Universe a Simulation?
 

The Buddhists and certain Hindu sects have believed, for thousands of years, that reality is an illusion. Only recently, science has caught up with this belief, with the notion that this is all a simulation. One scientist has proposed a way to examine the question. He discusses the number of simulations we humans have produced. For that he uses video games as well as the standard medical and astronomical (etc.) models. He notes that simulations outnumber reality by an overwhelming margin.

Then he asks "what if what we are in is an elaborate simulation"? One can only wonder how a civilization, a mere one thousand years more advanced than we are, could create simulations so vast in number, and so elaborate and complete. The odds are, therefore, the scientist says, what we are in is not reality, but is a simulation.

Does that mean ALL the science of humanity is rigged and contrived?

Does that mean that God is a nerdy, nearsighted extraterrestrial?

Scientists think these are serious questions. But I believe there is a forum award for the poster who first brings up sperm and snot.

Although your post is obviously baited with a dishonest ulterior motive, I will make a brief response in all sincerity. Humans have evolved to accept physical boundaries as absolute boundaries of sorts, based on the physical ability to detect or distinguish these barriers. Where one area of space filled with molecules ends and another begins depends entirely on one's arbitrary criterion.

The totality of the universe is certainly beyond the ability of anyone to comprehensively explain at present. Anything is possible. This could all be a part of a unicorn's dream or an alien's computer game, but until there is evidence to demonstrate the factual reality of wild speculation, then it remains precisely that.

The post was directed at the assumptions made by atheists. One assumption is that we are in a four dimensional reality, that scientific experiments and observations reflect actual cause/effect laws.

I am not the one who raised this simulation question. Look on youtube and enter "universe a simulation" in the search box.

And thank you for attributing dishonesty to my motives, although we note you didn't ask. My motive is to present a provocative question, because certainty of belief, or non-belief is destructive to the human condition.

The atheist position is nothing more than a rejection of your baseless assertion of a magical sky man, who lives outside of reality, a being of unimaginable complexity, who came from nothingness. That is all that atheism constitutes. Anything beyond this is something in addition to atheism. Stop trying to pretend like there is anything more to this, scumbag.

It is irrelevant what the religious position of these hypothetical individuals happens to be. The merits of their positive assertion is predicated upon the evidence they present. If you would like to present and defend the merits of the hypothesis of these people, then please do so. Or was this meant to be another strawman for you to erect and then mock?

No one here made those assumptions. It seems that you have missed your target by directing the post at the wrong website.

As far as this website is concerned, you brought it up and raised the question to us.

Well, you did just lie. You raised the simulation question here then said that you did not.

Yes, I raised it "here", but I do not believe my referring to it "here" was original thinking or that I originally proposed it. Negative on both counts. It is an ongoing scientific discussion.

And no, I am not moved by bald claims of atheist logic or commitment to science. Those on this forum sound more like frustrated teenagers than what they claim. The use of profanity does not enhance anything but one's tendency to invoke profanity. The impugning of motives is bizarrely, identical to the common practice of fundamentalist religion.

Atheist logic as opposed to logic? Is there a difference?

Go fuck your filthy mother, Francis.

Oh, Francis, you don't have to tell us that you didn't originally think something, we already know.

This Sunday, the Kansas City Chiefs (7-5) are playing the Arizona Cardinals (9-3). I think the Cardinals will lose.

I wonder why all the fuss about beheadings and drone strikes if they're just simulations?

:\

D'ya think Aston Villa can whup Leicester this Sunday?

This "the universe is arse stimulation" thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I thought it was one of francis's better arguments actually.

2-1 to leicester.

I did have a lash at Aussie rules footy in my time out there - but the 300lb fat bastards started to hurt my sleek, lithe frame after not to many hits.

Francis is still a shit-stirring fuckwit with little to offer except buggering off.

That must have been in the good old days when everyone used to wack each other. The games gone soft I tells ya.

Indeed - and now you lot are playing rough with the gentleman cricketers!
I wonder if Abbot will ever bowl again?

Mmm, it must be tough being him right now. Actually didn't you guys start it. We have long memories. Not as bad as those kiwis though, they are still crying about that ball that slipped out of chappel's hand and rolled along the ground.

