Our universe is a computer game?

[Starlight]

I think at some point the simulation would become so simple that simulating the level of consciousness required in order to be able to do things like "realize" and "know", would become impossible.

Right. And I personally find it very difficult to believe that the matter in our universe can possibly give rise to consciousness. Consciousness seems like a type of existence that is completely alien to the material universe that we experience. So with regard to the hard problem of consciousness I tend towards dualism or idealism as the best possible solutions. A computer-game hypothesis neatly explains that - our consciousness is coming from our real selves in the universe above ours, and that consciousness is being subjected to the illusion of this universe, but this universe itself lacks the right type of materials to create consciousness.

[Sparko]

To quote myself from another thread:
The "God" hypothesis of the monotheistic religions requires that not merely option (b) be true, which the computer game hypothesis also endorses, but makes very specific claims about the nature of the entity responsible for the universe - e.g. that the creating entity is not a scientist, not a child, not a computer programmer, but instead has a whole host of improbable traits like omniscience, omnipotence, wanting to judge all our souls etc plus an extremely implausible sounding origin story (essentially "God just exists, because.").

Of course, it is "possible" that Christians are right, it just seems wildly improbable, and I'd assign more chance to me winning the lottery than I would to the idea that the Christian God is the creator of the universe.

While, technically, it can be argued that the universe being a computer game is a 'deist' explanation, the majority of people who advocate it -myself included- tend to call themselves 'atheists'. There are multiple reasons for this: (1) While I think the computer game hypothesis is quite probable, there are other entirely naturalist explanations for the universe that also seem quite probable to me. This may, of course, motivate people to want to call me 'agnostic'. However, see #2; (2) I think there are good reasons to believe that the major revealed religions (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc) are definitely false, therefore I am 'a-theist' (not-theist) because I explicitly reject the standard theistic religions; (3) At various times in history deism has been lumped in with atheism, because it is a rejection of Christianity; etc.

As an atheist scientist and philosopher I can speculate about any number of things beyond the universe, including intelligent aliens etc who may or may not have had a hand in creating the universe for a science project or as a computer game or by mistake or whatever else. But what I do reject is the silly religious hypothesis that there is a (1) personal God; who (2) is omniscient (3) omnipotent (4) cares deeply about 'sin' (5) apparently likes to be worshiped (6) wants to judge us after death (7) wants to assign us to an eternal fate based solely on things done and believed in this life (8) who exists in 3 parts that are totally 1 part (9) who wrote an "inerrant" book that seems full of mistakes, which totally aren't mistakes because <insert apologetics here> (10) who totally would have had to give us a nasty eternal fate but then he died to appease himself and now it's all good man, so long as we meet his arbitrary criteria of 'faith', although that criteria's not entirely clear and his followers have disagreed among themselves over what it means precisely and there's been a massive percentage of the planet who've lived and died without ever having heard of the religion or its requirements (11) and the explanation for this God's existence is that "he totally didn't evolve or anything and has always existed because what could possibly be less arbitrary than a being with all the traits listed here right? ...right? Is anyone at all buying this? Um, therefore he's a necessary being?" (12) and he intervenes regularly in the world, only not when there's any video cameras around or scientists doing studies of the effectiveness of prayer, because he wouldn't want to be caught doing it, except back in the day when the holy books about him were being written when the people were much more credulous and he was much more open about doing miraculous things in front of them.

So as can been seen, atheist speculation hypothesizing about alien scientists fooling around with universe creation, is at least a dozen majorly implausible hypotheses away from the kind of implausible "God" hypothesis that people like you credulously endorse Sparko.

despite your rant, my point was that you can't insist that the universe is natural and deny that it could be created by an intelligent agent if you believe that we could be in a computer simulation.

So whether you believe it was created by aliens, humans in another universe, or an omniscient God, is moot. You already stepped past the "it is all natural and needs no intelligent design" argument. And I would say that believing some super Bill Gates guys invented this universe as a computer simulation is even more incredulous than "God did it" - because a God would naturally be omniscient and able to create such a detailed universe, where it would be pretty impossible for a normal being like an alien scientist to create and program in a computer. There is absofreakingly no evidence of that theory either. NONE. pure speculation. And yet you think it is possible, while rejecting God as "impossible"

All it really shows is that the reason you reject God is purely personal. There is no scientific or logical reason you reject him. After all you believe the universe was made by Nintendo.

[Sparko]

Right. And I personally find it very difficult to believe that the matter in our universe can possibly give rise to consciousness. Consciousness seems like a type of existence that is completely alien to the material universe that we experience. So with regard to the hard problem of consciousness I tend towards dualism or idealism as the best possible solutions. A computer-game hypothesis neatly explains that - our consciousness is coming from our real selves in the universe above ours, and that consciousness is being subjected to the illusion of this universe, but this universe itself lacks the right type of materials to create consciousness.

