97 replies to this topic

[Nypyren]

An interesting question: can you even "get out" of a simulation like that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor

[mdwh]

Can't these guys work on something more important? Like curing cancer? Such a waste of brilliant minds.

Do you work on curing cancer then?

Should all game developers work on curing cancer?

Just because someone is skilled in one area, doesn't mean they would be in another.

Aren't there more important things to do than posting to this forum?

[mdwh]

Except that definitively deciding there is no god is making the same logical fallacy and equally arrogant. This is why I'm agnostic. Even if I personally feel there is no god, I can't say that with 100% certainty because I'm only human and there are limits to the human brain.

As an aside, few atheists "definitively deciding there is no god" either - the choice of what to label oneself is comes down to personal preference and semantics ("agnostic" can be misleading too, as it strictly means someone who claims we can't know if there is a god - i.e., not a position of belief either way, and also itself a claim).

[samoth]

Cogito ergo sum " I am thinking, therefore I exist " ~ René Descartes

Is that the same Descartes that said animals have no souls and therefore do not suffer pain?

Though in the sense of a simulated universe, this actually makes sense. If everything is simulated, so are animals and any pain they might have. So the pain would not be real. The same would be true for time too, which might explain why time passes so quickly sometimes, and goes so slowly at other times.

[ChaosEngine]

If this experiment bears out, won't it stand as proof of intelligent design? If we are in a simulation, someone designed that simulation. Maybe that's what God is: the designer of the simulation we run in.

Even if all that were true, it still wouldn't stand as proof of intelligent design, at least not in the sense of diversification of species. Intelligent design holds that some entity designed all the species that exist. All the available evidence contradicts this. If the simulation hypothesis was true it's far more likely that "god" set the initial parameters and then let the simulation play out, with us evolving within the simulation.

The only way it would be truly "intelligent design" would be if the programmer designed all the entities within the simulation, i.e. they were hard coded rather than procedurally generated. In which case, it's extremely likely that all of pre-history is untrustworthy, depending on at what point the simulation was started. But if you accept that, you have to accept that the simulation could have started at any point (i.e. it could have started right......NOW) with all our memories and data simply initialised from some set start state and left to run from there.

[way2lazy2care]

]
Even if all that were true, it still wouldn't stand as proof of intelligent design, at least not in the sense of diversification of species. Intelligent design holds that some entity designed all the species that exist. All the available evidence contradicts this. If the simulation hypothesis was true it's far more likely that "god" set the initial parameters and then let the simulation play out, with us evolving within the simulation.

That's not necessarily true; you are kind of assuming that all proponents of intelligent design believe the same thing. It's somewhat like saying, "all people who believe in reincarnation believe in [some religions specific view of reincarnation]". Intelligent design as a phrase has grown to encompass more than just the most stereotypical explanation of it, at least among people I know who are proponents of it (myself included). I always viewed it as a situation where it was like a massive set of dominoes where God set up the dominos and then set them in motion. IN AN UNRELATED THING, I cannot get new lines in any of my posts. Does anyone know what might cause that? Anytime I press enter it does nothing.

[ChaosEngine]

That's not necessarily true; you are kind of assuming that all proponents of intelligent design believe the same thing. It's somewhat like saying, "all people who believe in reincarnation believe in [some religions specific view of reincarnation]". Intelligent design as a phrase has grown to encompass more than just the most stereotypical explanation of it, at least among people I know who are proponents of it (myself included). I always viewed it as a situation where it was like a massive set of dominoes where God set up the dominos and then set them in motion.

Sorry, but no. You're trying to redefine the terms of the argument. Saying that god set the initial parameters is not intelligent design, at least not as it's commonly understood. Intelligent design specifically states that the process of species "evolution" is guided by an external entity.

It's kinda like saying "I'm a vegetarian! I mean, I eat a lot of meat but I support animal rights".

[jwezorek]

So if it turns out that we're living in a computer simulation, do I still have to go in to work?

