It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

If universum is computer emulation there will never be a God proof

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Never-minding the religious attempt at hijacking this thread. I really like this topic. It could have merit. Either way, it's certainly a fun one to muse over.

I wonder if it's a natural progress for sentient beings to advance to a point where they more or less always get into gaming. That progresses into virtual reality gaming. Which eventually gets to the point of full emersion VR gaming. If that coincides with biological immortality then I wonder if such a being would perhaps get 'bored' with their memories and then interject themselves into the simulated world to experience existence as a particular character without any knowledge of who they were prior. Essentially, if you're immortal then you intentionally forget to pass the time. Perhaps it's all just nested simulations of immortal beings wanting to experience life from a fresh perspective over and over, and doing so new simulations get made over and over.

It's all very sci-fi. Still, with how our tech is advancing, I think there is room to wonder.




posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I was just taking to opportunity to agree with you and interject some thoughts. I knew what you were getting at



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: galien8
A computer emulation means as-good-as-the-real-thing...

Balderdash!
Go eat a computer SIMULATION (= 'emulation') of a hamburger next time you are hungry! *__-



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

It's entirely possible even here on Earth within the foreseeable future we will have immersive virtual worlds that tap into our neurological workings and 'trick' us into thinking we are tasting the virtual food.

While that won't satisfy real nutrition, the experience of it will feel 'real'. This is entirely possible because sensory information is just that... information.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

hehehe cool.

But to the point of the topic if we are in a computer simulation that is indistinguishable from reality then we may as well just study reality because it's the same thing.

According to Mario every time a Nintendo is turned on his existence begins. Whether it's on a NES or an emulator on a PC it makes no difference.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: namelesss

It's entirely possible even here on Earth within the foreseeable future we will have immersive virtual worlds that tap into our neurological workings and 'trick' us into thinking we are tasting the virtual food.

While that won't satisfy real nutrition, the experience of it will feel 'real'. This is entirely possible because sensory information is just that... information.

So, you are agreeing with me.
That the best of 'virtual reality' will not feed a real stomach.
The Reality of which any and all 'virtual reality' is reflective, is a 'reflection' in and of OurSelf!
Reality is 'imaginary', a dream, already 'virtual', and most 'believe' that what they perceive reflects some solid thing filled Universal Reality.
It doesn't.
And even that, one step removed (a 'virtual' dream of a dream of a dream...)...



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

The futility of contemplating these things I suppose is subject to the same drawbacks of entertaining anything existential in nature. Should we? Does it improve our lives to do so? Honestly, I don't know. We never seem to get a whole lot out of it. Maybe it ultimately makes things worse for us in the philosophical sense. Science is about discovery though, and I think every possible avenue should be explored for the purpose of furthering our scientific knowledge. Expanding our scientific knowledge definitely improves things, and trying to figure out if we are in fact in a simulation would surely expand it.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss


That the best of 'virtual reality' will not feed a real stomach.

Well, no. That's contingent upon us having mortal bodies that depend on that sustenance.

It's also scientifically feasible we can transcend those needs with a new body we construct to host our minds. In fact, these fully immersive VR worlds might just coincide with our development in life-longevity / biological immortality.


The Reality of which any and all 'virtual reality' is reflective, is a 'reflection' in and of OurSelf!

I certainly don't disagree. That's not incompatible with what's being described.


Reality is 'imaginary', a dream, already 'virtual'

Again. No disagreement. I think this ultimately just reinforces that.

...what's the difference between a 'real dream' and a 'virtual dream'? What if there never was a difference?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I don't think we can ever prove we are in a simulation. I could easily be wrong here.

The one thing I'm sure of however is we can't leave the simulation if it exists.

You're right tho, we should keep looking for answers even if they are pointless and unobtainable.
edit on 23-10-2016 by Krahzeef_Ukhar because: editing is fun



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Science is bound to what we can observe in the known universe, so it stands to reason we can't scientifically explore transcendent ideas. Whether that's religious gods or aliens from other dimensions orchestrating simulated universes.

So, yeah, maybe we can never do that. Maybe that's a limitation that will always be there. I'm open to anything being possible though.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Real life is not hijacking. One day you'll see that. On what day is left to be seen,



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Science is bound to what we can observe in the known universe, so it stands to reason we can't scientifically explore transcendent ideas. Whether that's religious gods or aliens from other dimensions orchestrating simulated universes.

So, yeah, maybe we can never do that. Maybe that's a limitation that will always be there. I'm open to anything being possible though.



Deep.

There is a limit to us. Not to him. There is no doubt this world is controlled by a demonic power.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: aintnoonespecial

Religion doesn't represent real life. If it did then religious books would match up with real world evidence, and it doesn't.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: aintnoonespecial

Religion doesn't represent real life. If it did then religious books would match up with real world evidence, and it doesn't.


