• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Alpha_ProgDes

Scientists are testing that we are in the Matrix...

94 posts in this topic

[quote name='Severin' timestamp='1355492775' post='5010606']
But I never had a 100% faith and for years I did not care about God or religion.
Now I believe in God because of some experiences that assured me that He exists.
[/quote]
Negated by the fact that I was taught that he does exist. I read religious books to my sister as a child in full faith that the words I told her were true.
Then realized that the things I was telling her did not make sense. I kept quiet about my disbelief so that I could have a fair chance to study both sides.

My only regret was that she was not as lucky as myself. I already realized that every other person would quickly try to step in and force their views onto me (I was 6 years old, so obviously aware of these kinds of psychological principals), so if I told her I would be risking everything. If she told anyone that I was seeking the truth instead of just following blind faith I would never be able to judge reality on neutral grounds.

The irony here is that her parent (guess what, she was only my step-sister, and her mother (her only parent) was not religious) never taught her religion. She learned it all from me.

So it is fairly obvious how religion spreads. I did it to my own sister. Everything she knows about religion came from me, and yet I myself never believed anything I told her (I was questioning things by the age of 4, which is when I began reading to her).

How is it not obvious to all religious people that this is exactly what happened to them?

You claim to be special. You were taught, then disbelieved, then regained faith.
Hardly. Whatever happened that caused you to regain faith would not have had the same result unless you had already been taught about religion in the first place. Firstly, no one learns about religion until taught. So no matter what your argument is it only ends up becoming religious because you were taught about religion at a young age. Nothing else. Even my 6-year-old self knew that.
You could experience any number of unexplainable coincidences, but you would never fall back on thinking it was a higher hand had you never been taught what a higher hand means. Unless you think for yourself from the start, everything you believe is just someone else’s thinking. Try to deny it.

The fact that you went back to religion simply means you never really left. Leaving religion means never going back. You simply understand enough to know that there is always a better explanation, and you are not so arrogant as to assume you know what that explanation is.

Ultimately you are nothing but a product of your upbringing, no matter how much you try to deny it.
The mental stability of children is precarious. I never really believed in God and yet I was the one who ended up making my step-sister into a devout Christian. Even to this day I could tell her it was all bullshit, and although I was the one teaching her, I knew it was wrong from the start, yet she would hold to her faith just because she was that young when I taught it to her.

You are no different. Even if the very people who taught you about God and Jesus were to turn around and tell you it was all just a joke or lie you would say to yourself, “This is just a test of my faith,” and continue living the lie.


You convince yourself that I am wrong because you believe you have special-case proof to the contrary that was apparently given only to you. Ironically, such arrogance basically condemns you to Hell. [i][b]Nothing[/b][/i] was given to you that was not given to anyone else.


L. Spiro Edited by L. Spiro
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355496112' post='5010621']
You simply understand enough to know that there is always a better explanation, and you are not so arrogant as to assume you know what that explanation is.
[/quote]

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.

Edit:
And it doesn't matter whats "proved" or not. There is a nice little saying that gives religious folks a loophole for everything: "God works in mysterious ways." You can rationalize that forever.

And it would actually lend support to the intelligent design crowd if scientist were to conclude the universe is a giant simulation. Edited by BMO
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355495781' post='5010618']
[quote name='GeneralQuery' timestamp='1355476254' post='5010537']
[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355464310' post='5010488']
Can't these guys work on something more important? Like curing cancer? Such a waste of brilliant minds.
[/quote]It's not like they've pulled scientists of Team Cancer to stick them on this project. It's not an either/or situation.
[/quote]
You've kind of missed my point. The point is that the world has important issues that need to be solved. This is a bunch of wasted talent on a useless thought exercise. Cancer was just a random example of something important.
[/quote]
Scientific research isn't about someone assigning scientists to specific research topics, people go into areas of research of their own choosing because that is what they are interested in. Some people have a knack for theoretical physics. Some have a knack for revolutionary biology and so on. It's a false dichotomy to say that either a team of researchers explore this area of physics or they explore an other area of biology, that's not how research is conducted. And who's to say that this team of physicists would be any good at biology? Who's to say that cancer research (or whatever example you give) does not inspire them like their current area of research does? In any case, it's not like cancer hasn't been a massive area of research for many decades or anything.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355497165' post='5010622']
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.

And it doesn't matter whats "proved" or not. There is a nice little saying that gives religious folks a loophole for everything: "God works in mysterious ways." You can rationalize that forever.
[/quote]

I'm not agnostic, but I generally approve of this message. So far as I have heard, and I have heard a lot, there is no logical proof for or against a god/gods. It's just as ignorant for a person of faith to try to argue logically that there is a god as for someone to logically argue that there is not one. The former being distinctly different than arguing logically that there might be a god.