It's the same as it has been for years on this site. The same people saying "shit, dumbass, turd", etc. , as if those are arguments. The reality is that these people here would not be given the time of day by their heroes Dawkins, Harris, Krauss or the late Mr. Hitchens.

Those people at least, try to deal with the issues in a responsible manner.

If this universe is a simulation as has been postulated, it has profound implications for the religious and atheists alike. Intellectual simplicity and comfort, on this site, always trumps challenge and real debate

Oh no! Poor Francis. If Francis could handle a real debate, I'd probably go for it, but I doubt Rancis can handle it. Likely Francine would just retreat back like Rancid used to and avoid questions, keep bringing up straw men and be all around irrational anancephalic.

Does anyone know when the baseball season starts?

Yet another person who would cause the esteemed Mr. Dawkins to recoil in disdain.

Ahh, good old Mr Larwood - Bodyline really did stir up some shit!
Perhaps murrikan baseball could be spiced up with a similar tactic. ;)

I just sprinkled calcium chloride on my driveway. The snow has made it really icy. I hope calcium chloride won't harm my cement.

I kind of miss having snow.

I had baked beans for dinner tonight with grated parmesan.

My dog had three shits on this morning's walk. I'm so jealous.

And, if the universe is a simulation, there is a creator of sorts, reality is an illusion, nothing is here, including us, and the scientific evidence you rely upon for your atheism does not exist.

There are many simple tests you can do to prove your assertion - even the bible has a couple, like drinking poison or playing with rattlesnakes.
You could drink acid, or turn your stove burner on high, wait until it's glowing cherry red, and then firmly plant your hand on it and hold it there.
None of these things will harm you, since it's all just a simulation!

:rock:

Yet another commentator who misunderstands the issue. Even if we are sentient entities within a simulation, since pain and disfigurement are part of the program, we would experience those things even if we are digital in our existence.

Your too-quick conclusion that you understand the issues is misplaced and your "tests" would prove nothing.

Nothing but a philosophical exercise, which surely no-one takes seriously other than shitlord #1 (*demoted)'s unnamed scientists.

Francis repeats an ancient headline, in a failed attempt to engage with bright people.

We are an illusion only as far as a necessary vehicle for genes.

I wonder how the Frantard would react to reality if he got his useless shrivelled testicles caught in a bear trap.

Do they actually allow fourteen year old boys to post on this forum?

Incorrect. Respected physicists have raised the issue in all seriousness. Refusal to inquire by you does not change what mainstream science is questioning.

Further, there are actual scientists who have proposed experiments which they believe would reveal if this reality is or is not a simulation. I have difficulty seeing how this could be so, but at least one scientist thinks the hypothesis could be tested.

By the way, I believe that the scientist who I first heard raise this question on an hour long youtube lecture, was himself an atheist. So your attempts to evade this issue, framed insincerely as 'no one cares', is just completely wrong and blunderingly so

Yes, we do allow you to post your crass stupidity on this forum.

Why, were you cruising for a new boy friend?

Dissenting scientists aren't automagically credible.

Little point in inquiring until there is evidence!

Since none of us have the wherewithal (or the inclination?) to perform said experiments, we have little choice to wait in anticipation of the results. Of course, it is not uncommon for exotic experiments to give results that provide more questions, rather than answers. There are well credentialed scientists who dispute the distance measurements of pulsars, casting doubt on the incredibly high energy outputs.

THis is so similar to the "who created God" problem. Who created and operates the simulator? What if it is another simulator? Like the Turtle theory, maybe it's simulators all the way down!
Where's my copy of Sim City.....

Another underhand try by the Frantard to increase the minuscule odds of a fat controller.

You have no interest in the subject Shitlord, nor understanding, except to serve your mendacious purpose.

Your still unnamed sources are laughing up their collective sleeves at you & your like, I've seen them on you tube.

:PThat's the one.

By coincidence we watched a movie called 'The Thirteenth Floor' last friday, have you seen it? Is there any significance to the number thirteen in the title? It could actually be like a, clock face in a 2D universe, where #13 is beyond the clock.
The clockmaker if you will.

Haven't seen it - sounds like fun! Will search on the Net and Roku.

