[Guest]

I've held off mentioning this idea because I thought it might get explored in the DEITY system, but I got bored of waiting. I'd like to hear what anybody thinks of this line of thought, particularly as it relates to the various religious discussions going on. This is a thought experiment, so you have to bear with it...

In a computer simulation, you can build a simulated universe based on whatever laws of physics you want. Suppose at some point in the near future, we design a simulated universe complex enough to contain intelligent, self-aware life (don't worry about whether it's feasible, it's only a thought experiment). Let's also suppose that the laws of physics in this system are completely deterministic (it makes things simpler). So it might be a bit more basic than our own universe, but let's say intelligent life exists in it anyway.

Is this universe (let's call it the sim-universe) any less real than our own? Its inhabitants would certainly think it was real. From their perspective, their world would seem reassuringly solid.

Our natural response to this might be to say that the sim-universe is not real, because it is simulated. It only exists because the computer is simulating it.

Let's question that. Since the physics is deterministic, we can fast-forward sim-time and skip ahead one week, without explicitly evaluating the entire sim-universe state for any intervening moment. So as far as the simulation is concerned, nothing in that week actually "happened", since it did not get explicitly simulated. Of course the inhabitants of the universe think that lots of things happened. They can remember them. Are they deluded? We can run the simulation backwards to find out. We can simulate any of those remembered moments. It seems they happened after all.

Let's test it further. What we have created, we can destroy. Let's smash up the computer, and throw the hard disk (with the only copy of the simulation software) into a furnace. Was that inhumane? Have we destroyed the sim-universe? Have its inhabitants been plunged screaming into an abyss of nothingness?

We could always take a sneaky peek to find out. Fortunately I kept a notepad, on which were scribbled the initial parameters for the sim-universe, plus whatever specifics I need to know about how the laws of physics work. If I rewrite the software on a new computer (of course you never write it exactly the same the second time around, but all that is required is that we preserve the initial parameters and physical laws), we can evaluate the sim-universe as it would be, moments after we destroyed the first simulation. What happened? Not much. The inhabitants of the sim-universe have been continuing their lives blissfully unaware that we destroyed their world. So it seems we can't destroy them in any meaningful sense, as their existence does not depend on the computer, or even the software (we changed both, but still see the same sim-universe). Their existence depends only on those initial parameters and laws. These are numbers and rules, abstract constructs that we did not create (we merely chose them) and cannot destroy. Another set of parameters and laws might reveal another sim-universe, whose existence is equally independent of our simulation of it. The simulation is therefore just a window into another world, a way of viewing it and evaluating it, but not creating it. The sim-universes are in fact mathematical structures, which can be discovered and explored, but exist regardless of whether we do this.

If our own universe is also a mathematical structure, then its existence, and the existence of every other possible universe, is logically unavoidable. Though of course that does put God out of a job.

[Guest]

I like your thought experiment... Of course, it might be theoritcally possible to have a simulated 'matrix' kind of a universe (ignoring the almost infinite amount of computing power required).

But I do believe that you are missing a very basic fact of our universe in this sim-model. The universe is NOT always predictable by known physical laws. Of course, at the macroscopic scale, newtons laws, relativity etc all hold true. But this is not the same at microscopic scales.

At sub-atomic levels, the behaviour of particles is completely different from larger macroscopic systems. you cannot predict the motion and positions of particles beyond a certain degree of accuracy (the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). Which, in turn, means that the same set of initial parameters cannot guarantee a known condition some time in the future. There are random forces at play here. In fact, the very act of observing a particle changes it momentum or position.

If we can somehow incorporate such quantum effects into our sim-universe, this universe would not be deterministic at all. You would not be able to predict the outcome of any sequence of events given an initial condition and parameters. You would not be able to run the simulation backward or forwards as you please and have exactly the same events repeating. This randomness is the reason why we cannot reduce human nature (which essentially electric currents fired between neurons) to a branch of applied mathematics even if we were given the most powerful cosmic infinitely fast computer.

