A simulation from nothing?

[Cockadoodledoo]

First of all, only nothing comes from nothing.

There had to be a first something. That first something was the great I AM.

Let's assume for a moment that there's an intelligent designer.
Does that intelligent designer have to be external to the design?
Why can't the designer be within the design, i.e. Human?

Another way of looking at it is....could God design something external to himself (like a reality to live in)? And, could consciousness design a universe in order to bring itself into existence?

 

[Sanzbir]

But how do you know for certain that this reality that we find ourselves in is not a simulation. It just needs to be detailed enough to fool the human senses!

The builders of that simulation would need motive to do so. Why use the natural resources of several planets just to build a computer to do this??

It just needs to be detailed enough to fool the human senses!

No it doesn't. If you are going with the argument that not everything in the universe needs to be simulated, just enough to get a general picture, then I propose the following:

When we build are virtual world we don't need to simulate sapience. If we just want a general system that shows us something like our world, and not an exact predictive replica, why would we need to program in sapience?? Isn't AI in approximation of human action and reaction good enough??

We have AIs that, without being fully cognizant, can at least mime and mimic human action and reaction, so why would we, if we were building a simulated world, need to spend the time and effort to program in such unnecessary details as sapient actors?? Can't we just stick a few AIs into it that could mimic human action enough to make the simulation "good enough"??

You've already established that the simulation does not need to be perfect, so why even make the humans sapient?? You wouldn't need to "fool" them at all if you did not make them fully sapient. It'd probably be easier overall in the grand scheme of things for our simulated world if we did not give them sapience.[/QUOTE]

 

[DavidFirth]

Let's assume for a moment that there's an intelligent designer.
Does that intelligent designer have to be external to the design?
Why can't the designer be within the design, i.e. Human?

Another way of looking at it is....could God design something external to himself (like a reality to live in)? And, could consciousness design a universe in order to bring itself into existence?

He would have to be a part of His creation before He created it to be a part of it. Not possible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Did future human beings, from within the simulation, find a way to bring the simulation into existence?
Or do the creators of the simulation have to be external to the simulation?

What you posit here is fascinating, since everyone here is in a "simulation" where there is moral accountability. Even the atheists who are solipsists have imagined that many Christians warn them of coming judgment!

 

[Segev Moran]

Did future human beings, from within the simulation, find a way to bring the simulation into existence?

It is indeed one possibility.
This is called a looped simulation..
which means a simulation that creates simulation that creates simulation and so on.

Or do the creators of the simulation have to be external to the simulation?

this is also a good point,
if we are a simulation, who created the first initial simulation?

Also something to consider:

What we grasp as 14.8 billion years, might be 14.8 milliseconds in our "mother simulation" and so on...

The idea can also work vice versa... maybe every plank time in our reality takes a few seconds to generate on the "mother simulation".

It is also possible that we are one of billions of other simulations, all trying to figure out the same things

 

[QuestioningMind]

First of all, only nothing comes from nothing.

There had to be a first something. That first something was the great I AM.

Which according to your first claim had to have come from something... unless of course your saying that the great I AM is nothing.

 

[RunningWolf]

Did future human beings, from within the simulation, find a way to bring the simulation into existence?
Or do the creators of the simulation have to be external to the simulation?

Someone/something external created it. It wouldn't make sense the other way.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

Did future human beings, from within the simulation, find a way to bring the simulation into existence?
Or do the creators of the simulation have to be external to the simulation?

Do you believe in artificial intelligence? Could a character in a computer program think and have feelings? Do you think that things perceived by our senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell) could be written into a computer program and experienced by an artificial intelligence? Do you think that a human brain could be hooked into a computer to experience a simulation of reality? Sounds pretty far-fetched to me. I don't see how a computer program could give us knowledge of what chocolate tastes like or what a rose smells like. Its still a neat idea though. Ever seen The Matrix or any of its sequels?

 

[DavidFirth]

Which according to your first claim had to have come from something... unless of course your saying that the great I AM is nothing.

I AM created everything. There was nothing before He created. So get over yourself.

 

[McBell]

I AM created everything. There was nothing before He created. So get over yourself.

Do you honestly think your above quoted claim does not have a serious prob lem based on the previous claim?

Rather interesting how people refuse to think their claims through, but do not hesitate to dismiss others when it gets pointed out.

 

[DavidFirth]

Do you honestly think your above quoted claim does not have a serious prob lem based on the previous claim?

Rather interesting how people refuse to think their claims through, but do not hesitate to dismiss others when it gets pointed out.

Rather interesting how people respond in ignorance to something they think they know about when they are clueless. An omnipotent God Almighty is capable of anything, nothing is impossible for Him or with Him.

But I am forced to think down like you do so I can get on your level with all of your all-think-they-know-everything scientists.

 

[McBell]

Rather interesting how people respond in ignorance to something they think they know about when they are clueless. An omnipotent God Almighty is capable of anything, nothing is impossible for Him or with Him.

But I am forced to think down like you do so I can get on your level with all of your all-think-they-know-everything scientists.

ROTFLMAO

Who do you think you are fooling?
I mean other than yourself?

Your "argument" boils down to "everything had to be created but the creator"
Once you make an exception, you shoot your "argument" in the foot and there is no reason to take it seriously.

Yet instead of dealing with this blatant issue concerning your "argument", you prefer to make a fool of yourself by claiming my ignorance whilst masturbating your ego.

 

[DavidFirth]

ROTFLMAO

Who do you think you are fooling?
I mean other than yourself?

Your "argument" boils down to "everything had to be created but the creator"
Once you make an exception, you shoot your "argument" in the foot and there is no reason to take it seriously.

Yet instead of dealing with this blatant issue concerning your "argument", you prefer to make a fool of yourself by claiming my ignorance whilst masturbating your ego.

I AM created.

So where did this wonderful big bang come from? Huh?

Make your best guess.

 

[McBell]

I AM created.

So where did this wonderful big bang come from? Huh?

Make your best guess.

Unlike yourself, I have no fear of admitting I do not know.
Boldly making empty claims does nothing more than reveal your beliefs.

Now, are you finished with the diversion tactics?
Are you going to actually address the huge blatant problem with your claims?

 

[DavidFirth]

Unlike yourself, I have no fear of admitting I do not know.
Boldly making empty claims does nothing more than reveal your beliefs.

Now, are you finished with the diversion tactics?
Are you going to actually address the huge blatant problem with your claims?

What problem? I don't have a problem with my beliefs. You do. That's your problem, not mine.

 

[McBell]

What problem? I don't have a problem with my beliefs. You do. That's your problem, not mine.

ROTFLMAO

Hells bells son, you seem completely incapable of keeping up with the conversation.

 

[DavidFirth]

ROTFLMAO

Hells bells son, you seem completely incapable of keeping up with the conversation.

You are incapable of being able to handle and deal with my beliefs. Must be tough.

 

[McBell]

You are incapable of being able to handle and deal with my beliefs. Must be tough.

You seem well versed at beating strawmen.

And yes, it is strawman.
A classic text book strawman.

I said problem with your CLAIMS.
I said nothing about your beliefs.

 

[DavidFirth]

You seem well versed at beating strawmen.

It's not difficult when I'm arguing with a straw man.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Imagine a computer scientist in 1000 years, who has access to the latest supercomputer. So he decides to program a simulation of the universe, as everything concerning the universe (all equations) are known. The experiment is a success: the simulation evolves stars, planets, and life.

Assuming time travel in both the forward and backward directions has been accomplished, why can't the scientists program reality (the universe) just like the simulation, providing a reason for their own existence?