Our universe is a computer game?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm asking about if that's a possible motive for fundy atheists, not smart atheists. You aren't a fundy atheist, so the question doesn't apply to you.

Even so, it's possible that some fundy atheists are so motivated. However, I certainly know quite a number who are not so motivated. It's generally better not to speculate on such matters.

[JonathanL]

Literally, the entire way in which computers work is through mathematical logic. True and False are the foundational basis for the entirety of Computer Science.

We interpret the values of on or off, or 1 and 0 as True and False, but I'm not sure I would agree that these states objectively has the values of True or False. A bit can objectively be in either the "off"-state or "on"-state, but I would hesitate to say that it can be "true" or "false" in any sort of objective fashion.

ETA: besides, a computer program is nothing more than a set of instructions given to the CPU to perform. Instructions by themselves do not carry any truth, or objectivity values.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

We interpret the values of on or off, or 1 and 0 as True and False, but I'm not sure I would agree that these states objectively has the values of True or False. A bit can objectively be in either the "off"-state or "on"-state, but I would hesitate to say that it can be "true" or "false" in any sort of objective fashion.

ETA: besides, a computer program is nothing more than a set of instructions given to the CPU to perform. Instructions by themselves do not carry any truth, or objectivity values.

We symbolize True and False with switches which can be on or off, in computing. That doesn't change the meaning of what those symbols represent. We could just as well use dominoes instead of electronic switches, and the result would be the same.

https://youtu.be/lNuPy-r1GuQ

That which is being represented by electronic switches or dominoes is no less the same objective logic than when described in English or with mathematical symbols.

[Sparko]

I could be wrong, but it seems to that if you wanted to simulate an entire universe, down to the state of every fundamental particle, it would require utilization of the entire processing power of the universe you're currently in, which is impossible. So each simulation in the chain would necessarily be less and less complex, until you get to a point where the simulation simply breaks down, and the "illusion" is broken.

unless you only simulate the portions that someone is observing at a specific time. You don't need to model atoms unless someone is looking at them or doing experiments on them. You don't need to model empty rooms if nobody is in them, the whole universe outside of earth could be just a projection.

[JonathanL]

We symbolize True and False with switches which can be on or off, in computing. That doesn't change the meaning of what those symbols represent. We could just as well use dominoes instead of electronic switches, and the result would be the same.

https://youtu.be/lNuPy-r1GuQ

That which is being represented by electronic switches or dominoes is no less the same objective logic than when described in English or with mathematical symbols.

Well, that's kind of my point. The switches represent the values of true and false, but they do not objectively carry the meaning of true and false. We imbue them with those values. But the CPU itself does not care whether or not a certain bit is "true" or "false" it simply performs it's given instruction on these bits.

[JonathanL]

unless you only simulate the portions that someone is observing at a specific time. You don't need to model atoms unless someone is looking at them or doing experiments on them. You don't need to model empty rooms if nobody is in them, the whole universe outside of earth could be just a projection.

Well, I don't see how this would solve the problem of every subsequent simulation necessarily being less and less complex. In fact, it seems to me like it would only exacerbate the problem. A simulated universe like the one you describe would be a lot less complex than one trying to simulate an entire universe as faithfully as possible, which means that actors in that simulation would have substantially less computing power to work with in order to create the next simulation in the chain.

[Sparko]

Well, I don't see how this would solve the problem of every subsequent simulation necessarily being less and less complex. In fact, it seems to me like it would only exacerbate the problem. A simulated universe like the one you describe would be a lot less complex than one trying to simulate an entire universe as faithfully as possible, which means that actors in that simulation would have substantially less computing power to work with in order to create the next simulation in the chain.

could be. but would the simulated people know that it was "not as good" as reality (or the level above them?) - Let's say we simulated a universe, and we could tell by looking at it that the simulated people were not realistic, basically on the level of The Sims. But would the characters in that simulation realize they were fake looking and their universe was simplified compared to ours, since that is all they know?

And if that is the case, and we are simulated, how much more "real" and complex could the next level up be?

[JonathanL]

could be. but would the simulated people know that it was "not as good" as reality (or the level above them?) - Let's say we simulated a universe, and we could tell by looking at it that the simulated people were not realistic, basically on the level of The Sims. But would the characters in that simulation realize they were fake looking and their universe was simplified compared to ours, since that is all they know?