It doesn't really make sense to argue faith on logic anyway. If faith based beliefs were backed by universally provable logic, it would be a fact based belief not a faith based one. The nature of it being faith indicates that it would not be provable universally.

ANYWAY, HOW ABOUT THE MATRIX!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='GeneralQuery' timestamp='1355497595' post='5010625']
Scientific research isn't about someone assigning scientists to specific research topics, people go into areas of research of their own choosing because that is what they are interested in. Some people have a knack for theoretical physics. Some have a knack for revolutionary biology and so on. It's a false dichotomy to say that either a team of researchers explore this area of physics or they explore an other area of biology, that's not how research is conducted. And who's to say that this team of physicists would be any good at biology? Who's to say that cancer research (or whatever example you give) does not inspire them like their current area of research does? In any case, it's not like cancer hasn't been a massive area of research for many decades or anything.
[/quote]

I never said anyone was assigned to anything. I think they are wasting their time on something that is irrelevant. The worlds problems needs multi-disciplinary solutions (global warming for example needs physicists and biologists ect. ect. ad nauseum). Just because they chose to work on that project doesn't change the fact that it's a project that isn't worth the time. These are some of the worlds most brilliant minds working on something as important as figuring out the best way to win at tic tac toe. They may be passionate, but it's still a waste of human potential.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Severin' timestamp='1355485329' post='5010569']I already have proof that God exists and the Bible is true. Unfortunately this proof was given only to me. I can tell you my testimony but it is up to you if you believe me or not.[/quote]You are Joseph Smith! :)

[u]EDIT:[/u]
By the way, "God exists" and "the Bible is true" are two entirely unrelated things. The Bible is provably not "The One Truth", but proving whether or not God exists remains a hard problem.

The only thing that is 100% certain is that what you find in your Bible has been
a) taken from a selection of abrahamic texts, reworded slightly different
b) stolen from pagan stories and beliefs
c) censored
d) rewritten

Seeing as Christmas is nigh, it's worth to mention that both Christmas and Easter are stolen from the pagans, too.

Insofar, what's in the Bible has very little, if anything, to do with what God said or what God wants (if God exists). Edited by samoth
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355497165' post='5010622']
Except that definitively deciding there is no god is making the same logical fallacy and equally arrogant.
[/quote]
But arrogance does not condemn me to hell. That logic only works on religious people. I am already fully aware of what happens in death, since I already experienced it before I was born. Do you not also remember that millenia of nothingness? It lasted over 10 billion times longer than you have been alive, so why would you forget?

Honestly, existence before life and after life are both exactly the same. Death is no mystery. We have all already been there. Why is this so hard for people to understand and accept?



[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1355497619' post='5010626']
It doesn't really make sense to argue faith on logic anyway. If faith based beliefs were backed by universally provable logic, it would be a fact based belief not a faith based one. The nature of it being faith indicates that it would not be provable universally.
[/quote]
But it can be demonstrated to be majorly psychological, since my step-sister’s faith can be proved as such. I know for a fact that her religious beliefs came entirely from myself and that I know everything I taught her was bullshit.

In other words you can explain down to the tiniest detail why, psychologically, people tend to buy into religion, and experiments prove those explanations to be entirely plausible. Since my sister and I were both part of the same experiment, if you have any belief in higher powers, then you must first explain why she is still deathly afraid of peacock feathers even though they can’t harm humans.
I know her fear. I shared it as a small child. I can’t explain what was happening in my mind but I “just knew” that that peacock feather was extremely painful, and any threats my mother made to beat me with it worked absolutely. And yet it never really caused me any pain. I literally remember her hitting me with it and screaming out loud at how terrible it was, yet looking back there was nothing by psychological pain. She simply convinced me that it would hurt from a very young age.

I was simply terrified of it and the pain was all in my head. I even remember when I was starting to become aware of that and my baby sitter told my mother, “The peacock feather isn’t working anymore.” Hello? I may be only 3 years old but I am in the same room as you and I do speak English!

I also remember that some of the other children she baby-sat were starting to become afraid of the peacock feather just based on my own fear of it.


Looking back, none of it was grounded. [i]I was afraid of it because I was afraid of it[/i]. I even remember my mother finally giving in when I was 5 and laughing at how afraid I was of it.
Yet my sister never got over it. She is still terrified of peacock feathers. This is the nature of religion and is proved by countless psychological experiments.

