Atheists and fellow Agnostics, what are your thoughts on Simulation Theory?

[tru_m.a.c]

I mean I think everything is cyclical and human's can't create something outside of their perception

wasn't it plato or socrates that made the statement that we cannot create a shape or vision that we haven't already seen in nature. it was something to that effect. gawd I haven't opened up a philosophy book in 6yrs

What is simulation theory? I watched the video. Is simulation theory the idea that there's some set of equations that bring about some kind of code to describe all the laws of nature we have?

idk. I mean insofar as that leading to some sort of creator, nah.

I like the theory. But with that being said. The main idea behind this being a computer simulation is going to lead to scientist trying to find out the code and trying to tinker with it. Anyone who has played the Sims at one point has put in a money cheat. If this is a simulation people probably already know how manipulate the system and what is stopping the rest of us from toying with the simulation? Turning off certain codes that pertain to us. Aging, pain, gravity. What happens if the owner of the simulation decides to end the simulation? Lots of questions here, but I find this interesting, and yes I'm Agnostic. This is pretty interesting.

Yes and no. This is old news though. We talked about this last year. A quick good search of "scientist find computer code in string theory" brings up the same vid. I'm not touching anything that deals with quantum mechanics. Sorry lol.

and I mean... hell...

why not just meet in the middle and say we're living in a reality with an underlying language code as the basis like a computer....

And God did it?

Looking at stuff like the Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio in nature does suggest intelligent design.

Well I have said this in another thread that asked agnostics/athiest what they think 'created' the universe.

Nice read. I agree with much of what you say but disagree with the use of the word "unpredictability." I view the universe as one big ass continuous mathematical equation. From this view nothing really "changes." Because the change was already a part of the expression.

For example, at the miniature level: If I have a red dye, and blue dye...I know that in the future a mixture that equals purple has the potential to exist. But we know it has potential because we've seen this happen in the past. So all unpredictability really is unrealized potential. But this is only unrealized potential with respect to the individual. If we decipher the equation, we no longer guess its potential, but we guess the potential of the events that will lead to an "anticipated event" as well as the potential of events that may prevent the "anticipated event." (But even those events create multiple new equations within a matrix)

Lol so i say all that to say, who has the teachers edition of the universe

Essentially this idea came to me during my first year of high school physics. You know when you're doing the whole, all else remains constant, if you throw the ball off the cliff with x Initial velocity, blah blah blah. Well I mean just from that simple problem, I realized how COMPLEX the universe is because NOTHING is held constant. So what I realized is that every object, every event, every second is based off the potential of the preceding potentials outcome. And the potential doesn't have to be something in the near past. It could be a potential that has built up over years.

Am I the only person that leaves their house late for work and goes, "I think I just changed my potential. I wonder how the day goes?"

I hate the word "fate" or "predestination" because the present can't be changed. You can't compare it to what might have been. Hence why I reject anyone that tells me, "x event was SUPPOSED" to happen. Its like, "DUH of course it was supposed to happen. Everything necessary for it to happen HAPPENED. If it wasn't supposed to happen, and the probability of the event happening was 0, IT WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED."

Math rules everything man. Everything.

And like you said, "well why not say God did it." Okay. Thats fine. But in my hypothesis, the math is God. God is the universe. He's not everything and nothing. And he's, not a he. He's it. and It is everything. But it does not consciously jump into his Godly body and judge man, then jump back into being everything (at the same damn time! at the same damn time!). I'm not going to personify IT because you're only doing that so you can hold onto the premise that we're saved at the end of all of this. And if hell is real, I wouldn't wish it on my worse enemy. I think the pain we go through here is enough. I was happy living an eternal nothing before I was born. I didn't need to know pain. I didn't need to know joy.

I will be happy living an eternal nothing when I'm gone.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Math doesnt rule everything. Definitions then Rules then Algorithms then Code.

1 + 1 = 2.

So what? If there isn't a meaningful variable attached to the numbers the equation itself is meaningless outside of being a truth statement within a system. The system itself has to have a context. Even if the whole universe could be expressed in binary, the combinations would still result in some sort of physical manifestation of matter, assuming most "normal" shyt to be true. (aka not that we are brains in a vat, everything is an illusion, etc)

 

[Poitier]

Math doesnt rule everything. Rules rule everything. Logic. Code. Math is an expression/explanation/groundwork but would be meaningless in a vacuum.

