Though Experiement: A computer in a lab

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Abysha

t's not a question, though. The psycho holding you in the room is specifically asking you for evidence. So you need to find evidence. Even if you pick the right answer by guessing, you need to find evidence. Because guessing the creator is useless. Just as useless as Christians guessing their gods as the creators.

That was a good response

Because it's the response you wanted to hear.

Every computer has a model number. I suspect our Universe is also branded in some way, but scientists haven't discovered how to see it yet.

If they ever did, I think a lot of people on Earth who formerly claimed to believe in the scientific method would suddenly become reactionary religious zealots for rejecting provable scientific truth and believing in their own version of reality.

I really dislike the idea that the Universe is a computer. I think it shows a complete lack of understand of what makes a computer a computer. A really good question to ask is what makes a computer different from a calculator. But people do not take the time to study computibility theory or basic computer engineering architectures. If they did, they would conclude computer architectures do not behave in any way like the real Universe. Although computers can represent reality with pretty pictures, a sequence of bits is NOT the reality they represent.

Compared to reality, computers are very simple and work according to a clockwork Universe. The get-fetch-execute cycle of the Von Neumann architecture is perfect science. You really have to study and understand the way microprocessors work and the standard model in physics before you can come to the conclusion they are equivalent models.

Reality on the other hand is not perfect science. There is no clock with reality. Computers cannot function without a clock cycle. In reality, there is no evidence to suggest time is real. And there is no evidence to support our arbitrary identification of particles is not just delusion created by our measurement devices. Reality seems to be continuous, non-discrete, everything is connected to everything else by a wave of energy, and everything is massively parallel in its execution of the laws of physics.

Reality is pure analog. Computers are digital. Digital does not equal analog ever!

a reply to: dfnj2015

I was listening to a podcast and they were discussing the origin of the watchmaker clock analogy.

At the time it was developed gears clocks and watches were the hot technology so people conceived of a clock like mechanistic universe put into motion by a creator. People were perceiving their world in relation to the current technology.

Now in this age of computers we can simulate visually real worlds in video games and other mediums. Since computers are the hot technology of our age and we see how advanced they are getting we begin to ask questions like is the universe a computer simulation much like people in the past asked if the universe was a clock like machine.

Our perceptions seem to go along with our current technological level.

originally posted by: SolAquarius
a reply to: dfnj2015

I was listening to a podcast and they were discussing the origin of the watchmaker clock analogy.

At the time it was developed gears clocks and watches were the hot technology so people conceived of a clock like mechanistic universe put into motion by a creator. People were perceiving their world in relation to the current technology.

Now in this age of computers we can simulate visually real worlds in video games and other mediums. Since computers are the hot technology of our age and we see how advanced they are getting we begin to ask questions like is the universe a computer simulation much like people in the past asked if the universe was a clock like machine.

Our perceptions seem to go along with our current technological level.

Computers are 100% predictable. Reality always turns out to be so much stranger than anything we could have ever imagined!

a reply to: dfnj2015

Well if the discoveries of physicist probing the quantum world proves anything there can be no objective experiments that are not influenced by the observers perception.

So maybe our perception of the universe mirrors our current level of understanding and perception.

Perhaps We find exactly what we are looking for because the universe mirrors back our expectations.

But I will save the metaphysics for another thread.

originally posted by: SolAquarius
a reply to: dfnj2015

Well if the discoveries of physicist probing the quantum world proves anything there can be no objective experiments that are not influenced by the observers perception.

So maybe our perception of the universe mirrors our current level of understanding and perception.

Perhaps We find exactly what we are looking for because the universe mirrors back our expectations.

But I will save the metaphysics for another thread.

Thats pretty much how the gods and reality works in The City of Stairs series. Good read that and book 3 The City of Miracles is out any day now.

Coomba98

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Has any one escaped your room yet, just checking in

a reply to: coomba98

I took a look at the series synopsis sounds interesting. I might have to see if my library has an eBook version.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Let us imagine that someone has locked us in a lab the only thing we have are some tools and a computer. This computer and its parts are all blank when it comes to writing of any kind. The person that locked you in comes over a speak in the room, and they tell you that unless you can provide them evidence of the computer's creator, they will not unlock the room.


Is it possible to make it out of the room by providing the proper evidence?

P.S. THE COMPUTER DOESN"T HAVE ANYTHING ON IT OR IN IT THAT WILL GIVE AWAY THE CREATOR. It is nothing more than the working mechanical parts of a computer. No model numbers and all that jazz. Why would I want you to think about model numbers?

ID is a failed theory, no matter how you paint it.
It is your unexamined and blindly accepted premise that your computer had to have a 'creator', that leaves you on thought's cutting room floor, infested with 'beliefs'.

Logically, if it doesn't have anything that will 'give away' a 'creator', it is not possible to posit or know a 'creator'.

Another unexamined assumption is that it is 'working', although unable to see any evidence of that, you have no 'knowledge' of that premise being true, either.
Knowledge = experience.