I might be wrong, the answer to all the worlds problems might be in understanding that we are in some made up simulation. But I doubt it. And I think there are more pressing issues at hand. What if the answer is "No, we were wrong. That was all a bunch of garbage."? Wasted time and energy imho.

This is kind of faulty thinking, imo. You can't know whether or not an experiment will be successful unless the experiment is performed. And if the experiment is a success? Then yes, you can learn a great deal from it that could be of benefit to mankind. Did you know that it's theorized that the universe has a baseline energy level (what we might call a "zero point") and that this energy represents the power of entire suns packed into a single cubic centimeter of space? Imagine if, by understanding the structure of the universe more completely, we could somehow unlock this potential, or some other energy potential as yet undiscovered? It's no secret that we are facing a huge energy crisis, and anything that could possibly lead to answers should be explored.

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1355500826' post='5010641']
True, but it's intelligent design of a completely different sort. Most likely one that renders most if not all holy texts irrelevant. Plus this intelligent design would be more Spore than Sims.

How do you mean "different sort"? Are you trying to categorize Intelligent Design now, for the sole purpose of clinging to the idea that you are right in your beliefs, and those damned crazy religious folks are still wrong? If I wrote a computer program capable of simulating the universe, and intelligent life arose therein, wouldn't I have the stature of God in their eyes? Wouldn't I have dominion over their existence? Wouldn't I have caused them to be, and couldn't I cause them to be not with a casual flick of a switch? Wouldn't I have created the earth and the heavens and the waters, wouldn't I have created the animals and the plants and the men and women upon the earth? The stars in the sky? I mean, after all I created the whole universe. That's pretty much spot-on with the basic nature of just about any theological deity right there, so I really fail to understand how there could possibly be any kind of distinction between the Intelligent Design these guys are trying to prove, and the Intelligent Design that us religious folk have been talking about for thousands of years.

Holy texts are simply the things that people stuck in the simulation have been writing based on their vastly limited perspective. Of course they wouldn't get it right, any more than these guys can get it right with their currently limited model that is not much bigger than the nucleus of an atom. Humans have been working on limited information since the beginning of our species. Science itself operates on what you might call a set of faulty holy texts, many of which would also be made irrelevant by this experiment's success. A whole lot of human thought would be made irrelevant.
[/quote]
But Intelligent Design is based on religious text. That there is a god as described in their holy text who created the Earth and Universe as described in their holy text. It is religious in nature if not in origin.Those are the people I'm talking about. That's different than saying that God created the Big Bang and everything took off from there. Or even that the Big Bang is some cosmic phenomenon with no Divine origin or interference. To say that God is a group of computer programmers and IT specialists who from time to time write new code to correct anomalies (bugs) in the software and some new code to add or change a species is a COMPLETELY different thing. So yes there are categories. And for the record, I'm Christian.

I like that this thread spun off into at least three arguments.

For my part: our existence and importance is ultimately contextual anyway. If it turns out we're a simulation, then we were yesterday and we will be tomorrow. Does it change the fact that trained doctors help you reduce pain and illness, letting you exist in a greater level of comfort? Do you stop enjoying the things that bring you happiness, like a great vacation, great video game, great accomplishments? (Great sex???)

What does a simulation prove, anyway? Science hasn't categorized a "soul" particle or explained other ethereal, non-material phenomenon. Perhaps religion in its currently accepted states is just historical human attempts to explain the workings of the simulation, and the afterlife is where our soul bits are stored and persist?

I'm humble enough to accept that there is so much I do not and cannot understand about the greater context of existence that I'll just keep on plodding along doing my simple human life thing and pursuing health and happiness for me and my loved ones. If I can make more people happy with a great game or contribution to society, bonus.

I like that this thread spun off into at least three arguments.

That's what I love about GD.net and the people here. Pretty eclectic mix here.