Talking about destroying the sim-universe, I don't really think it is inhuman. If our universe was wiped out in an instant, would it really matter to us? No! We would not exist anymore (not considering souls & afterlife!). Whether it is inhuman or not can be debated by the beings in the higher cosmic dimension who have witnessed our universe's destruction just as we humans can debate whether it is right to exterminate an anthill (the ant's universe) or a few million germs in a petridish (their universe).

If our own universe is also a mathematical structure, then its existence, and the existence of every other possible universe, is logically unavoidable

I do not agree in the logic of the above statement. Of course, it may be possible that there are multi-verses out there (I am not saying there aren't) but not because of them having a defined mathematical structure with different initial parameters. That is like saying, just because X exists, there must be more like X existing. Not a very powerful argument.

[Guest]

Ah, another great thread, and I believe it is actually quite related to unreality's post. It's good to see you active in the Others forums again, octopuppy!

Interestingly, if you had posted this a couple months ago, I would have responded almost exactly the same as navigator, and I think his points are completely valid. However ...

I've been thinking more about the apparent indeterminateness of quantum behavior, and how that relates to 1) the cosmological argument for God's existence, 2) free-will, and 3) God's exercise of foreknowledge.

1. In this post, ADParker cites Victor Stenger's argument for how the indeterminateness of quantum behavior indicates that not everything in our universe is caused, and that consequently, it's unreasonable to believe that the universe requires a first cause. At first glance the argument seemed hollow, but when I started to write a refutation, I found it very difficult to be consistent in what I was calling "cause." I intuitively disagreed with the notion that the random nature of the appearance and direction of photons therefore meant that they are uncaused, but I couldn't clearly structure my argument if I agreed that quantum mechanics are truly indeterminate, which, like navigator, I had already accepted.

2. In Destiny vs Free Will, we discussed the apparent paradox, but we didn't run very far with it. In this post, I asked:

"As I sit here, deciding what keys to press, I have to wonder whether or not my choices are truly the result of an unavoidable series of physical events. My gut reaction is no, but why? ... Is it possible that quantum fluctuations are the indeterministic loophole that God built into the system so as to enable free-will?"

Interestingly, that was the same possibility suggested by Ken Miller, a vocal evolutionary scientist and opponent to the Intelligent Design movement, yet, oddly enough, also a Catholic. However, I agree with octopuppy's response: "I find it hard to see what "free will" could mean in this context, other than a random outcome. Why would God want random outcomes?" The more I thought about it, the less reasonable the idea seemed, so I was back to where I started: If quantum indeterminism is not connected with free-will, then we still have to resolve the apparent paradox of free-will existing in a determinate universe.

3. I believe what the Bible says about God being able to see into the future, as discussed in unreality's post, mentioned earlier. It would seem that for God to see the future in a truly indeterminate universe would require that he made the whole thing, start to infinite finish, in one shot, and then only looks at or interacts with with one page/frame at a time. Perhaps, but this seems really hard to reconcile with the notion that he doesn't already know everything in advance, which is how the Bible describes him. If, on the other hand, the universe is truly determinate in nature, then, like in octopuppy's thought experiment, he could fast-forward and rewind at will. He really wouldn't know what would happen a million years from now, because it hasn't happened yet, but he could know if he chose to by fast-forwarding the "sim". This idea really appeals to me because it seems to resolve some of the paradoxes of God's exercise of foresight. One paradox it does not resolve, however, is how this "sim" could take into account God's own interaction with the universe. Anything he does that breaks the laws (e.g., creation, miracles, etc.) would seem impossible to factor into the program. One thing that might help resolve this is that some apparent use of foreknowledge (event A will happen in time period B) could in fact be foreordination (event A will happen in time period B, because I will make it happen). Of course, I suppose that would only be a resolution if we therefore concluded that God actually couldn't see everything in advance if his own actions were a factor, but given the butterfly effect, even very small interventions into the system could certainly change the future reality a great deal. Hmmm ...

