know all things at once. We and everything we know exist only for his purposes. His true nature is mysterious and likely unknowable. Did I mention that he can have sex with supermodels?
I consider this to be a fairly impressive set of powers, that would look good on any deity’s resume.
From the position I inhabit that is God.
Should I prove myself interesting enough or worthy enough by this God’s criteria perhaps I can yield more attention and computing power in my direction. Perhaps my part of the sim will get better. Perhaps it may even be possible that the part of the simulation that my mind inhabits could be so interesting and complex that it gets transcribed out of this reality and into the post humans’ reality.
In other words, if I’m really good right now, maybe I get to go to heaven in my next life.
A virtually unimaginable being with virtual omnipotence and omniscience over the observable universe we inhabit, AND a potential afterlife in a better world as a reward…
And you people are arguing that this is not the “traditional” God. Aren’t we close enough for government work?
Dudes like that used to show up every other week on the original Star Trek. Jim Kirk never thought they were gods, and I’m not going to argue with Jim Kirk.
What does God need with a simulation?
"a public discussion with Neil deGrasse Tyson, String Theory Physicist, Dr. James Gates, stated that he found self-correcting computer error code embedded within the fundamental structure of String Theory, which made him “question if (he) was living in the Matrix.”
Me neither. On the other hand, I am no Jim Kirk. I will be one of the guys bowing down to our “good enough for government work,” God, and if JTK wants to come along, apply some Kirk Fu, and nuke God’s temples with phasers from orbit (it’s safer that way.) than that will just be fine with me. I’ll give up the Dicaprio worship and move on to worshipping someone or something more worthwhile… Like George Clooney.
God? Or just a very powerful putz?
So, no God, and no one can disprove the simulation theory, obviously. It’s not new, I heard Ed Fredkin talk about it in 1973. He said that what we saw as miracles were just bugs in the simulation.
BTW, it also explains the multiple worlds hypothesis. Anyone who has ever written a simulator knows that you run it multiple times. So each universe is a run of the simulator. I hope the simulators have a big compute farm.
This is assuming two things:
I don’t think either of those assumptions are fair. If 1 is true and 2 is not, then the sim might be taking the role of various cold fronts, or taking the role of chlamydia, or taking the role of the speed of light, or taking the role of ennui. Or the sim creator might be taking a role that’s far less comprehensible than any of these.
If 2 is true and 1 is not, then it might be like SimCity, where it’s just interested in watching what happens. In that case, there’s no real gain to be had by cozying up to superstars.