What makes you think we are beings outside experiencing the simulation? Why could we not BE simulated beings? That would make more sense than having 7 Billion people playing a simulation. Unless... that's it. ONLY I am real, and in the simulation! all the rest of you are just NPCs!

[Starlight]

my point was that you can't insist that the universe is natural and deny that it could be created by an intelligent agent if you believe that we could be in a computer simulation.

I don't "insist that the universe is natural". I think the universe being naturally generated and it being a computer game are both quite probable (>20% chance each in my mind). I do not think the Christian God is at all probable though (<0.01% chance in my mind).

You already stepped past the "it is all natural and needs no intelligent design" argument.

Eh. It doesn't need intelligent design. An entirely natural universe seems entirely possible to me. Just as a computer-game universe does.

And I would say that believing some super Bill Gates guys invented this universe as a computer simulation is even more incredulous than "God did it"

On the contrary, I think thinking about the possibility that it was Bill Gates guys, or a child entering a science contest with a "universe in a jar", or some alien scientist doing a simulation on his computer, or some alien scientists with their Large Hadron Collider equivalent smashing particles together and unbeknownst to them creating micro-black-holes containing entire universes with each collison, etc makes a person realize just how arbitrary, specific, and unlikely the traditional theistic concepts of "God" really are.

Christian apologists have often taken the view that if they could prove the universe had some sort of creator then their job was done, that proving to their audience that there was a creator somehow proved Christianity and they could rest on their laurels at that point. But I think actually giving serious assessment to all the many and various types of possible creators makes one realize just how silly and improbable Christianity really is. Christianity doesn't merely need a creator, it needs one with a dozen different highly unlikely and silly properties as I spelled out in my previous post.

because a God would naturally be omniscient and able to create such a detailed universe, where it would be pretty impossible for a normal being like an alien scientist to create and program in a computer.

Dude, all the alien scientist needs to do is enter the basic physical laws and press the go button. Nothing complicated about it. They made the big bang go bang, they didn't sit down and design the contours of the coast of Norway or decide how many stripes were going to go on a particular type of centipede.

There is no scientific or logical reason you reject him.

I gave you 12 in the 'rant' you chose to ignore.

[Starlight]

What makes you think we are beings outside experiencing the simulation? Why could we not BE simulated beings?

We absolutely could be. That's quite a common variant of the computer-game hypothesis. It is in some sense difficult to choose one hypothesis over the other as the arguments for both are similar.

There are some differences though - that version doesn't 'solve' the hard problem of consciousness and implies consciousness is material, and it implies there is no life after death while a computer-game hypothesis naturally implies life after death.

[Sparko]

I don't "insist that the universe is natural". I think the universe being naturally generated and it being a computer game are both quite probable (>20% chance each in my mind). I do not think the Christian God is at all probable though (<0.01% chance in my mind).

Eh. It doesn't need intelligent design. An entirely natural universe seems entirely possible to me. Just as a computer-game universe does.

On the contrary, I think thinking about the possibility that it was Bill Gates guys, or a child entering a science contest with a "universe in a jar", or some alien scientist doing a simulation on his computer, or some alien scientists with their Large Hadron Collider equivalent smashing particles together and unbeknownst to them creating micro-black-holes containing entire universes with each collison, etc makes a person realize just how arbitrary, specific, and unlikely the traditional theistic concepts of "God" really are.

Christian apologists have often taken the view that if they could prove the universe had some sort of creator then their job was done, that proving to their audience that there was a creator somehow proved Christianity and they could rest on their laurels at that point. But I think actually giving serious assessment to all the many and various types of possible creators makes one realize just how silly and improbable Christianity really is. Christianity doesn't merely need a creator, it needs one with a dozen different highly unlikely and silly properties as I spelled out in my previous post.

Dude, all the alien scientist needs to do is enter the basic physical laws and press the go button. Nothing complicated about it. They made the big bang go bang, they didn't sit down and design the contours of the coast of Norway or decide how many stripes were going to go on a particular type of centipede.

I gave you 12 in the 'rant' you chose to ignore.

Now you are not talking about a simulation at all, but a "build your own universe in a jar" as a school project, which is even more unlikely. You have been watching too much Star Trek.

[Leonhard]

If the argument works, I think it proves too much. Something is wrong with it.

It seems to me that anyone who seriously considers this thought experiment would have to commit themselves to solipsism.

It suffers all the problems of the Boltzmann Brain problem. It is always more efficient to simulate something simpler. So instead of simulating an entire universe, we simulate only the small patch of sky that is visible interesting to humans. There is no reason to simulate physics perfectly. Only sufficiently and qualitatively well that humans can't distinguish it from reality, maybe turning up details when they do experiments. Heck take it far enough and there's no reason to simulate several billion people and a billion year history. We need only simulate the small part around one person, enough to make his perception of reality be continuous.

