I wrote an article on the simulation argument which puts forward the view that we’re living inside a computer and that we may indeed have a God/creator. The article explores various elements of astrophysics, life and xenobiology, history of computing, gaming and looks at various thought experiments such as "brain in a vat".
-
Archives
- November 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (2)
- May 2009 (20)
- April 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (2)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (2)
- December 2008 (3)
- November 2008 (4)
- October 2008 (1)
- September 2008 (3)
- August 2008 (3)
- July 2008 (4)
- June 2008 (8)
- May 2008 (8)
- April 2008 (12)
- March 2008 (12)
- February 2008 (4)
-
Meta
#1 by Joe at December 27th, 2008
| Quote
[quote]Are there technologically advanced civilizations out there? [/quote]
Out where? deeper into the simulation? If we are a simulation, that question would be, ummm, not right? “Out there” would be in terms of outside our “computer” and impossible for us to ever find or discover as “they” created not only us, but the existence we have…
and to hell with the God theory… I mean could not that technologically advanced civilization that created our existence also inserted “god” into us? so, you could believe that “god” created everything and still be in a simulation… haha!
#2 by Brandon St. Germaine at January 4th, 2009
| Quote
I think it’s important to note that when asking the question “Would a society have ethical issues?” you must also remind yourself that we carry out several far worst studies on societies of Mice, Rabbits, Monkeys, and even Humans have been subject to some of our lesser moral, but equally intellectual Nazi scientists. We can’t assume that our type .7 society is any more valuable to a type 4 society than the type .05 mice society is to us?
Isn’t the quantitative Sagan-interpreted Kardashev scale kind of prejudice to massive animal societies that have achieved efficiency beyond our own? I think Kardashev is measuring some arrogant nature-domineering power consumption rate instead of efficiency and productivity. On his scale, a Type .5 society could be all powerful mechanized worlds that simply use a minute amount of net energy. Is it so unreasonable to think when people on our own planet have been trying to discover free or low-friction energy? Why couldn’t a powerful society minimize the coefficient of friction to create nearly perfect machines that used minor amounts of electricity to power? They’d be considered less than Type 0, yet more powerful than any hypothetical Type 4 society.
#3 by Pierre-olivier bourque pratte at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
im not gonna argue with the article you posted, i read it, and i would like to agree with you, but i’m a thomas, and i can’t agree with either side of the debate. So here’s my email : Dark_rider2009@hotmail.com
i just want everything that could help me settle my mind on that matter, it’s almost a cry to find some kind of answer to that question, i dont believe in god or in some power governing our destiny but i believe we have a destiny as a species. Before going on, i must apologize for my english wich, i know isn’t great, and my spelling is probably even worst, lol, but still help me find something that could make everyone advance on this. I don’t really know what i want, i think i just actually want a lead, so i can investigate into it, use your instinct and answer me and send me something… plz. i know this page isnt for that kind of thing but used mostly for debate, at least that’s what it looks like, but your my first lead as someone else wondering about those thing. trust me, i will post the result of my research.
Pierre-Olivier Bourque Pratte a.k.a Dark_rider2009@hotmail.com
p.s.: it’s not that i dont believe in god, but i dont believe in god in the way the christian church believe’s in god. Voltaire has always been closer to what i berlieved into.
#4 by robstuk666 at February 18th, 2009
| Quote
The fact is, the designer of the program we are currently booted up in doesn’t want us to know of his existence. If that happens it’s game over, and we wouldn’t preform the same way. Just as if robots were to become self-aware, “yeah,” and “they were a great help, until they realize we made them”. However, the future is a funny thing. Soon we will be able to simulate the computing power of the brain. Even if it is just the math and numbers that have to be executed in order to turn on the simulation, the possibility still exist of an exponential run-away of the expanding information of everything, and every outcome. Space and time are illusions. Space warps with overwhelming gravitational forces. The passing of time is also an illusion, this can speed up or down depending on varied situations. If the very fabric of our existence in the space time dimension can be altered by man, it will be.
#5 by luke at February 25th, 2009
| Quote
What I conclude from this is thinking can only take you so far, I think the real truth of who we are or what we are, or what life is all about, will only be realized by those who go beyond thought, that is where our true nature is. Chronic thinking is why we as a species are in such a mess, it is time that we rise above thought, or I think this species could quite possibly be on its way out the door soon. It seems everyone on here would agree that this simulation question can never be answered, but we are all using thought to come to this conclusion, but maybe their is something more powerful than thought, something beyond thought, the next step in our evolutionary process. I think this question of a simulated world is just a sign that thinking is very limited, and we must go beyond it for us to know who we are what we are, where we are, and what really matters, and what does not. These important questions can not be answered in humanities current state, but I think it is possible to go beyond our current state
#6 by luke at February 25th, 2009
| Quote
Think of the mind as a tool, like a pen, a pen is great for writing, but it would fail at putting nails into wood, for that you would use a hammer. Just as are mind is great for interpreting the world around us, and making decisions in the various life scenarios we find ourselves in, but for answering the questions of who we are what we are, why we are here, are we real, and questions like that, we need to find a different tool. And I think that tool has been found by a few people in the past, like the Buddha, Jesus, and also some people that are a live today. To ask am I real suggests that there is more than you, there is you, and who ever is asking that question. Who are you, and who is asking if you exist. I think we are all living an illusion that we are our thoughts, and our ego is what makes us hold onto this identification with thought. Once you can stop Identifying with thought, I think the answer to this question will come very easily, you will realize the question itself came from your ego, which is an illusion, and what was causing you to be addicted and Identified with thought. hope this helps
Somebody had a great imagination, who came up with this question, but I think it is just that imagination, not reality.
#7 by rich huntley at March 12th, 2009
| Quote
I donot believe we are real, if we are how is god possible? i was born on christmas day my fathers middle name is joseph my mothers middle name is mary my national insurance number starts with jc and when the numbers are translated to letters it reads IECADB. i hane a number 389OA in my right eye and a birth mark on the back of my head, no joke. a while back i had a run in with the deil and was forced to terminate it, it threatened to harm my family. turns out god was the same consciousnss so it went the same way. if we are real or not dosent really matter as its all relativity. we are here to preserve the way of life. what a good/bad job we all do. i believe in peace and privacy for all mankind be them/us what ever way shape and form we are. peace to all man kind and the way of life x