[slicer4ever]

So if it turns out that we're living in a computer simulation, do I still have to go in to work?

I never really understood this thinking, even if we discover we are in a simulation, that doesn't change anything, you still require inputs in order to survive(rather being a simulated being or not, you exist in some shape/form), so unless discovering we are in a simulation makes the simulators decide to end all of our problems, and give us everything we want. then yes, you still have to go to work if you want to continue existing.

[way2lazy2care]

Sorry, but no. You're trying to redefine the terms of the argument. Saying that god set the initial parameters is not intelligent design, at least not as it's commonly understood. Intelligent design specifically states that the process of species "evolution" is guided by an external entity.

This is how this just went.
1. Argument assuming X is Y.
2. Argument stating X has grown to be inclusive of more than just Y despite it being commonly understood as just Y.
3. Argument that X is Y because it is commonly understood as Y.

It's totally ignorant of any number of writings by figures in the Catholic church.

[CryoGenesis]

http://www.gamedev.net/topic/629428-weird-thoughts-about-the-universe/

Thought the same thing about 4 months ago. Damn scientists stealing my ideas!

[CryoGenesis]

Anyway, if the universe were a simulation, it certainly wouldn't be a simulation surrounding us. The simulation would most likely have all of the fundamental laws of physics along with quantum physics programmed into it. Everything else would just be a result of the simulation.
A cellular automata takes simple rules and manages to create complex results. I think the universe would work exactly the same.

[ChaosEngine]

This is how this just went.
1. Argument assuming X is Y.
2. Argument stating X has grown to be inclusive of more than just Y despite it being commonly understood as just Y.
3. Argument that X is Y because it is commonly understood as Y.

It's totally ignorant of any number of writings by figures in the Catholic church.

No I'm aware that members of the catholic church have accepted some sort of "deistic evolution". That is not Intelligent Design. The core principal of intelligent design is that an intelligent entity designed all biodiversity, and specifically humans, and fundamentally, that species evolution through natural selection does not occur.

Your version of the argument is more like:
1 X.
2 Disproof of X.
3 Redefinition of X as Y.

It's akin to
1. "Fish only swim in the sea."
2. "No fish are also found in rivers"
3. "Ah, but I was including rivers when I talked about the sea"

Edited by ChaosEngine, 19 December 2012 - 05:46 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

No I'm aware that members of the catholic church have accepted some sort of "deistic evolution". That is not Intelligent Design. The core principal of intelligent design is that an intelligent entity designed all biodiversity, and specifically humans, and fundamentally, that species evolution through natural selection does not occur.

Whatever you have to do to convince yourself that belief in the universe being designed by a supernatural intelligent entity is not intelligent design.

[ChaosEngine]

Whatever you have to do to convince yourself that belief in the universe being designed by a supernatural intelligent entity is not intelligent design.

Oh FFS

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

The intelligent design (ID) movement claims that life as we know it could not have developed through random natural processes -- that only the guidance of an intelligent power can explain the complexity and diversity that we see today.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/intelligent-design.htm

Stop trying to reframe the debate. ID is unscientific nonsense and rephrasing it as deistic evolution is disingenuous.

[mdwh]

Regarding who would be right if such a thing were true -

Atheists (agnostics, etc) usually criticise/reject either specific religious beliefs, or the more general belief that everything was created by some kind of intelligence, or conscious "creator", as opposed to natural non-living means.

So for the former, the Universe being a simulation isn't something that most religious beliefs claim, and it would be quite some back pedalling to claim that they did mean that all along. For the latter, the problem is that you still have the question of whether the original Universe came from that we're being simulated in! Unlike belief in God, which is asserted to be the beginning (well, there's still the problem of where God came from, but theists believe this isn't something that's a problem), no one would think that the creators of this simulation are how _everything_ was created. So although profound, it wouldn't really be "God" in any sense meant by theists or atheists.