I've heard that a lot of buildings especially hotels don't have a 13th floor. I don't think it happens in Australia though.

Incorrect. I am not trying to establish a creator in the form of a nerdy extraterrestrial programmer. I am merely casting doubt upon science and proof. If it is all rigged, then what you rely on - proof - is also an illusion.

That's my point. Please refrain from falsely attributing statements or motives to me. I will freely state them if asked.

Heh Francis, did you ever try any of calpurnpiso's reality tests from a while back?

Did you bump your head? :lol:

Why? Do you go around spraying the ocean with water to make sure it's wet? There is already doubt in scientific discovery... the problem you have to defeat, is that even with doubt, science is getting shit done. Even without 100% certainty, science is way better than other method at determining reality.

Doesn't matter.

He didn't attribute statements or motives to you, he pointed out the glaring problems with your statements that you should be embarrassed about.

I still can't comprehend fully how people believe if they disprove one thing then the other must be true. What one dimensional deluded thought processes riddled with dishonesty must pass through their handful of brain cells.

Francis said:
I am merely casting doubt upon science and proof. If it is all rigged, then what you rely on - proof - is also an illusion.

So you're trying to establish that proof is equally as unreliable as belief? Therefore truths people know that are evidence and fact based, rather than conjecture and guesswork, are equally as likely to be wrong, and as such, equally as retarded and pointless as a blind faith viewpoint?

This is of course only relevant if we do all in fact live in a giant fucking simulation, which I haven't seen any evidence for, and seems to be purely an idea plucked from someones ass. I had several similar ones in my youth when my brain was under the influence of chemical substances.

I'm sure they would. After all, it's only the theologues who practise discrimination, and throw acid or shoot girls attempting to attend school, or vote, or become priests.
Why shouldn't a fourteen year old be allowed to voice his/her opinions?

Oh. Well then, explain where your "simulator" came from? Did it always exist? Did it spring into existence from nothing?
Is it the plaything of an invisible bearded old man like god who cackles insanely as he plays with his ant farm?

Oh. Yet you claim "Respected physicists have raised the issue in all seriousness.", so you are quoting the very scientists
you cast doubt upon to support your claim! Ever heard of cognitive dissonance?

Proof is for liquor and mathematics. Science relies on evidence. If it is indeed "all rigged", then who is doing the rigging?
If it is the God thingie, then the attributes claimed for it are all lies, since rigging things to deceive us reveals an
evil intent.

So you quote science to claim the 13 billion odd years age of the universe, yet
out of the other side of your mouth, claim science is "all rigged." ROTFLMAO!

No need, you are doing a great job by yourself.

Well then, DO tell us who is running your simulator! Oh, and how would we tell the REAL Francis from the simulated version?

BTW, so much for your scientists testing your simulator theory -

http://io9.com/5818008/the-universe-...gram-after-all

Sigh! Yet another atheist, so quick to discount actual scientific inquiry.

For your information, the question of whether the universe is a 2d holographic projection of 3d is a DIFFERENT QUESTION from whether this is an advanced simulation.

I have noted that the religious attribute evil and dishonesty to those who do not agree with their views. Shall we call you Reverend?

Further, your refusal to even do the most modest of internet inquiry into this question indicates a mind closed to any theories or science which might upend the atheist applecart. I have known priests who are similar in mindset.

You came here spouting this, shouldn't you provide the links?

I must admit though Francis my little buddy, I think all this talk of simulation is finally getting through. Just last night I had a dream where I simulated fucking you in the ass, by fucking you in the face instead.

Please don't dash my hopes darling, say it can be more than a dream, say it can be so...

Excuse me, but I took advice from a 14 year old trainee catholic to correct you ....

Apologies, obviously my obscenities have slipped in my absence. I will endeavour to include more gitiness in future.

Aah, Youtube, that famous peer reviewed science journal!

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...8uyi6ejjpg.jpg

:rock:

Try these on.....

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...9fkhgbxjpg.jpg

Francis wrote
Indeed you should, preferably "Reverend Sir". Many moons ago I was personally ordained by Bishop Kirby Hensley (PBUH) of
the Modesto California Universal Life Church. You should, of course, genuflect prior to addressing me (in hushed respectful
tones). By the authority vested in me, I shall determine whether your utterances are steaming piles of blasphemous horse
puckey. We do require proof that you are the real Francis, and not just some simulation.