On the other hand, when my mother stopped using the peacock she started using sticks and belts. Those actually hurt. I overcame the psychological attack only to be rewarded with actual physical pain. This seems to also be why religious people are religious. The alternative is too painful for them.


L. Spiro
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. It certainly won't provide any kind of death blow to religion, as some people seem to think. If anything else, proving that there is a power greater than us capable of designing such a simulation will do quite the opposite.

It's a fascinating experiment, though I must admit, I don't really understand the science at work here and I'm not sure how a matching energy signature inside a model of our own proves anything but that we're pretty good at making models that simulate reality. But then outside of a small handful of people, who really does understand this kind of science? Still, it seems to me like we have a long time before we'll see any results from this, since according to TFA current models are able to simulate a model only slightly larger than the nucleus of a single atom; that's pretty far removed from a simulation of an entire universe, it seems.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A reminder. [size=5][b]This thread is about "the Matrix".[/b][/size] NOT about whether there's a God or if religion sucks. I rather there not be an unnecessary religion war.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='JTippetts' timestamp='1355500320' post='5010639']
If this experiment bears out, won't it stand as proof of intelligent design?
[/quote]
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355499940' post='5010636']
[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355497165' post='5010622']
Except that definitively deciding there is no god is making the same logical fallacy and equally arrogant.
[/quote]
But arrogance does not condemn me to hell. That logic only works on religious people. I am already fully aware of what happens in death, since I already experienced it before I was born. Do you not also remember that millenia of nothingness? It lasted over 10 billion times longer than you have been alive, so why would you forget?

Honestly, existence before life and after life are both exactly the same. Death is no mystery. We have all already been there. Why is this so hard for people to understand and accept?

L. Spiro
[/quote]

I'm not condemning you to hell. I'm saying that declaring you know something with 100% certainty when its impossible to know for 100%, is arrogant. Whether that is for or against religion is irrelevant. You cannot prove something that is improvable, and all faith based religions are improvable. That's what makes it a faith based religion. You can't prove OR disprove it. Why is that so hard for you to figure out? You are continually making the same logical errors religious folks make, saying you know things for certain which are impossible to know and then declaring it as fact.

2 sides of the same coin. Edited by BMO
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]
I never said anyone was assigned to anything. I think they are wasting their time on something that is irrelevant. The worlds problems needs multi-disciplinary solutions (global warming for example needs physicists and biologists ect. ect. ad nauseum). Just because they chose to work on that project doesn't change the fact that it's a project that isn't worth the time.
[/quote]
It's not a "waste of time", they're theoretical physicists, it's their job to ask such questions and investigate such things. Your argument is essentially "I think it's a waste of time when they could be solving bigger problems" which I have already explained is a false dichotomy. It is not an either/or scenario no matter how many times you repeat this fallacy.

[quote]These are some of the worlds most brilliant minds working on something as important as figuring out the best way to win at tic tac toe. They may be passionate, but it's still a waste of human potential.[/quote]

Do you have a source for this or are you making a rather large (and baseless) assumption here? I wouldn't put tic tac toe on the same footing as answering fundamental questions about the nature of the universe.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.
[/quote]

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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='GeneralQuery' timestamp='1355501493' post='5010645']
[quote]
I never said anyone was assigned to anything. I think they are wasting their time on something that is irrelevant. The worlds problems needs multi-disciplinary solutions (global warming for example needs physicists and biologists ect. ect. ad nauseum). Just because they chose to work on that project doesn't change the fact that it's a project that isn't worth the time.
[/quote]
It's not a "waste of time", they're theoretical physicists, it's their job to ask such questions and investigate such things. Your argument is essentially "I think it's a waste of time when they could be solving bigger problems" which I have already explained is a false dichotomy. It is not an either/or scenario no matter how many times you repeat this fallacy.

[quote]These are some of the worlds most brilliant minds working on something as important as figuring out the best way to win at tic tac toe. They may be passionate, but it's still a waste of human potential.[/quote]

Do you have a source for this or are you making a rather large (and baseless) assumption here? I wouldn't put tic tac toe on the same footing as answering fundamental questions about the nature of the universe.
[/quote]

Thats not essentially my argument, thats exactly my argument. It's not a false dichotomy because I'm not saying there are ONLY two options. They could work on stuff that would answer questions AND save lives, but they aren't. I feel that it's a waste of time because it will help zero people. And I feel that the worlds smartest people should work on making the world a better place. I don't think they will ever answer anything and they are just running to nowhere on their hamster wheels in the name of science. Thats an opinion, not a fact.