In any case, those are the topics that have got rethinking whether or not quantum mechanics are truly indeterminate. In that regard, I find the topic of quantum entanglement to be of great interest. As far as I'm concerned, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) only highlights the limitation of our ability to measure things. If the smallest observational tool we have is a photon, and the photon interferes with either the location or momentum of a particle, then that only shows we can't measure it, and we consequently have to describe the particles using probability. That does not mean, however, that the particle in question does not actually have a discreet location and momentum, so how does that show indeterminism? It doesn't. What's more, quantum entanglement seems to indicate that there are still unknown properties to matter that we just don't grasp, and which are extremely difficult to describe fully due to the HUP. In short, my gut feeling is that the current appearance of random behavior does not prove the behavior is truly random, and the universe therefore may very well be deterministic, like octopuppy's sim.

How does that fit in with free-will? I'll have to save that for when I have more time, but I'd definitely like to see your comments in the meantime ...

[Guest]

But I do believe that you are missing a very basic fact of our universe in this sim-model. The universe is NOT always predictable by known physical laws. Of course, at the macroscopic scale, newtons laws, relativity etc all hold true. But this is not the same at microscopic scales...Heisenberg uncertainty principle...same set of initial parameters cannot guarantee a known condition some time in the future...the very act of observing a particle changes it momentum or position.

Thanks for bringing that up. Yes, determinism doesn't appear to hold at the quantum level, and for that reason the sim-universe is different from our universe. I wasn't trying to suggest that it would be completely equivalent, merely similar enough to help us make two observations:

1) The existence or other properties of the sim-universe do not depend on our simulating it (just like the existence or other properties of prime numbers does not depend on our knowing about them). As far as the inhabitants of the sim-universe are concerned, it exists. Their perception of it is part of its mathematical structure and therefore has an existence regardless of whether we observe it or not. It is a common belief (a misconception in my opinion) that a simulated world would be "terminated" if you stop simulating it. I am questioning that, and moreover making the point that simulating something is not an act of creation, but an act of observation.

2) If simulating the sim-universe is not the cause of its existence, what is? The question of its existence or non-existence is not really the point, the point is that its inhabitants are part of its structure and must perceive it as existing. Can that principle also be applied to our universe? It would appear so. There is much reason to believe that our universe is a mathematical structure (the science of physics is really all about understanding just that). I appreciate that what I'm suggesting here is that the whole question of why things exist is meaningless. Things exist because they can, because they are possible, because they are logically consistent. I can understand people railing against that intuitively, so the OP was intended to open the door to that idea gradually.

Your objections to this are largely based on apparent non-determinism at the quantum level:

If we can somehow incorporate such quantum effects into our sim-universe, this universe would not be deterministic at all. You would not be able to predict the outcome of any sequence of events given an initial condition and parameters. You would not be able to run the simulation backward or forwards as you please and have exactly the same events repeating. This randomness is the reason why we cannot reduce human nature (which essentially electric currents fired between neurons) to a branch of applied mathematics even if we were given the most powerful cosmic infinitely fast computer.

I must say, it's a knotty problem. Clearly there is mathematical structure, even at the quantum level (the probability waves of quantum events are predictable even if the outcomes are not). To me this suggests multiple outcomes (which would imply multiple futures). Looking back on a quantum event from one of those futures, you might say "that was a random outcome", but what you don't see is that all the other possible outcomes also happened, so there was nothing random about it. That's just my personal view of it, though I can't claim to be an expert. Whatever, it would seem that there is mathematical structure even if it includes randomness. Obviously with multiple outcomes to every event, there may be no way of accurately simulating such a universe, though that's hardly the point. The reason I brought up simulations is to illustrate the fact that we do not bring something into existence by simulating it. Applied mathematics is one thing, mathematics is another. Even if we have no way of practically encapsulating the mathematical model that underpins our own universe, the possibility that such a model may even exist suggests that this may be the only explanation we need for our own existence.

