• 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

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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1356011514' post='5012793']
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", [b]but it's a rather small set of religious people who believe specifically that[/b], 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.[/quote]
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1356027302' post='5012863']
[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1356011514' post='5012793']
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", [b]but it's a rather small set of religious people who believe specifically that[/b], 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.[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='GeneralQuery' timestamp='1356027744' post='5012867']
Intelligent Design as a movement has a very specific meaning (CE linked you to a comprehensive Wiki article on the topic).[/quote]
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1356030442' post='5012883']
[quote name='GeneralQuery' timestamp='1356027744' post='5012867']
Intelligent Design as a movement has a very specific meaning (CE linked you to a comprehensive Wiki article on the topic).[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

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 [b]by the people who came up with the term[/b]. 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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1356030442' post='5012883']
[quote name='GeneralQuery' timestamp='1356027744' post='5012867']
Intelligent Design as a movement has a very specific meaning (CE linked you to a comprehensive Wiki article on the topic).[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
Expecting people to stick to well defined and commonly understood terminology is not an "argumentum ad populum", it's the prerequisite to rational discourse.

Edit: accidentally a word Edited by GeneralQuery
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1356027302' post='5012863']
[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1356011514' post='5012793']
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", [b]but it's a rather small set of religious people who believe specifically that[/b], 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.[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

I thought Intelligent Design was Protestant in origin. The Catholic Church supports it but that's a different thing than they created it. And being honest, Intelligent Design has been about giving credibility to the creation stories. If Intelligent Design has about God creating a set of scientific laws with which the universe is governed by, then a lot of scientists would be willing to give that chance. Some scientists may even embrace it wholeheartedly because it allows their knowledge and their faith to harmoniously co-exist. So in short, if originally, Intelligent Design == Deistic Evolution, then the world could have been a better place.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's true there is the debate about how the Universe seems apparently "perfect" for life, but science doesn't have an answer,


Just for the record, the universe is not "perfect" for life. The percentage of the universe that is suitable for our kind of life is so vanishingly small that it's statistically insignificant. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to say that 100% * of the universe is utterly hostile to life as we know it.

*99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% if you want to be pedantic

Edited by Michael Tanczos
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In terms of the universe, I would define "life" as any living organism, not just Earth-based humans and animals. With that said, you can shave off two of those "9"s, lol. Edited by Alpha_ProgDes
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It's true there is the debate about how the Universe seems apparently "perfect" for life, but science doesn't have an answer,


Just for the record, the universe is not "perfect" for life. The percentage of the universe that is suitable for our kind of life is so vanishingly small that it's statistically insignificant. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to say that 100% * of the universe is utterly hostile to life as we know it.

*99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% if you want to be pedantic

Plus it's a prime example of puddle thinking:
 

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the Sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.


That our universe can be habitable for life does not mean that it was designed for life. If it wasn't capable of being habitable for life then we wouldn't be around to notice this fact.

Edited by Michael Tanczos
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1356045501' post='5012982']
In terms of the universe, I would define "life" as any living organism, not just Earth-based humans and animals. With that said, you can shave off two of those "9"s, lol.
[/quote]
The problem is defining "living". It's ambiguous as to where non-life ends and life begins and it would appear that this is more of a gradient than a binary state.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love this thread [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img]

[CODE]
Simulation hypothesis -> viability of simulation in realtime vs. computational time
\-> intelligent design -> definition of intelligent design -> logical fallacies
\-> suitability of universe for life -> definition of life
[/CODE]

plus an entire sub thread debating the ethics of "wasting research resources on this" (like we're in starcraft or something [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.png[/img] )
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1356047153' post='5012995']
Microbes and amoebas are "life". Paper and anvils are not "life". That's the minimum requirement for my definition.
[/quote]
At what point do organic molecules become life? Any boundary you impose is completely arbitrary. What makes one chemical reaction "alive" and another not, and what is the precise crossover point? There is no clear answer. Thinking in binary terms only results in logical inconsistencies.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My arbitrary line for (known) life is ATP.  If there's ATP (i.e. cellular respiration) then there's life.  I wanted to make it something about "a set of biological processes that seek to perpetuate their own existence" but that implied too much sentience.  Probably something more like "energy currency exchange" might blanket extra-terrestrial lifeforms.  *shrug*

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think we can physically test such things, from my understanding, the core concept of this idea is that if we are in a simulation, then if we are able to simulate an accurate universe, that means we are a simulation ourselves. I can't be the only one seeing the problem with this?

 

This seems backward to me. Wouldn't simulating a whole universe inside a simulation of a universe be the kind of thing that would break the simulator?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='d000hg' timestamp='1356106565' post='5013167']
Wouldn't simulating a whole universe inside a simulation of a universe be the kind of thing that would break the simulator?
[/quote]

I think the idea is that a perfect simulator would (much like our current laws of physics and other sciences) define interactions at a low enough level to not have a problem running said "nested simulator".

It's the fact that we're getting closer to being able to describe and define all aspects of the universe (from the micro to the macro) based on limit values and mathematical rules that gives this the whisper of potential.  And probably other things, I'll admit to not having read the article.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think we can physically test such things, from my understanding, the core concept of this idea is that if we are in a simulation, then if we are able to simulate an accurate universe, that means we are a simulation ourselves. I can't be the only one seeing the problem with this?

 

This seems backward to me. Wouldn't simulating a whole universe inside a simulation of a universe be the kind of thing that would break the simulator?

 

we assume they are simulating a universe in equal size to their's, for all we know, the perceived universe we see could simply be a giant cube-map texture, being fed from their universe, or their universe is perhaps millions upon millions of times bigger than ours. so we could be a relatively small universe by comparison to there's.  remember that we haven't even left our solar system(the computer they are using might be billions of cluster's of servers, think of each solar system, planet, or maybe even atom, could have it's own dedicated processor).

 

we truthfully have no possible idea how they could be doing this, hell, their universe could even operate completely differently than ours, and we are making assumptions that they are trying to simulate their own universe, for all we know, we could be some huge MMO to them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='slicer4ever' timestamp='1356107241' post='5013173']
we truthfully have no possible idea how they could be doing this, hell, their universe could even operate completely differently than ours, and we are making assumptions that they are trying to simulate their own universe, for all we know, we could be some huge MMO to them.
[/quote]

That's a fascinating idea, that perhaps this simulation was never intended to simulate life and the creators never even knew there was life in the simulation. They are playing some game exploring the universe, waging war for fun when one day they meet natives..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hopefully, the post editor will actually let me write something this time...
we truthfully have no possible idea how they could be doing this, hell, their universe could even operate completely differently than ours, and we are making assumptions that they are trying to simulate their own universe, for all we know, we could be some huge MMO to them.
This begs the question, are we the avatars, or are aliens the avatars, or are other earth life the avatars? Let the conspiracy theories begin. Edited by Cornstalks
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



we truthfully have no possible idea how they could be doing this, hell, their universe could even operate completely differently than ours, and we are making assumptions that they are trying to simulate their own universe, for all we know, we could be some huge MMO to them.

That's a fascinating idea, that perhaps this simulation was never intended to simulate life and the creators never even knew there was life in the simulation. They are playing some game exploring the universe, waging war for fun when one day they meet natives..

 

this makes me think of that episode of futurama, where bender discovers god, but he doesn't even know about earth.

Edited by slicer4ever
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