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.

And if that is the case, and we are simulated, how much more "real" and complex could the next level up be?

Substantially more complex, I would imagine.

[Sparko]

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.

We could be there now. I don't foresee creating a real AI with consciousness anytime soon.

Then again, since we have no idea what technology THIS possible simulation is based on, who is to say that it can't allow nested simulations at full power? We are assuming "computers" as we understand them right now, but who knows?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Well, that's kind of my point. The switches represent the values of true and false, but they do not objectively carry the meaning of true and false.

I'm not sure I understand your point, then. Switches do not need to "objectively carry the meaning of true and false" in order for their operations and implications to be functions of truth and falsity. The CPU doesn't need to "care" about truth in order to be entirely based upon that notion.

[JonathanL]

I'm not sure I understand your point, then. Switches do not need to "objectively carry the meaning of true and false" in order for their operations and implications to be functions of truth and falsity. The CPU doesn't need to "care" about truth in order to be entirely based upon that notion.

My point is that at the lowest of levels the operations of the CPU on digital bits has nothing at all to do with truth or objectivity. Truth and Falsity is a function of higher level (programming) languages, not digital bit manipulation.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

My point is that at the lowest of levels the operations of the CPU on digital bits has nothing at all to do with truth or objectivity.

Not in and of themselves. But they certainly do, if those digital bits are to be able to act as a computer. Again, mathematical logic is the absolute foundation of all Computer Science. The things which a computer is able to do are entirely functions of truth and objectivity.

[Sparko]

Not in and of themselves. But they certainly do, if those digital bits are to be able to act as a computer. Again, mathematical logic is the absolute foundation of all Computer Science. The things which a computer is able to do are entirely functions of truth and objectivity.

er what?

So I guess we never have to worry about Skynet then, eh?

[Starlight]

So Starlight. You are an atheist who thinks there is no God because everything in the universe happened naturally, through time chance and evolution. Yet you are arguing for a universe that is actually completely artificial and created by other intellegences using computer simulation. You have just admitted that it is possible that this universe is intelligently designed and controlled. If that is possible, why is it not possible that there really IS a God and the universe is created by him, just as Christians believe all along?

To quote myself from another thread:

There are 3 general types of possibilities about the universe's existence:
(a) natural mathematical forces generate a multitude or infinity of universes (I include in this the infinite-big-bangs-and-crunches option)
(b) some intelligent entity somewhere in a reality above ours (a computer game maker, a scientist in a lab, a child in a science contest, a god) made a deliberate decision to cause this particular universe
(c) only this one universe exists, and by natural causes, and there's no god or anyone or anything in some reality above ours - we're in the only reality that there is.

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.

[Starlight]

I could be wrong, but it seems to that if you wanted to simulate an entire universe, down to the state of every fundamental particle, it would require utilization of the entire processing power of the universe you're currently in, which is impossible. So each simulation in the chain would necessarily be less and less complex, until you get to a point where the simulation simply breaks down, and the "illusion" is broken.

Well our computers currently are digital with a limited about of 1s and 0s they can handle, so in that situation yes a simulated universe would have less total information than the universe above it and you would probably reach a point where you realistically lacked the processing power to simulate a universe inside a universe inside a universe etc. It's like people who have constructed a universal Turing machine inside the Minecraft game... at a certain point there's become so much loss of processing power that it's just not worth it anymore to try and construct such things.

In our case, we could easily construct an immersive game environment for people to enjoy, and we already do. Those games, of course, do not simulate every single particle in them, only what is relevant for the players. Likewise we have no proof whether or not our universe does so. The collapse of the quantum wave function when observed could be construed as evidence that the universe around us is doing 'lazy evaluation', a common programming tactic. Another commonly used tactic in programming is to have time run slower in the simulated world than the real world, so that more computer power can be brought to bear... we of course have no way of knowing whether every second we experience in our universe is taking a year to calculate in the reality above ours.

However, our universe may be continuous and analogy rather than digital... scientists are still deeply unsure about this issue. In which case we could theoretically in the future build computers than can handle an infinite amount of information and thus model universes that are themselves infinite and continuous, and thus there may be no theoretical limit as to how deep such computer-modeled universes could potentially be nested.