The Distrusting Attitude

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well, perhaps you're a messenger from the programmer -- how could I tell?

Incidentally the idea of the universe being a computer program predates computers.

I read the hypothesis in a book for a long while ago. I don't know wich, but it had a reference to the source. Before modern computers, but not older than computer science. Matrix has a theme alike.

So in fact we cannot know anything, with this hypothesis in mind, but within our world (or simulation) we can draw some assumptions and call it science, xor religion.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I read the hypothesis in a book for a long while ago. I don't know wich, but it had a reference to the source. Before modern computers, but not older than computer science. Matrix has a theme alike.

Oh, it's older than computer science. Or shall we say that the Matrix has a very gnostic touch.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Are there other pathways to knowledge than reason?

other than directly enquiring knowledge through eye, ears etc or from acquiring knowledge from somebody else that acquired that knowledge through reason/observation -no.

-any other so called “knowledge” is a misnomer (with what I mean by the word “knowledge&rdquo😉.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Oh, it's older than computer science. Or shall we say that the Matrix has a very gnostic touch.

Older than Turing? Older than von Neuman? Eh, older than Lovelace? Not older than the abacus, no? 😉

The first real computer was Zuse from 1949. From then on practical programming, in the modern sense, began.

If you do know the reference, please inform me.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
other than directly enquiring knowledge through eye, ears etc or from acquiring knowledge from somebody else that acquired that knowledge through reason/observation -no.

-any other so called “knowledge” is a misnomer (with what I mean by the word “knowledge&rdquo😉.

Good point, there's no general agreed definition of knowledge ... If I say 'I don't know', do I even know what I mean? The words precede my consciousness, it seems ...

But I digress! Is it your contention that the origins of the scriptures (not only Judeo-Christian) are lost in temporal fogs inaccessible to reason?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If you do know the reference, please inform me.

All I mean is that the idea that the universe is a simulation ('a computer program'😉 predates the advent of computers proper.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why would the programmer pull such a stunt?

The point of a simulation is that from "simple" (well, simpler) rules a complex result may arise. So even if it is a simulation, it doesn't mean everything was programmed explicitly.

Of course, that theory is (in my view) equivalent to some forms of theism.

Originally posted by Palynka

Of course, that theory is (in my view) equivalent to some forms of theism.

Especially if there's a glitch and the programmer has to get personally involved ...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Especially if there's a glitch and the programmer has to get personally involved ...

Somewhere in the world there is a scientist that actually believe in this theory. He says that it is possible to prove that the theory holds - every computer program, the more advanced the more probable, and this program must indeed be the largest computer program in the , eh, 'universe', have its bugs, flaws and glitches. By discover these glitches in the laws of physics, it is indeed possible to, with a high probability, prove that we live in a simulation.

Our god is a programmer...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Good point, there's no general agreed definition of knowledge ... If I say 'I don't know', do I even know what I mean? The words precede my consciousness, it seems ...

But I digress! Is it your contention that the origins of the scriptures (not only Judeo-Christian) are lost in temporal fogs inaccessible to reason?

……But I digress! Is it your contention that the origins of the scriptures (not only Judeo-Christian) are lost in temporal fogs inaccessible to reason?...…

I am not sure what you mean by “lost in temporal fogs inaccessible to reason”.
The scriptures where obviously made by people but, for at least some of the scriptures, we may never know exactly which people nor their true motives for writing them because info on both theses things may be lost in history and thus made beyond our ability to rationally judge/analyse.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Somewhere in the world there is a scientist that actually believe in this theory. He says that it is possible to prove that the theory holds - every computer program, the more advanced the more probable, and this program must indeed be the largest computer program in the , eh, 'universe', have its bugs, flaws and glitches. By discover these glitches in th ...[text shortened]... to, with a high probability, prove that we live in a simulation.

Our god is a programmer...

Although there is no rational premise for believing that there is a god, I would agree that that would at least be a reasonably scientific hypothesis providing it is testable using observations of what we can actually see out of our physical senses.

Is it worth looking for “programming bugs” in the universe to test this very wild and unlikely hypothesis?
-what harm can it do just to look?
-except the problem I see here is that I have absolutely no idea how we would recognise a “programming bugs” in the universe even if we see it!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Although there is no rational premise for believing that there is a god, I would agree that that would at least be a reasonably scientific hypothesis providing it is testable using observations of what we can actually see out of our physical senses.

Is it worth looking for “programming bugs” in the universe to test this very ...[text shortened]... bsolutely no idea how we would recognise a “programming bugs” in the universe even if we see it!

I see such a universe at this way:

There are a number of points in the universe, separarated with a Planck length. Every point have properties, like level of the four basic forces, level of fields strengths, and some other properties that I'm not too well educated to have a wild guess at. Every point have influence and is influenced by its neighbouring points. Now we set everything into motion, we start to iterate. Every 'click' has a time duration of a Planck time, when all points and its properties are reevaluated. And so it goes.

(Does this sound like the Quantum Loop Gravitation Theory to you?)

So would I simulate the universe, if I had a computer fast enough and big enough. If I had that, I would play God and see how the Universe, my Universe, would turn out. I would set the initial parameters at the time of Big Bang, like the baseic constants, like the gravitational constant and Planck constant, and all the rest of them. After some 10 billion of years, I would notice that in one concentration of matter, a planet, life would emerge, spontanously. After a few more billion of years intelligence would emerge, and self awareness.

Everyone who has made a simulation, like the game of Life, or gravitational interactions in a thought planetary system, knows that it is very easy to make a systematic error, that drives towards wrong values. Like the coriolis effect if you don't thought about the rotation. Another common errors are that (1/3)*3 isn't exactly 1 calculated binary, or overflow of memory (as why Ariadne blew up once), or accumulated tiny errors eventually being noticable.

One way to find out if this Universe is a simulation or not is to search for these programming errors. If you find one, not explanable in any other way, then you know that we, in fact, are a simulation. And that there is a Programmer.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I see such a universe at this way:

There are a number of points in the universe, separarated with a Planck length. Every point have properties, like level of the four basic forces, level of fields strengths, and some other properties that I'm not too well educated to have a wild guess at. Every point have influence and is influenced by its neighbouring ...[text shortened]... ther way, then you know that we, in fact, are a simulation. And that there is a Programmer.

This seems very interesting to me;

But which properties before the big bang would allow you to "create" a concentration of energy at the level of the point singularity in order, then, to have it expanded through your big- bang?

Originally posted by black beetle
This seems very interesting to me;

But which properties before the big bang would allow you to "create" a concentration of energy at the level of the point singularity in order, then, to have it expanded through your big- bang?

There were nothing before this simulation began. Every parameters in every point of the universe was initially set at t=0, or at the very first point of Planck time. But in this scenario there is no Universe as we see it. Our concousness is only a product of the simulation, nothing more.

But this big simulating computer resides in a real universe, with a real Programmer. By doing research about this simulation, we have a tiny chance of deducing the real universe and the real Programmer.

Do I really believe in this? No. But this is the Spiritual Forum, isn't it?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
There were nothing before this simulation began. Every parameters in every point of the universe was initially set at t=0, or at the very first point of Planck time. But in this scenario there is no Universe as we see it. Our concousness is only a product of the simulation, nothing more.

But this big simulating computer resides in a real universe, with ...[text shortened]... real Programmer.

Do I really believe in this? No. But this is the Spiritual Forum, isn't it?

Oh ye foxy Gota, and I was ready for a kill😵


But why my friend you consider that the spiritualism of the individual allows irrational thoughts? Whenever the tools of the spiritualist are Science and Philosophy, his opinions can be quite well justified;

😵