What good will it do the world to know we are in a simulation when we are all dead? I think saving lives is far more important than answering questions that won't have any real effect. I personally feel that people that are as smart as they are have a moral obligation to help the society that educated them and I don't think this helps anyone. That's just like, my opinion, man.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355502869' post='5010652']
Thats not essentially my argument, thats exactly my argument. It's not a false dichotomy because I'm not saying there are ONLY two options.[/quote]
"Why are they wasting their potential when they could be curing cancer?" is a false dichotomy. It's the choice between a) understanding the universe or b) curing cancer (or whatever example you choose). Cancer research is not being harmed because of this research whereas if the scientists involved were attempting to cure cancer instead then this research would not be conducted at all. That is an either/or scenario. Clearly people are researching both, ergo your argument, by definition, is a false dichotomy.

What about authors? Artists? Poets? All of these brilliant minds wasting their potential when they could be curing cancer. Who would want to live for longer in a world with no desire to understand and appreciate the beauty of life and the universe? Certainly not me.

[quote]They could work on stuff that would answer questions AND save lives, but they aren't. I feel that it's a waste of time because it will help zero people. And I feel that the worlds smartest people should work on making the world a better place. I don't think they will ever answer anything and they are just running to nowhere on their hamster wheels in the name of science. Thats an opinion, not a fact.

What good will it do the world to know we are in a simulation when we are all dead? I think saving lives is far more important than answering questions that won't have any real effect. I personally feel that people that are as smart as they are have a moral obligation to help the society that educated them and I don't think this helps anyone. That's just like, my opinion, man.
[/quote]
And how do you know that any answers this research gives us will be of no practical use?If everyone had your attitude then we wouldn't have the modern and advanced society (essential, ironically, to extending and increasing the quality of life). Electricity had no immediate use so we wouldn't have electrical appliances and equipment today. Quantum mechanics had no immediate use so we wouldn't have transistors (which are key to computing) today. Understanding the atom had no immediate use yet without it we wouldn't have chemistry as we know it today (including all of those drugs and treatments vital to extending life). None of the examples I gave were researched with the aim of saving lives and ironically these examples have been absolutely critical for saving lives on a massive scale yet no one foresaw this at the time. Edited by GeneralQuery
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. Edited by BMO
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems to me that this experiment would prove that the universe is deterministic, not that it is a simulation. But that scientists could jump to the conclusion that they want their results to mean makes me weep for science. Trying out something and getting results that you were expecting does not necessarily mean that you understand what you were actually doing or that you have the complete picture.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355504209' post='5010658']
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.
[/quote]

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 [i]great deal[/i] 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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355464310' post='5010488']
Can't these guys work on something more important? Like curing cancer? Such a waste of brilliant minds.
[/quote]

Why the hell are we even thinking about creating stupid games instead of trying to cure cancer, right?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='JTippetts' timestamp='1355504681' post='5010660']
[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355504209' post='5010658']
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.
[/quote]

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 [i]great deal[/i] 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]

Your right. It's not logical. I just don't feel that in this particular instance the research is going to lead to results. Its just an opinion. I hope I'm wrong.


[quote name='Arthur Souza' timestamp='1355505211' post='5010663']
Why the hell are we even thinking about creating stupid games instead of trying to cure cancer, right?
[/quote]

I am because I'm not smart enough to cure cancer. But if I happen to be successful someday I will use the money I make to support those that are.

Edit:
I guess the bigger point that I'm getting to is that I don't think all research is worth doing just for the sake of research. We can come up with all kinds of possible scenarios that might be true, but I'd rather that the Einsteins of the world focus on those that have a higher degree of probability of actually being true and have a meaningful impact on society. We might all be a product of mole people living in the Earths core, and I can't disprove that. But I don't think we should invest the time and money to find out. That is not the same as saying all research is bad and we shouldn't ever experiment. It's not so black and white. Edited by BMO
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='JTippetts' timestamp='1355502612' post='5010650']
[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.
[/quote]

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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is only valid if the simulation of said universe is not limited in scope with regards to the simulator.

Also, it's only proving that the univers CAN be simulated, not that it is.

"There's a good chance"... XD

Should have been posted on April 1st.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BCullis' timestamp='1355512886' post='5010708']
I like that this thread spun off into at least three arguments.
[/quote]

That's what I love about GD.net and the people here. Pretty eclectic mix here. :D
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cogito ergo sum " I am thinking, therefore I exist " ~ René Descartes

From the Buddhist / Existentialist point of view, the world is the Matrix but who gives a shit. Just do whatever you want while you are here. Also, from the same point of view, experiences that you have in a video game are just as "real" as experiences you have in what we collectively perceive as the "real world."
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0