Each of these simplifications reduces the computational needs by several orders of magnitude, meaning these simpler simulations would be far, far more numerous than the more expensive simulations.

Hence the same argument if successful would demonstrate that only you exist, alone.

[Leonhard]

The second problem I have is that if in fact, we live in matrix-like reality, meant to be convincing to human-like senses, is that whoever is running the simulation is a bunch of sadists. While I can understand the Christian conception of reality, where evil is caused by the fall and we all share guilt in it, or even the brutally indifferent universe of matrialism, a universe meant to be like this would be a horrible thing to make. I find it highly unlikely. Especially Starlight's idea that this place is a holiday.

The third problem with his more general, accidental, universe. Where we're an accidental by-product of some calculations, or simulations, on a hypercomputer, is that it runs into the same fine-tuning problems and doesn't offer a coherent solution to them.

[Sparko]

If the argument works, I think it proves too much. Something is wrong with it.

It seems to me that anyone who seriously considers this thought experiment would have to commit themselves to solipsism.

It suffers all the problems of the Boltzmann Brain problem. It is always more efficient to simulate something simpler. So instead of simulating an entire universe, we simulate only the small patch of sky that is visible interesting to humans. There is no reason to simulate physics perfectly. Only sufficiently and qualitatively well that humans can't distinguish it from reality, maybe turning up details when they do experiments. Heck take it far enough and there's no reason to simulate several billion people and a billion year history. We need only simulate the small part around one person, enough to make his perception of reality be continuous.

Each of these simplifications reduces the computational needs by several orders of magnitude, meaning these simpler simulations would be far, far more numerous than the more expensive simulations.

Hence the same argument if successful would demonstrate that only you exist, alone.

Basically yeah. When you have a lucid dream, you are in your own virtual world. You can walk around, examine things, smell things, touch things, and it is all completely real, you just know you are dreaming so you can examine it consciously. Basically if your own mind can do this, then that is all that is required with this "simulation" universe: to induce a dream state in a brain and control the parameters. It would be indistinguishable from reality. And you would be the only person in the "universe" that was real. Unless they had a way to connect brains up and network them. No computer needed to do the simulation, the brains would do it all.

[Sparko]

The second problem I have is that if in fact, we live in matrix-like reality, meant to be convincing to human-like senses, is that whoever is running the simulation is a bunch of sadists. While I can understand the Christian conception of reality, where evil is caused by the fall and we all share guilt in it, or even the brutally indifferent universe of matrialism, a universe meant to be like this would be a horrible thing to make. I find it highly unlikely. Especially Starlight's idea that this place is a holiday.

The third problem with his more general, accidental, universe. Where we're an accidental by-product of some calculations, or simulations, on a hypercomputer, is that it runs into the same fine-tuning problems and doesn't offer a coherent solution to them.

well just look at the computer games we create now: Halo, World of Warcraft, Diablo, Half Life, Bioshock, etc. Each one more horrific and violent than the last. I bet if we could make a completely real VR game with virtual pain, we probably would.

[Bisto]

The second problem I have is that if in fact, we live in matrix-like reality, meant to be convincing to human-like senses, is that whoever is running the simulation is a bunch of sadists. While I can understand the Christian conception of reality, where evil is caused by the fall and we all share guilt in it, or even the brutally indifferent universe of matrialism, a universe meant to be like this would be a horrible thing to make. I find it highly unlikely. Especially Starlight's idea that this place is a holiday.

This. I can understand theodicies for the Problem of Evil for an omniscient, benevolent, etc. God, with a purpose for everything and a grand plan, but I would have a hard time believing purposes for suffering being given by a finite, non-omniscient being(s), whatever or whoever it is.

If we could one day develop "painful VR", as Sparko says, I think it would eventually be banned somehow. The potential for terrible experiences seems too much IMO. Brings to mind the movie Gamer.

[Cerebrum123]

This. I can understand theodicies for the Problem of Evil for an omniscient, benevolent, etc. God, with a purpose for everything and a grand plan, but I would have a hard time believing purposes for suffering being given by a finite, non-omniscient being(s), whatever or whoever it is.

If we could one day develop "painful VR", as Sparko says, I think it would eventually be banned somehow. The potential for terrible experiences seems too much IMO. Brings to mind the movie Gamer.

I remember hearing about a pinball machine that was designed to shock you with a LOT of electricity whenever you lost. I mean, it was supposed to be lethal. Maybe that was just a hoax, or urban legend, but it wouldn't shock me.

[Sparko]

I remember hearing about a pinball machine that was designed to shock you with a LOT of electricity whenever you lost. I mean, it was supposed to be lethal. Maybe that was just a hoax, or urban legend, but it wouldn't shock me.

I see whut you did thar.

[seer]

So what is the upshot of this thread? That Star is a badly programmed AI?

[Sparko]

So what is the upshot of this thread? That Star is a badly programmed AI?

Every story has to have an antagonist.