As always, the severely closed minded atheists on this forum claim their own adherence to logic and proof and open minded inquiry, even as they resolutely deny and ignore those very precepts.

Logic, proof and open mindedness are not inherent. They require discipline. The kind of discipline that is unknown to the atheists on this site.

Is that the same discipline that makes you think sports clubs are religions, but buddhism isn't? Because if so, I'll pass, thanks.

I'll stick to my 'undisciplined' logic that actually reflects reality.

Isn't it amazing how religious nutbars wanting to impress the world with their scientific knowledge always quote as an authority some unnamed scientist! LOL!
Is he the same scientist whose ingenious inventions include....

http://badsentinel.com/wp-content/up...novation-4.jpg

And....

http://badsentinel.com/wp-content/up...novation-3.jpg

Obviously. Your posts make it clear you never had an original thought in your entire life.

Give the peer reviewed scientific journals where this is an ongoing discussion!

:rolleyes: :lol:

So, you concede that Occam was correct....:rock:

Yeah, we've noticed how asking a dishonest person about their honesty is a surefire way of getting an honest answer!

So the destruction of your critical thinking ability is attributable to your certainty on atheist beliefs?
e.g.BTW, we are not moved by your bald Creator/God claims. Ever heard of hypocrisy? Apparently not.
So, we are at an impasse. Your concrete brain is immune to logic, and we are not moved by your bald assertions.
But do continue posting, it gives us insight into the mental illness of religion, and provides us mirth and entertainment.

[quote=Sinfidel;680427]Isn't it amazing how religious nutbars wanting to impress the world with their scientific knowledge always quote as an authority some unnamed scientist! LOL!
Is he the same scientist whose ingenious inventions include....

http://badsentinel.com/wp-content/up...novation-4.jpg

Hey don't be dissing on the drink cozy on a crutch! How else are you going to hold your beer?

Of course, the issue of whether or not the universe is a simulation is easily researched, widely explored and at their fingertips. What, however do they do? Imagining themselves clever, they claim the inquiry does not exist and default to toilet imagery.

How sad and well, even pathetic.

[quote=clambake;680471]http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a...eer-helmet.jpg

Of course the reason why people should not accept that the universe is a simulation, is easily researched at Francis' fingertips. What does he do? Imagines himself clever and avoids looking it.

Very pathetic, but that is par for dishonest theists.

Note two major indicators of religion in your post. First of all, you attribute dishonesty to people who do not agree with you. Religious people everywhere think their view just so self evident that no one could dispute it - so disagreement must be "dishonest".

The second indicator you display is the rejection of science. Note how you cover your eyes rather than consider what science is currently (and seriously) exploring. Creationists are also very prone to this flaw in reasoning.

Do you prefer to be called Minister or Reverend?

These major indicators you refer to only exist in loopy Franny's definition of what some but not all religions, sports clubs, hobby clubs, corporations, community associations, people that watch Dancing With the Stars, neighbourhood watch, internet communities, unions and families are.

Show us just one definition anywhere that has attributing dishonesty in it.

Is loopy Franny world a fun place? Does it have different laws of nature as well?

Note the desperate attempt to exempt this cherished atheist commandment and practice. He must, by the grace of the Grand Nothingness, save the attribution of dishonesty to others. Without it, one of the primary comforts of the atheist faith is done and people will leave the flock.

Note the outlandish, irrational extremes he goes to. Note that NONE of the "organizations" (most cannot be called even this) express all or even most of the behaviors of religion I listed.

I propose a chant for the atheist faithful. Pray five times a day facing Mel's Hole in the northwest. Say out loud three times "We ARE the perfect and all who say not are the evil spawn of lowly beasts"

Your message has been
carefully placed in
its very own, specially
prepared, luxuriantly
hand crafted porcelain
filing Cabinet where
it will receive the
dignity and attention
it deserves. Thank you.

Every comment of yours is some version of "poopy on you"

Just wondering if you have any evidence for why there will be evidence? It's as if [shock, horror] you have contrived a conclusion in the absence of any evidence?