I do not agree in the logic of the above statement. Of course, it may be possible that there are multi-verses out there (I am not saying there aren't) but not because of them having a defined mathematical structure with different initial parameters. That is like saying, just because X exists, there must be more like X existing. Not a very powerful argument.

Not the argument at all. But the bit I highlighted in green is more to the point. Ask yourself this, how do you know our universe exists?

PS. To DP, no time to answer your post now but I will do!

[Guest]

Ah, another great thread, and I believe it is actually quite related to unreality's post. It's good to see you active in the Others forums again, octopuppy!

Thanks DP, I never really left, just had less to say. Actually unreality's post is what prompted me to do this one, though I'm having difficulty figuring out exactly why.

I've been thinking more about the apparent indeterminateness of quantum behavior, and how that relates to 1) the cosmological argument for God's existence, 2) free-will, and 3) God's exercise of foreknowledge.

1. In this post, ADParker cites Victor Stenger's argument for how the indeterminateness of quantum behavior indicates that not everything in our universe is caused, and that consequently, it's unreasonable to believe that the universe requires a first cause. At first glance the argument seemed hollow, but when I started to write a refutation, I found it very difficult to be consistent in what I was calling "cause." I intuitively disagreed with the notion that the random nature of the appearance and direction of photons therefore meant that they are uncaused, but I couldn't clearly structure my argument if I agreed that quantum mechanics are truly indeterminate, which, like navigator, I had already accepted.

Having another look at that, I'm not sure I really buy Stenger's argument either (I'll argue with anything, me!). Quantum events are caused, they just aren't predictable. The decay of a radioactive nucleus is caused by the imbalance of forces within it, we just don't know when it will happen. So what? The point Stenger was making was to refute the assertion "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". I would refute it by saying...

2. In Destiny vs Free Will, we discussed the apparent paradox, but we didn't run very far with it. In this post, I asked:

"As I sit here, deciding what keys to press, I have to wonder whether or not my choices are truly the result of an unavoidable series of physical events. My gut reaction is no, but why? ... Is it possible that quantum fluctuations are the indeterministic loophole that God built into the system so as to enable free-will?"

Interestingly, that was the same possibility suggested by Ken Miller, a vocal evolutionary scientist and opponent to the Intelligent Design movement, yet, oddly enough, also a Catholic. However, I agree with octopuppy's response: "I find it hard to see what "free will" could mean in this context, other than a random outcome. Why would God want random outcomes?" The more I thought about it, the less reasonable the idea seemed, so I was back to where I started: If quantum indeterminism is not connected with free-will, then we still have to resolve the apparent paradox of free-will existing in a determinate universe.

I have a big problem with the idea of free will. It just invokes a vacuum in our understanding. Applying cause and effect to decision making, you could have:

1) CAUSE => EFFECT (determinism) No free will there!

2) CAUSE + RANDOMNESS => EFFECT (non-deterministic physical model) Does randomness count as free will? Not much point in that.

Perhaps we could assert a third case:

3) CAUSE + FREE WILL => EFFECT (free will exists!)

What does that really mean? There would have to be more than one possible outcome in any given situation or else we're stuck with determinism, but the outcome should be chosen by some non-random process. You could always invoke the presence of something mysterious and spiritual for that. Of course there is no evidence to support the existence of the third model, but I can't think of a good contradiction to refute it right now. Though as I've pointed out in unreality's topic, it must make the future undecided so if God sees the future he can see a lot of possible futures and not just one. Which leads me to...