It depends on your definition of religion. Because there is a book that blows away everything.

Even the knowledge of everything combined online.

You realize how much that is.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Science is bound to what we can observe in the known universe, so it stands to reason we can't scientifically explore transcendent ideas. Whether that's religious gods or aliens from other dimensions orchestrating simulated universes.

So, yeah, maybe we can never do that. Maybe that's a limitation that will always be there. I'm open to anything being possible though.


Are you open to the possibility that "science" could in principle study superphysical realities and entities if only it did not turn its back on them by deciding what is observable and knowable? You say you are open to anything being possible, so I presume you think it possible that you will wake up one day and find scientists with enough cahones to study ghosts, aliens, UFOs, religious phenomena and the paranormal in general. Instead, they pretend that these things don't need to be studied because they CANNOT exist. After all, what is the "known" universe? It is merely that which science has decided to study - not what actually exists.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: aintnoonespecial

It depends on your definition of religion.

Beliefs primitive humans came up with to make sense of the world with very limited knowledge.

Alternate definition: religions are cults that god big.


Because there is a book that blows away everything.

Dune?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: micpsi


Are you open to the possibility that "science" could in principle study superphysical realities and entities if only it did not turn its back on them by deciding what is observable and knowable?


Science isn't turning its back on supernatural or transcendent ideas. It's simply a matter of fact that the process of science is grounded in what we can actually observe. That's not science discriminating against your ideas, it's simply the reality that we need to be able to actually see evidence before any scientific experimentation can start.


You say you are open to anything being possible

I believe reality is stranger than fiction. I believe if we understood the fullness of our reality our minds would implode.

At the same time if something specific is asked of me to believe in (like a religious claim), then I need evidence to believe it's true.

I don't think my saying i'm so open to possibilities is mutually exclusive to being skeptical to extraordinary claims. Nor do I think it should be for anyone else.
edit on 23-10-2016 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Science is bound to what we can observe in the known universe, so it stands to reason we can't scientifically explore transcendent ideas. Whether that's religious gods or aliens from other dimensions orchestrating simulated universes.

So, yeah, maybe we can never do that. Maybe that's a limitation that will always be there. I'm open to anything being possible though.


Are you open to the possibility that "science" could in principle study superphysical realities and entities if only it did not turn its back on them by deciding what is observable and knowable?


Propose a means for objectively measuring "superphysical realities and entities" and you will have a point.


You say you are open to anything being possible, so I presume you think it possible that you will wake up one day and find scientists with enough cahones to study ghosts, aliens, UFOs, religious phenomena and the paranormal in general.


Possible does not mean probable. And yes, there are scientists who have investigated such phenomena. And no, there is no credible evidence of any of those things to date.


Instead, they pretend that these things don't need to be studied because they CANNOT exist.


If they cannot be studied using the scientific method then they do not have any scientific basis. But by all means, propose a means for studying them using the scientific method if you like.
edit on 23-10-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Science is bound to what we can observe in the known universe, so it stands to reason we can't scientifically explore transcendent ideas. Whether that's religious gods or aliens from other dimensions orchestrating simulated universes.

So, yeah, maybe we can never do that. Maybe that's a limitation that will always be there. I'm open to anything being possible though.


Are you open to the possibility that "science" could in principle study superphysical realities and entities if only it did not turn its back on them by deciding what is observable and knowable? You say you are open to anything being possible, so I presume you think it possible that you will wake up one day and find scientists with enough cahones to study ghosts, aliens, UFOs, religious phenomena and the paranormal in general. Instead, they pretend that these things don't need to be studied because they CANNOT exist. After all, what is the "known" universe? It is merely that which science has decided to study - not what actually exists.


I don't think science is turning its back or purposefully ignoring these topics. It's a function of instrumentation. Our eyes, ears - our five senses plus our brain can achieve just so much. That's why we have instruments - we wouldn't be able to observe a bacteria without a microscope or the cosmos without telescopes.

"Superphysical realities" may be other universes. We don't know the answers to these questions but there are scientists who speculate and try to come up with experiments which would give more insight into these topics. Nima Arkani-Hamed is one of those scientists who's questioning everything from Einstein's space-time theory to multi-universes. It's worth watching some of his YouTube videos.

The bottomline is always the instruments - as we develop more sophisticated instrumentation and computer power to interpret the data, the more knowledge we will acquire. Everything is possible until it's proven that it's not.




posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: galien8
A computer emulation means as-good-as-the-real-thing...

Balderdash!
Go eat a computer SIMULATION (= 'emulation') of a hamburger next time you are hungry! *__-


www.thefreedictionary.com...




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join