Do tell us how you discovered the existence of the un-natural universe without any evidence?

:P

You know, you give women a bad name when your posts only make sense to fourth graders

Francis gives humanity a bad name just by breathing. There's always hope he'll fuck off with his slimey, tedious crap before too long.

Poor Francis! Psychodiva, in the future, please structure your posts for a third-grade level, so that Francis can understand.

okey dokey :thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hb6c1lo7mo...600/Slide5.PNG

There ya go Franky baby

Wait! Francis is human? I was under the impression he was a random farm animal that Yahweh was using as His mouthpiece.

Outstanding! NOW we have a basis for a rational conversation with Francis!

This universe may or may not be simulated, but the intelligence of some on this site is clearly an illusion.

First of all, they are not indicators of religion, because they are not part of any definition of religion. You even stated that they are not part of your definition of religion.

I also attribute dishonesty to people that do agree with me if I see that they are being dishonest. You are giving a good example of confirmation bias.

I do not think that my view is self evident, but you seem to think that yours is...

I do not reject science. But this is a new one for you.

Ah, so you're ignoring the scientific process. You've mistaken a hypothesis with a theory, with people exploring a possibility and people that have demonstrated the possibility. Your bad, but no worries.

Don't matter to me what you call me, how about, Reverend Minister? Again, I don't care if you say that I'm religious. I really don't care, do it all you want. The more you do it, the more it makes me laugh. I want to see how much you can go down the wrong way before you see that you're wrong. Maybe you already see that you're wrong and are just carrying on in spite of it. Doesn't matter to me, it's hilarious either way.

What can we call Francis when he actually is being dishonest? Which seems to be a lot by the way.

Oh snap, y'all!

In my observations, dishonest shit bags display a few characteristics:
1) Avoiding direct points against their claims.
2) Misrepresenting their opponents statements.
3) Making pathetic attempts to insult those smarter.
4) Sticking to their original guns even when they admitted that parts of their claims are wrong.
5) Continues to make unsupported claims while refusing to back up any claim they made.

Now Francis has done all five of these things, clearly indicating that Francis is a dishonest shit bag.

I suppose that Franciepooh thinks that because I think Francis is being dishonest, that I must be a part of some religion. I wonder what religion I must be part of. Maybe Francie can tell me.

"It is in the nature of fundamentalism that it
should contain a powerful streak of irrationality and
that it should not relate, in a verifiable, practical
way, to the everyday world. It is also necessary for a
fundamentalist belief that it should permit the
emergence of gurus, whose pronouncements can be widely
reported and pondered on endlessly - endlessly for the
reason that they contain nothing of substance, so that
it would take an eternity of time to distil even one
drop of sense from them."

Source unknown.

Oh. Yawn. Yet another poopy-on-you atheist. How creative.

Francis wrote:
This universe may or may not be simulated, but the intelligence of some on this site is clearly an illusion.


Davin wrote:
Oh snap, y'all!

In my observations, dishonest shit bags display a few characteristics:
1) Avoiding direct points against their claims.
2) Misrepresenting their opponents statements.
3) Making pathetic attempts to insult those smarter.
4) Sticking to their original guns even when they admitted that parts of their claims are wrong.
5) Continues to make unsupported claims while refusing to back up any claim they made.

Now Francis has done all five of these things, clearly indicating that Francis is a dishonest shit bag.

I suppose that Franciepooh thinks that because I think Francis is being dishonest, that I must be a part of some religion. I wonder what religion I must be part of. Maybe Francie can tell me.


I didn't mention your name in this context. I wonder why you took it personally. Did I strike a nerve?

:lol: No. But you go ahead and assume that you did. ;)

Francis wrote http://ravingatheists.com/forum/imag...s/viewpost.gif

Quote:

This universe may or may not be simulated, but the intelligence of some on this site is clearly an illusion.

Ooh look - an other example of Pope Francis arsenal of evidence for the simulated Universe!

:lol:

They have nothing but tenacity. They've been doing it for years. Best thing is they think their logic is water tight when theyre really just pissing down their leg again and getting a high 5 from another incontinent atheist.