3. I believe what the Bible says about God being able to see into the future, as discussed in unreality's post, mentioned earlier. It would seem that for God to see the future in a truly indeterminate universe would require that he made the whole thing, start to infinite finish, in one shot, and then only looks at or interacts with with one page/frame at a time. Perhaps, but this seems really hard to reconcile with the notion that he doesn't already know everything in advance, which is how the Bible describes him. If, on the other hand, the universe is truly determinate in nature, then, like in octopuppy's thought experiment, he could fast-forward and rewind at will. He really wouldn't know what would happen a million years from now, because it hasn't happened yet, but he could know if he chose to by fast-forwarding the "sim". This idea really appeals to me because it seems to resolve some of the paradoxes of God's exercise of foresight. One paradox it does not resolve, however, is how this "sim" could take into account God's own interaction with the universe. Anything he does that breaks the laws (e.g., creation, miracles, etc.) would seem impossible to factor into the program. One thing that might help resolve this is that some apparent use of foreknowledge (event A will happen in time period B) could in fact be foreordination (event A will happen in time period B, because I will make it happen). Of course, I suppose that would only be a resolution if we therefore concluded that God actually couldn't see everything in advance if his own actions were a factor, but given the butterfly effect, even very small interventions into the system could certainly change the future reality a great deal. Hmmm ...

Interference with the state of the sim-universe needn't break it, but it would create a new set of "starting conditions", from which the deterministic processes could continue. I would think that if God was really clever, he could fine-tune his interactions to create whatever desired future he wished, even taking the butterfly effect into account. Though if he was really, really clever he'd have set the starting conditions of the whole universe so he would never need to bother. Though the Bible seems to give an altogether more clumsy impression, as if God just interacts and hopes for the best.

In any case, those are the topics that have got rethinking whether or not quantum mechanics are truly indeterminate. In that regard, I find the topic of quantum entanglement to be of great interest. As far as I'm concerned, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) only highlights the limitation of our ability to measure things. If the smallest observational tool we have is a photon, and the photon interferes with either the location or momentum of a particle, then that only shows we can't measure it, and we consequently have to describe the particles using probability. That does not mean, however, that the particle in question does not actually have a discreet location and momentum, so how does that show indeterminism? It doesn't. What's more, quantum entanglement seems to indicate that there are still unknown properties to matter that we just don't grasp, and which are extremely difficult to describe fully due to the HUP. In short, my gut feeling is that the current appearance of random behavior does not prove the behavior is truly random, and the universe therefore may very well be deterministic, like octopuppy's sim.

I'd say that decoherence is at the heart of quantum unpredictability...

Anyway, what I really want to know is what you make of my assertion that the sim-universe doesn't need to be created (it can't not exist), and that this probably also applies to ours.

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause"

This is based purely on observation made whilst sitting comfortably in the middle of the space-time continuum. Let's compare space and time with the surface of the earth (very rough analogy). Everywhere I've ever been there have been four points of the compass: North, South, East and West. So I can comfortably state that wherever I go on Earth there will be somewhere to the north of me. Of course, I'd be wrong. If I went to the North Pole, I would find that East and West are compressed to nothing and all directions lead South. I imagine it's a bit like that at the big bang (substitute Past and Future for North and South, and spacial dimensions for East and West). Asking what happened before the big bang is a bit like asking what is north of the North Pole. Causality is a temporal concept. The cause comes before the effect. Nothing came before the big bang so nothing could have caused it.

Furthermore the observation is flawed in that things don't "begin to exist". Closer observation would reveal that matter and energy are not created or destroyed, just moved around. We could fall back on a more general idea of cause and effect. The current state of the universe is related by various laws and principles to the past state of the universe. But we cannot use that to say anything about what lies beyond the universe and time itself.

Consider the good old double slit interference pattern (diagram 1):

The laser light causes an interference pattern because it is a waveform. Now let's put an array of photon detectors where the interference pattern was. Of course you will still see the same interference pattern, some detectors pick up photons and some do not. Turn down the intensity on the laser so we can count individual photons coming in (diagram 2). Why will some photon detectors pick up photons and others not? In order to create interference each photon has to act like a wave, actually passing through both slits, spreading out and interfering with its own waveform on the other side. But it only actually registers in one photon detector. Potential interaction with other particles triggers decoherence, where effectively the photon has to make up its mind where it actually is. How does it decide where to be? The interference pattern gives us the relative probability of photons turning up in various places, but for each individual photon the choice seems to be taken at random from that "probability wave".