There lies the conundrum. You can't know the rules unless omniscient. Math is the most efficient tool at this juncture and if we want to test this theory, we should attempt to recreate it once we have the computing power to do so.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

There lies the conundrum. You can't know the rules unless omniscient. Math is the most efficient tool at this juncture and if we want to test this theory, we should attempt to recreate it once we have the computing power to do so.

I amended my post upon brief reflection (and prior to seeing your post). But, generally, there is truth to what you are saying.

Math can be an efficient tool to test the theory, but the theory may be unverifiable at a certain point. Even if its proven that it is true to be a simulation (which I sometimes believe, truly), math cannot prove this. There would have to be some sort of dimensional/wormhole/blackhole/portal/galactic/supernatural/matrix discovery/exploration that provides the realm in which this simulation is fed code or was fed code (the source)...and even then, one can postulate that even that "place" is outside of our simulation but inside of another simulation, or was actually in our "simulation" the whole time but was undiscovered. The latter would negate the proof that it is in fact a simulation, because it wouldn't be able to prove that there is something outside of the simulation. In fact, finding this may place people further away from the truth they are seeking in the first place.

 

[Poitier]

I amended my post upon brief reflection (and prior to seeing your post). But, generally, there is truth to what you are saying.

Math can be an efficient tool to test the theory, but the theory may be unverifiable at a certain point. Even if its proven that it is true to be a simulation (which I sometimes believe, truly), math cannot prove this. There would have to be some sort of dimensional/wormhole/blackhole/portal/galactic/supernatural/matrix discovery/exploration that provides the realm in which this simulation is fed code or was fed code (the source)...and even then, one can postulate that even that "place" is within another simulation or was actually in our simulation the whole time but was undiscovered.

Yeah, it may all be cyclical. Whose not to say the people who created this simulation, at some point, was having this very conversation on their BB

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Yeah, it may all be cyclical. Whose not to say the people who created this simulation, at some point, was having this very conversation on their BB

Who's to say that we aren't having that conversation right now?

Who's to say that someone didn't write the code in the future to prevent apocalypse, making all "unrecorded" and some recorded history to be completely fabricated and also to prevent future dominoes from dropping in an order that would result in massive harm?

Who's to say something(s) havent been doing this all along, just simply using the dinosaurs and other extinctions as a tax write off and trying other shyt just for the fukkery of it?

 

[Poitier]

Who's to say that we aren't having that conversation right now?

Who's to say that someone didn't write the code in the future to prevent apocalypse, making all "unrecorded" and some recorded history to be completely fabricated?

lol bruh this why I don't come to HL and/ or think about life on some meta shyt

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Yeah, it may all be cyclical. Whose not to say the people who created this simulation, at some point, was having this very conversation on their BB

And its definitely cyclical. Thats why I mess with philosophic taoism so much.

 

[Grams]

So the concept of God is absurd but us living in a computer is perfectly logical?

That's what I'm saying. Don't believe in God but believe some I don't even know who created a code and is playing Earth Tyc00n and we're the characters?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

lol bruh this why I don't come to HL and/ or think about life on some meta shyt

I respect that.

I was deep into this theory and was investigating it during my days in epistemology. Starting divising theories that 1 doesnt necessarily equal 1 and p doesnt necessarily equal p. Everything is strictly based on definitions, then the system comes after it. I was writing a book on it and just gave up. Its been about 4 years since that point and I havent seriously considered since until this thread sprouted up.

 

[Poitier]

That's what I'm saying. Don't believe in God but believe some I don't even know who created a code and is playing Earth Tyc00n and we're the characters?

Nope, the simulation would be sentient and run itself. Ever play Madden or 2k and let the A.I. play against itself?

 

[Grams]

Nope, the simulation would be sentient and run itself. Ever play Madden or 2k and let the A.I. play against itself?

Game developers don't have anything to do with that?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Game developers don't have anything to do with that?

Thats the big question in this.

Did something create the system, did the system create the something that runs it/ran it or does the system run itself? And where exactly are these things? And how would we be able to prove any of it even if it hit us in the face?

 

[Poitier]

Game developers don't have anything to do with that?

Who do you think would be behind this simulation? Like I said, humans can only create from what already is...the very reasons why we will try and replicate this, could very well be the reason we exist.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

No matter what, it becomes infinite regress unless one concludes that Nothingness "created" Everythingness. Maybe more precisely that its existence was causal to the creation of Everythingness. This doesn't mean there isn't a God. One could argue that a God/Admin would be the first, and most logical creation, besides, perhaps, general space (if the Nothingness isn't equal to Space)