Also consider from the theist point of view: are religious people going to say "Oh, Christianity/etc is wrong after all", and then start worshipping these beings as new Gods? I doubt it. They'd probably make some kind of argument from design along the lines of "Since this Universe was designed, therefore everything must have had a designer", but that argument wouldn't be any more valid, nor would it make their beliefs right.

It's true there is the debate about how the Universe seems apparently "perfect" for life, but science doesn't have an answer, so it's not like scientists or atheists are proven wrong; rather the stance of atheists would be that lack of an answer doesn't mean that everything had to start with a creator, and the same would still be true.

And I agree with ChaosEngine that "Intelligent Design" generally means something quite specific. Sure, we can talk about something more general like "the space-time that we inhabit having been designed intelligently", but it's a rather small set of religious people who believe specifically that, and as I say, I doubt any other religious people would change their views to start worshipping these aliens. And it seems rather odd to pretend that such aliens would have been the Christian God/Jesus, or whatever, all along.

Perhaps an analogy would be the big bang - with the discovery that the Universe must have had a beginning, some religious leaders did claim this meant they were right all along, because they believed the Universe was created (had a beginning). True, they were right in that, because until then it wasn't known if the Universe even had a beginning. But being right in one thing, doesn't make the religious views in any way correct. If I believed in a Unicorn that makes the Sun come up every day, just because it turns out that the Sun comes up tomorrow, doesn't mean I'm right about my belief.

Edited by mdwh, 20 December 2012 - 07:54 AM.

[way2lazy2care]

And I agree with ChaosEngine that "Intelligent Design" generally means something quite specific. Sure, we can talk about something more general like "the space-time that we inhabit having been designed intelligently", but it's a rather small set of religious people who believe specifically that, and as I say, I doubt any other religious people would change their views to start worshipping these aliens. And it seems rather odd to pretend that such aliens would have been the Christian God/Jesus, or whatever, all along.

Both of your posts are totally ignorant of a huge dialogue that's been happening through the catholic church in recent history. This is like listening to Rush Limbaugh telling a Shia what Islam really is.

[GeneralQuery]

And I agree with ChaosEngine that "Intelligent Design" generally means something quite specific. Sure, we can talk about something more general like "the space-time that we inhabit having been designed intelligently", but it's a rather small set of religious people who believe specifically that, and as I say, I doubt any other religious people would change their views to start worshipping these aliens. And it seems rather odd to pretend that such aliens would have been the Christian God/Jesus, or whatever, all along.

Both of your posts are totally ignorant of a huge dialogue that's been happening through the catholic church in recent history. This is like listening to Rush Limbaugh telling a Shia what Islam really is.

Intelligent Design as a movement has a very specific meaning (CE linked you to a comprehensive Wiki article on the topic). You don't get to redefine commonly understood terms to suite your argument and then attempt to call people out for not using your personal interpretation of the term. That's not how discussions work. When people mention Intelligent Design, funnily enough the commonly understood definition pops into their head, not the one you've arbitrarily decided to redefine.

[way2lazy2care]

Intelligent Design as a movement has a very specific meaning (CE linked you to a comprehensive Wiki article on the topic).

I imagine a lot of Americans view Islam as a movement with a very specific meaning too; that doesn't make it less ignorant. This is totally an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

[ChaosEngine]

Intelligent Design as a movement has a very specific meaning (CE linked you to a comprehensive Wiki article on the topic).

I imagine a lot of Americans view Islam as a movement with a very specific meaning too; that doesn't make it less ignorant. This is totally an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Christ you don't give up, do you? If Americans got their view of Islam from the Quran then that view is correct. It is the authoratvie source

Intelligent design has a specific meaning that is widely understood and accepted, as defined by the people who came up with the term. You are attempting to change that meaning because you realise the principle is unsound and trivially disproven.

You're engaging in both moving the goalposts and the no true scotsman fallacy.