That certainly looks like indeterminism, but as I said to navigator, we don't really know that each photon doesn't actually arrive in every possible place, in other futures. Then it could still be determinism.

[Guest]

I don't have time for the meaty discussion at the moment, but here's a quick thought on your off-topic comments:

Causality is a temporal concept. The cause comes before the effect. Nothing came before the big bang so nothing could have caused it.

Really? Why should that be? Why should cause and effect just up and disappear when you remove a dimension? Every discussion we have about cause and effect involves time because in that's what we observe from our four-dimensional space-continuum armchairs. The action always happens before the result of the action when time is in the picture. I don't get how the absence of time suddenly requires that there's no actions or results, as though there is nothing beyond the constraints of time. Were that the case, how could the Big Bang have initiated? God or not, there had to be action/result in that timeless singularity to kick off the whole party.

[Guest]

Really? Why should that be? Why should cause and effect just up and disappear when you remove a dimension?

Well, we're potentially removing all the dimensions and laws we know, once you start talking outside the bounds of our universe.

Every discussion we have about cause and effect involves time because in that's what we observe from our four-dimensional space-continuum armchairs. The action always happens before the result of the action when time is in the picture. I don't get how the absence of time suddenly requires that there's no actions or results, as though there is nothing beyond the constraints of time.

Actions and results do involve time, so the language of cause and effect doesn't mean much without it. Here's another perspective. Lets say you look at the path of a particle as a squiggly line through space-time. Cause and effect describes how the line progresses smoothly through time, and how it interacts with other lines. Looked at like that, our universe is a big ball of string. It's self-contained. All the lines turn back on themselves at the big bang. So the principles we apply to how these lines interact with other lines have nothing to say beyond the furthest extension of these lines.

Or lets consider another angle. If our universe were infinitely old, would you say it had to be created? Why does being finitely old have to make a difference to that? Perhaps our universe just exists (whatever that means), and that is that. There may be other universes both finite and infinite in their scope. I see it as being just a bubble of existence. The whole point of the OP was to illustrate why such things are inevitable, in my opinion, finite or not.

[Guest]

yeah sorry i haven't read the other comments (they too long and im tired =p) but i just want to say, "Virtual Reality", the term is an oxymoron, and oxymoron as any non-moron (bad pun there, sorry) should know is a phrase or group of words which counteract each others meaning, examples (this one being taken from a song) include "This ****ing life is killing me!"

Pretty ugly

Alone together

Liberal conservative

Same difference

Jumbo shrimp

Random Order

Organized Chaos

see, virtual is not real, created by imagination and technology, reality is...well to put it simply reality!

[Guest]

yeah sorry i haven't read the other comments (they too long and im tired =p) but i just want to say, "Virtual Reality", the term is an oxymoron, and oxymoron as any non-moron (bad pun there, sorry) should know is a phrase or group of words which counteract each others meaning, examples (this one being taken from a song) include "This ****ing life is killing me!"

Pretty ugly

Alone together

Liberal conservative

Same difference

Jumbo shrimp

Random Order

Organized Chaos

see, virtual is not real, created by imagination and technology, reality is...well to put it simply reality!

Quite so. Pretty irrelevant title anyway now I think of it, as its got nothing to do with virtual reality. But "Jumbo shrimp" made me laugh so thanks for that.

[Guest]

Sorry to let this topic slide, octopuppy. I took a mental break (I moved to a new apartment, followed two days later by returning to Korea ... aahhh!), and when I try to turn my attention back to the previous discussions, there are so many loose ends and topics to follow up on (I still want to talk about bacterial flagellum!) that I get overwhelmed and end up just replying to new comments. In any case, let's keep this one going, even if I have to keep my responses shorter ...

The current state of the universe is related by various laws and principles to the past state of the universe. But we cannot use that to say anything about what lies beyond the universe and time itself.

This is a very good point. It's important to recognize the limitations of our current understanding and the language that accompanies it. For example, what is cause without time? You say it's strictly temporal, because as far as we can observe it always is, but I would extend it to include the "reason" for something's existence, independent of time. You think that's a pointless and unfounded extrapolation in meaning. Ok, but look at it this way: If there is a God who created the universe, including time itself, then is it unreasonable to think of the creator as the "cause," independent of time? Of course not. On the other hand, if the universe "just is," with the singularity from which the Big Bang sprang simply being an unavoidable property of the ... uh, I can't say universe. What's beyond "universe"? Whatever. You know what I mean. In that case, extending the temporal concept of "cause" to being the "reason" for the universe would be attempting to impart meaning where none exists.

This is similar to the point I made on the religious debate thread (and a point unreality made in the Atheist Doctrine [that's fun to type - thanks!] thread a long time ago) that the arguments involving cause or lack thereof are not logically sustainable for either side. And, as you've already noted, your attempts to argue against the need for a first cause, and against the notion of cause itself prior to the Big Bang, do nothing to explain Why or How the Big Bang happened. You can argue until you're blue that there's simply no reason why all the matter and energy in our universe issued forth from an infinitely dense singularity 13.7 billion years ago, but there's no logical basis for your stand. The only reason I can see for taking that position is that you don't accept the alternative. Fine, but to suggest that a person is making a mistake to ask why something happened on the basis that there was no time prior to the event is ... well, absurd.

Anyway, what I really want to know is what you make of my assertion that the sim-universe doesn't need to be created (it can't not exist), and that this probably also applies to ours.

To be honest, dancing around the meaning of what it is to "exist" seems like a stimulating, but ultimately pointless discussion. This goes back to our inherent limitations. We have a pretty good idea of what it means to "exist" in relation to everything that we can observe, interact with, etc., but I simply can't buy into the notion that "existence" is no different than "possibly existing."

Going back to your thought experiment, I would have to conclude that the beings in the sim only "exist" when the software is running. That their state, past, present, and future, etc., can be expressed as or extrapolated from a set of parameters provided to the program does not equate to existing. While the hard drive was in the furnace and you were busily working on the next version of the software, no sim-being was laboring over what to say to win the love of that girl across the street. Nothing was happening. Nothing in the sim world was existing until you ran the thing.

With that in mind, I would have to conclude that the universe does in fact need to be initiated, and that it doesn't actually exist until the parameters are plugged in and the thing actually runs.

Incidentally, I couldn't help but notice that in your thought-experiment there was an uber-intelligent software engineer with incredible hardware resources.

[Guest]

yeah sorry i haven't read the other comments (they too long and im tired =p) but i just want to say, "Virtual Reality", the term is an oxymoron, and oxymoron as any non-moron (bad pun there, sorry) should know is a phrase or group of words which counteract each others meaning, examples (this one being taken from a song) include "This ****ing life is killing me!"

Pretty ugly

Alone together

Liberal conservative

Same difference

Jumbo shrimp

Random Order

Organized Chaos

see, virtual is not real, created by imagination and technology, reality is...well to put it simply reality!

then, of course, there's military intelligence and government efficiency , just to name a few.

[Guest]

I took a mental break

Sorry to hear that, hope it's fixed now . Thanks for getting back anyway, I've been pushing this thread cos I really want to see what's the best argument against it!

"The current state of the universe is related by various laws and principles to the past state of the universe. But we cannot use that to say anything about what lies beyond the universe and time itself"...what is cause without time? You say it's strictly temporal, because as far as we can observe it always is, but I would extend it to include the "reason" for something's existence, independent of time. You think that's a pointless and unfounded extrapolation in meaning.

Not necessarily pointless. But if you presume the existence of such "reason", this is tantamount to presuming the existence of God, in some form. Reason doesn't exist without intelligence, so higher reason implies higher intelligence. A lot of pro-religious thinking is based on the desire for reasons which are presumed to exist, like "the meaning of life". There is a natural human tendency to think things happen for a reason, but that does not make it so. If the first cause argument relies on the existence of such "reason", then it is clearly a circular argument.

This is similar to the point I made...that the arguments involving cause or lack thereof are not logically sustainable for either side. And, as you've already noted, your attempts to argue against the need for a first cause, and against the notion of cause itself prior to the Big Bang, do nothing to explain Why or How the Big Bang happened. You can argue until you're blue that there's simply no reason why all the matter and energy in our universe issued forth from an infinitely dense singularity 13.7 billion years ago, but there's no logical basis for your stand. The only reason I can see for taking that position is that you don't accept the alternative. Fine, but to suggest that a person is making a mistake to ask why something happened on the basis that there was no time prior to the event is ... well, absurd.

It's never a mistake to ask "why" (except when my 4 yr old boy does it one time too many, one of these days... grr...), and this thread is one attempt at providing a satisfactory answer. There's that whole "bubble" theory where universes spawn other universes so it's all just a big chain of cause and effect, which may suit those who find an infinitely old universe more palatable. But to me that's just evading the whole question, which would just then be a much bigger WHY? Let's not leave anything out; If God exists, WHY does God exist? Generally speaking, WHY do the things that exist, exist? Surely that's the real question. The Big Bang is part of the structure of our universe, its existence is explained if we can appreciate why it all exists in a general sense. You focus on this one point because it is the first event in our universe, but if time is not the issue here, surely existence in general is what matters.

Going back to your thought experiment, I would have to conclude that the beings in the sim only "exist" when the software is running. That their state, past, present, and future, etc., can be expressed as or extrapolated from a set of parameters provided to the program does not equate to existing. While the hard drive was in the furnace and you were busily working on the next version of the software, no sim-being was laboring over what to say to win the love of that girl across the street. Nothing was happening. Nothing in the sim world was existing until you ran the thing.

Remember that sim-time is independent of our time, so it would make no sense to say that something was happening in the sim world "while" the hard drive was in the furnace. Nevertheless, there was a whole timeline of events in the sim-world, some of which got simulated, some not. At any one of those moments, the inhabitants of the sim-world experienced their world and believed it to be real. Who are we to say that such a moment did not exist if it was not simulated? It exists in a theoretical sense, in other words it is well-defined and non-contradictory. We can evaluate such a moment whenever we choose to, as many times as we choose to. Do we give it existence the first time we evaluate it? Or does it become more real each time? How about other mathematical entities? Do all prime numbers exist, or only the ones we know about? Does writing them down make them more real? These things consist of information only, and to say that knowing information or evaluating it makes it real, is rather absurd.

It may seem more reasonable to suppose that information is not "real" in the same sense that our solid, physical world is. In that case moments in sim-time do not become real, no matter how many times we evaluate them. But the inhabitants of the sim-universe think they are. If your only claim to existence is "I think therefore I am", or maybe "I think I am, therefore I suppose I must be", then it is no stronger than that of the sim-people. What magic spark of reality separates you from them?

[Guest]

It's never a mistake to ask "why" (except when my 4 yr old boy does it one time too many, one of these days... grr...),

Hey octopuppy i think you have just answered the god theory - how else are you gonna shut them up, they believe in santa, superman etc but only god can be he reason that the unexplained is the way it is and that satisfies or at least quells them for a while.

[Guest]

yeah sorry i haven't read the other comments (they too long and im tired =p) but i just want to say, "Virtual Reality", the term is an oxymoron, and oxymoron as any non-moron (bad pun there, sorry) should know is a phrase or group of words which counteract each others meaning, examples (this one being taken from a song) include "This ****ing life is killing me!"

Pretty ugly

Alone together

Liberal conservative

Same difference

Jumbo shrimp

Random Order

Organized Chaos

see, virtual is not real, created by imagination and technology, reality is...well to put it simply reality!

i wanted to add some

Icy Hot

Living Dead

Rising Fall

The last one is my Quote

(by rise against)

Edited May 28, 2008 by Thuhchris